Rauner's comment on minimum wage and press coverage...

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I don't know what the "Bruce Rauner" side is

I'm going to say the, "The government should be run like a business, because business is awesome, and business will always be 1,000,000x better than anything the government could ever muster"

Originally Posted by chet everett

-- does he really believe that there should be a uniform minimum wage that no state goes higher than? Does he believe all states should raise the minimum wage above what currently exists? Does he thing it would best to roll back Illinois' minimum wage to match the Federal minimum?

I don't know…

Originally Posted by chet everett

If the minimum wage is increased it will very likely have negative consequences on the already terrible record of unemployment in this state.

That's possible. But is it also possible that if it's raised those people will have more money to spend on other things they could never afford, thereby creating demand for more people to be employed to keep up with increased consumer demand?

Just one example: A dollar increase in minimum wage would mean someone with a full time minimum wage job would have about $160 dollars more a month to spend on anything. Maybe they can then go out twice a month and splurge on a fancy dinner at Applebee's or Red Lobster. If every person getting that increase did the same thing, I think it stands to reason that Applebee's and Red Lobster might have to hire more people to meet increased demand, or just build new locations to satisfy that demand.

Originally Posted by chet everett

the minimum wage were to be rolled back and nothing else was done to make the business climate better there would very likely be no improvement in unemployment -- the reason that employers in Illinois are not expanding payrolls is not just the fact that minimum wage in other states is lower.

Who cares about business climate besides the person(s)/corporation who runs a business? Last time I checked, there are more employees than employers.

But thinking about the business owners for a second, why would a company/business owner open up shop, or continue to run a shop, in an area where the potential customers have less money to spend on their product/service?

Take my above example: If the minimum wage was rolled back a dollar an hour for minimum wage workers that would mean a person working 40 hours a week in a minimum wage job would have about $160 dollars less a month to spend. A person is a person is a person. Every human has the same basic needs. Those needs need to be met:

File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When people don't have as much money, they cut back on the higher levels of the pyramid, and focus on the lower, and lowest, level of the pyramid.

And the problem for business here is that only so many businesses are needed to fulfill the bottom level. The American economy has increasingly relied on the upper levels of the pyramid to create/fill demand and create jobs. When people don't have the extra cash to try and fulfill the higher levels of the pyramid, those businesses that operate in the higher levels either stagnate at best, or lose money, or close up shop at worst.

That Applebee's or Red Lobster mentioned above cuts employee hours at best, or lays people off, or closes up shop at worst because more people can satisfy their low level pyramid for much less on Ramen, and can't afford to splurge.

I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) you're the type of person that thinks the heads of companies, the C.X.X.s, deserve to make as much money as possible because it "helps the economy". But why is it that giving more people money hurtful to the economy/business?

After all, a person is a person is a person. We all have the same basic needs. People can live on bread and water. But if they had some calcium, maybe milk(?), they would be better off. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

*IF* milk cost $3 a gallon, would it be better for the economy/business to give $3,000 to one person, or give 1,000 people $3?


I guess what this minimum wage debate comes down to is:

Would a business owner rather have more money in their pocket?
OR
Would a business owner rather have more customers?




I await your reply.

[chet everett]

Increasing wages has a very negative impact on many firms that have the lowest margins and the degree to which such firms cut staff, hire only grossly overqualified people or simply shut down altogether .

If law makers are better suited to set an appropriate minimum wage what other functions do you believe should be legislated?

Suppose that a new "minimum bicycle selling price" was set by the government. They looked around and saw that some folks pay tens of thousands of dollars for a bicycle. A lot of these pricey bicycles are made in small quanitities by dedicated craftsmen that barely can make ends meet. The bicycle firms that today sell bikes for a fraction of that would hire industry lobbyists who would argue that $10,000 is way too high and get the law makers to set the minimum at a more "reasonable" $5000. Would any but the most ignorant and privledged be happy to pay $5000 for some crappy mass produced bicycle from China? Would the dedicated crafstmen really get any boost in their ability to make more high quality bikes by simply raising the floor on what any bicycle could legally be sold for? Who would really be helped? Would not the market for illegal trade in "black market" bicycles be increased as anyone that could get their hands on bicycles elsewhere and then smuggle them into the US explode?

Apply that same logic to this question of "minimum hourly wage" -- right now there are firms happy to find a skilled technical person to address their information security issues for hundreds of dollar per hour. Not even the goofiest of the nutcase "MoveOn / Occupy Wall St" types have suggested raising the minum wage that high. Let's just peg things at $50/hr, that ought to make bag boys, dishwashers, janitorial staff and shirt launderers capable of buying a nice condo in Wicker Park and still paying for a few dozen premium cable channels, right? And of course there would be no move to have even more of those infernal "self check out scanners" installed at the Jewel/Osco, prices would not rise at the resturants, lavatories would be just as spotless with one janitor cleaning all of O'Hare as with dozens now doing such a bang-up job and you could still pick up your shirts for $1.29 each with 24 hr turn around....

What happens with people working "on the side" for $30/hr? Of folks sneaking down from Windsor into Detroit to make even $25/hr as long as nobody is checking ID? (that would be about double what the wage is in Ontario -- Minimum wage in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) Won't that displace more workers?

The fact is that any effort to raise the minimum wage where it really makes people earning it part of the "real economy" will de facto expand the "black market" of people willing to work without documentation. And any minimum wage that is so minimally advanced as to result in no cuts to employment will be too low to do anything positive for folks that the lack the skills to advance out of minimum wage jobs...

[linicx]

Originally Posted by A2DAC1985

I guess what this minimum wage debate comes down to is:

Would a business owner rather have more money in their pocket?
OR
Would a business owner rather have more customers?

The savvy business owner wants both. There is a two-fold problem. Some services such as cable and satellite increase every year. When congress talks about wage increase every thing increases which equates to more tax money. It also mean lower consumer spending.

The real problem is to the part-time employee. When wages are raised substantially the the work shift is shortened. This employee has the same income but less money to buy food, and pay for basic services such as utilities.

For me the issue isn't wages as much as it is unfettered corporate greed. It isn't just Illinois, the same problems exist in every state.

[Maintainschaos]

Why doesn't he just slap on another Carhartt jacket--won't that make everything alright?