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.
If it was 100% beneficial to both sides, then no one would need time to adjust. Businesses need time to adjust because it ISN'T beneficial to them AND it ISN'T beneficial to the customers (2sleepy admitted that a $15.00 minimum wage would make fast food prices increase 4.3%). Why should the business and the customers artificially have to pay more because progressive taxpayer paid lawmakers want to give themselves a feel good pat on the back?
To be fair, anything that costs money isn't beneficial to a business. Any business would like their employees to work for free and their product cost nothing.
Another consequence of an artificially high minimum wage will be the expansion of the black market in labor. Sure, employers will hire fewer people, but they’ll also hire illegal immigrants and pay people "under the table." Wage expansion like California's is a double whammy for employers; they pay the employee and the government via payroll taxes. Given a Faustian choice between obeying the law and going out of business, or remaining in business on the wrong side of the law, many will choose the latter. The illegal and black-market labor we already have is a clear indication that we have overpriced legal labor and overpaid Americans on unemployment.
You need clarification about time to adjust? How old are you? I suggest you speak to an economics teacher if you are confused with what I said....and just so you know, I am not being mean, I am serious.
If you know, I'd appreciate that you list the adjustments so that we can further our discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
If the choice is third world wages or government assistance, people are going to pick government assistance. You should travel outside of the country if you are old enough to do so to see first hand what it is like in these third world countries you wish the US to be like.
What else would you suggest we do for people who can't make a living for themselves? Forcing businesses to pay them more isn't really helping, is it?
You really need to understand that a lot of people have absolutely no marketable skills and/or understanding of any work ethics.
Personally I'd like to hold their parents responsible. Why were they even born to begin with? Why aren't their parents providing any support for their children, regardless their age?
To be fair, anything that costs money isn't beneficial to a business. Any business would like their employees to work for free and their product cost nothing.
You are trying to dodge the actual question. Why can't we increase this to $100/hour if it's beneficial to everybody?
So they could hire people for 12 cents an hour of course, it's no mystery. Do you realize how many businesses in the US would close overnight if the minimum wage was 12 cents an hour? Particularly businesses like Walmart and McDonald's who cater to low wage earners?
If that's the case, why would you support the idea to make labor cost even higher? Wouldn't that drive even more businesses to China?
That is sort of like... after shooting yourself in the foot the first few times, you are advocating doing that again.
Once again, if that is true, why didn't all the hamburger restaurants go out of business because of the huge increase in the cost of beef? (38% 2010-2014 and another 19% in 2015)
That's because businesses have a few ways to adjust to the cost increases. Unfortunately, none of them is good for the poor. I have talked about this over and over but it doesn't seem to register with the liberals.
To mitigate the labor cost increase, a business can and will do at least one of the following:
1. Cut investment
2. Cut benefits
3. Lay off
4. Request employees to do more
5. Implement automation
6. Outsource
7. Move
8. Increase prices
9. Reduce portions
10. Reduce quality
Please explain to me which one is good for the poor people?
There is your answer to that one....if you have to ask that question, then you are not old enough to be having this discussion to begin with.
Or maybe you just don't have any answer for it. LOL
The truth is it is NOT beneficial to anybody but those luckily ones who aren't included in the most recent layoffs. If it were raised to $100/hour, it would kill the economy. So instead of killing the economy right away, they choose death by a thousand cuts - doing it slowly.
Or maybe you just don't have any answer for it. LOL
Yeah, that must be it.... I guess I am done talking to you about this because it is clear to me you have no idea what you are talking about....
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.
If it was 100% beneficial to both sides, then no one would need time to adjust. Businesses need time to adjust because it ISN'T beneficial to them AND it ISN'T beneficial to the customers (2sleepy admitted that a $15.00 minimum wage would make fast food prices increase 4.3%). Why should the business and the customers artificially have to pay more because progressive taxpayer paid lawmakers want to give themselves a feel good pat on the back?
