Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anytime two employees (even at an increased hourly rate) can do the work of three employees, it is a net win for the business due to:
One less employee on a health insurance plan.
In most states, industrial insurance is calculated on the amount of hours an employee works - 24 hours, 32 hours, 40 hours, etc - so even at $15 an hour with one less employee it reduces industrial / workplace insurance.
One less exposure calculated for general liability insurance for the business.
And increased productivity of two employees at a higher wage vs. three at a lower wage. That's just subjective valuation of the job, by the worker and human psychology 101.
.... on the other hand, if one work gets sick, it is easier to maintain production levels with TWO remaining employees than it is for ONE who now has to do it all. Not smart to have key person dependencies. It is smarter to leverage work over multiple people with available bandwith than it is for two working at full capacity.
Yes, I do think a higher minimum wage is better for the economy.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers increases spending in local businesses.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in additional sales tax revenue.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means that they need less taxpayer assistance.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers results in higher contributions to SS and Medicare.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers means less homelessness.
More $ in the hands of lower income workers lessens use of food pantries and other charitable resources by the working poor.
Why does the money come from to pay for the wage increase?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
The conservatives' "trickle down" economics mantra of giving tax breaks, subsidies, and increasing compensation to the wealthy has been totally discredited by the wage stagnation and soaring wealth inequality that's occurred over the last 40 years.
Please provide examples of tax breaks, subsidies and increasing compensation to the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Giving all the goodies to the wealthy and crumbs to everybody else has NOT floated any boats but those of the wealthy, and the benefits of an enlarged economic pie have all gone to the rich, not to the middle or lower classes.
The benefit of a large piece goes to the wealthy because they have more money to invest or better ideas to attract investments. If you have nothing to offer to the society, neither money or ideas, why should the society reward you for anything?
You must define who "the wealthy" are. Is Steve Jobs the wealthy? How about Warren Buffett? The Kenny family? Obama?
It goes like this. 2 people with $15 hour will have more extra money to spend than 3 people with $10 hour. That extra spending results in extra economic activity.
If minimum wage is increased, businesses pass on the extra cost to the consumers, which hurts the poor the most. Ultimately, all you are doing is increasing the cost of living.
It's like Conservatives suddenly forget that there's this thing called "competition" that influences what businesses can charge for services.
If higher payroll costs are such an influence on what businesses charge, why haven't we seen a lockstep increase in prices that matches the increase in health insurance costs for the last 30 years?
It goes like this. 2 people with $15 hour will have more extra money to spend than 3 people with $10 hour. That extra spending results in extra economic activity.
What?
Another classic example for why we should regulate and license the right to vote and speak. Certain people should not be allowed to vote or speak.
It's like Conservatives suddenly forget that there's this thing called "competition" that influences what businesses can charge for services.
The competition influences how much a business can charge - this also means competition affects how much each individual can charge the employers. The reason certain jobs are paid low is precisely because of competition. The more people qualified to do the job, the lower the wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
If higher payroll costs are such an influence on what businesses charge, why haven't we seen a lockstep increase in prices that matches the increase in health insurance costs for the last 30 years?
The economy grows as wealth increases, so it depends on which of the 2 employees or the 3 employees could produce more wealth. Hiring the people who will get the job done best will help the economy because more will get produced, leading to more money for the company, which can be reinvested into those workers to make their job easier/more efficient (upgrading equipment, etc) and they'll produce more in the same amount of time, etc...
$10/hr is more than $0/hr, and having a job and experience will make it easier to get better jobs in the future. It's also an extra person off of welfare, an extra person off the streets with enough need and time to commit crimes, and less work being overloaded on the other 2 people.
Another classic example for why we should regulate and license the right to vote and speak. Certain people should not be allowed to vote or speak.
Nice one. Two outcomes for the other one not hired.
One, doesn't get a job and is homeless.
Two, does get a job somewhere else. If at $10hr then you have $40 in hourly income over three people instead of $30 over three people. You are correct some people should not be allowed to speak or vote.
The competition influences how much a business can charge - this also means competition affects how much each individual can charge the employers. The reason certain jobs are paid low is precisely because of competition. The more people qualified to do the job, the lower the wage.
Yes, and that's why enforcing a minimum wage is necessary. The only people that benefit from playing low wage workers against each other are executives and shareholders.
Quote:
No idea what you are talking about.
Do you understand what a payroll cost is?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
