3 ms·

Let's say I own a hotel and I'm trying to decide whether to have someone at the front desk taking check-ins and providing customer service 24 hours a day, or on

by Zak 12y ago

Let's say I own a hotel and I'm trying to decide whether to have someone at the front desk taking check-ins and providing customer service 24 hours a day, or only 12 hours[0]. I will have to hire at least two people (full-time) or more (part-time) to accomplish this. I will only do this if the increase in business resulting from more flexible check-in times and better customer service will exceed the cost of hiring two more full-time employees. If a minimum wage is high enough that hiring these two people isn't profitable, I'll just stick to the restricted hours. Instead of being underpaid, the two people I would have hired are unemployed. Is that better? Of course, if I'm successful enough, I might be able to hire more people by reducing my own income or deferring other ways that I might re-invest in the business, but why would I do that if I'm running a business, not a charity? Any analysis of a specific minimum wage must consider the effect on unemployment. It's probably possible to calculate with a fair degree of precision - would someone with a background in economics like to chime in on this? [0] In the US, hotels without 24-hour check-in are rare; in Europe, they're common.

pessimizer 12y ago
Not having 24-hour check-in is probably the most efficient way to run things, depending on your location. What you're saying here is that employers may decide that feeding, clothing, housing, entertaining, and educating an entire human being is not worth it if you're then going to sit that person behind a check in desk overnight at a hotel in order to check a couple of late guests. That's probably a wise decision for most hotels. The only reason that they're not having to face it now is because the taxpayer is supplementing that wage with welfare payments. This discriminates against less labor intensive businesses, which don't get subsidy, and devalues investment in automation. People who can't find work that supports them should be on a basic income, and/or their labor should be used by the state. A basic income could also be a lever for direct stimulus to the economy during a demand crisis.
- Zak 12y ago
  Without getting in to the merits of a basic income, the fact is Switzerland does not currently have one. Creating a high minimum wage without adding one would likely result in a large increase in unemployment.

by Zak 12y ago

pessimizer 12y ago

Not having 24-hour check-in is probably the most efficient way to run things, depending on your location. What you're saying here is that employers may decide that feeding, clothing, housing, entertaining, and educating an entire human being is not worth it if you're then going to sit that person behind a check in desk overnight at a hotel in order to check a couple of late guests. That's probably a wise decision for most hotels. The only reason that they're not having to face it now is because the taxpayer is supplementing that wage with welfare payments. This discriminates against less labor intensive businesses, which don't get subsidy, and devalues investment in automation. People who can't find work that supports them should be on a basic income, and/or their labor should be used by the state. A basic income could also be a lever for direct stimulus to the economy during a demand crisis.

Zak 12y ago
Without getting in to the merits of a basic income, the fact is Switzerland does not currently have one. Creating a high minimum wage without adding one would likely result in a large increase in unemployment.