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.
When you force an employer to raise his wages, he will suddenly realize that he doesn't actually "need" X employees, and he will get rid of them.
If it takes a minimum wage increase for an employer to realize they are paying an employee they don't really need they probably should take some economics classes at the local community college.
From your own article:
"In a competitive labor market, an increase in the minimum wage reduces employment and increases unemployment. A minimum wage could increase employment in a monopsony labor market at the same time it increases wages. Some economists argue that the monopsony model characterizes all labor markets and that this justifies a national increase in the minimum wage. Most economists argue that a nationwide increase in the minimum wage would reduce employment among low-wage workers." Unless you can prove that we are in a monopsony market, I don't see how raising the minimum wage is a good thing.
I've already made my point and backed it up, cherry picking and taking statements out of context does not make for a good argument. Have a good day.
The pizza guy in Seattle found another pizza job, so I think he is doing okay. It is funny how right wingers pretend like jobs won't exist if minimum wage goes up a little bit. Also, why would any employer hire employees they don't need just because minimum wage is low? If one person can sweep the floors, why hire 3 people to sweep?
How do you measure what was never created?
I'd hire someone to sweep floors if min. wage were lower, but since it is what is, I just have to add it to the list of duties of the existing help.
"In rural counties in some states, Walmart exerts such power over the local labor market that it depresses wages by more than six percent, according to a study conducted by two University of Connecticut economists".
What's "some"?
Walmart has no monopoly or monopsony in our labor market. In some obscure areas or minor cases, maybe. So we should use rarity to prove the norm?
Makes you wonder how Henry Ford sold more cars by raising wages?
Well you're half right....but let's not forget the other half. Henry Ford found a way to build his cars on an assembly line which took the assembly time from about 12 hours to about 3 hours.
That is what is called an increase in productivity. Increases of productivity is what allows you to raise employee wages because you need less man hours to do the same job. No inflation of car prices results from raising their wages, in fact this actually lowered the price of his cars. This allowed more employees (and others as well) to be able to buy the product they were building.
If you just raise the wage of an employee making 10 dollars an hour to 15, with no commensurate increase of productivity, the price of the product will have to increase if all other things remain equal.
If someone can explain how you can raise wages without a increase productivity and have all other things remain equal, please do :-)
One thing I would predict is the employers will be more selective in hiring since they will be looking for an increase in productivity. If you have previous experience and are a good worker, perhaps you're in luck, if you're looking for your first job, or you really have no skills, you may have more of a struggle getting your foot in the door for that first or second job and gaining some experience which allows you to move forward.
Unfortunately, there is no free lunch here, regardless of how much we wish there were. If there was a free lunch, I'd suggest passing a law making the minimum wage $30.00 per hour. If we can indeed legislate prosperity and higher pay for all currently marginalized income folks....why not really make it a living wage :-)
Last edited by jasper1372; 04-29-2016 at 12:20 PM..
I'd hire someone to sweep floors if min. wage were lower, but since it is what is, I just have to add it to the list of duties of the existing help.
If you had an employee who could have swept floors in addition to his other duties, why would you hire someone to just sweep floors? That simply makes no sense.
I'd hire someone to sweep floors if min. wage were lower, but since it is what is, I just have to add it to the list of duties of the existing help.
I used to work in a factory where the starting wage was $12/hour plus benefit. Those guys operated machines that would require at least high school education but they must also sweep floors, sometimes hours to no end. They were basically wasting time on activities that produced little value rather than focus on operating the machines to make more and better products.
Now if the minimum wage was $0, the company could have hire sweepers at $5/hour to clean the floor. Since that's not an option, the sweeping goes to the existing crew regardless of their pay scale.
That's an awfully bad way to run a business and such a waste of talent. A business should always send an employee to do a job that pays more than his/her wage.
Sort of like we shouldn't send a brain surgeon to sweep the floor. The surgeon should be saving life not cleaning.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
I do agree in many cases the the customers see the actual price increase the last - it's many businesses' last resort as they would lose customers; however, it doesn't mean that the quality of service or product doesn't change.
I never argued otherwise
Quote:
It's hard to believe someone with a business degree doesn't type with proper punctuation or capitalization. I even try my best and I don't even speak English.
Did the liberal business school forget to teach basic math?
Its not that hard to believe. We are not all perfectionist or nitpickers(like you seem to be). Also, I dont think there is any business school that could ever be classified as "Liberal". Further more, im not understanding the reference to math as I didnt include any numbers but the generalization of wages increasing year to year based on raises and that the cost to the customer doesnt change, did you mean to say grammar ?
If you had an employee who could have swept floors in addition to his other duties, why would you hire someone to just sweep floors? That simply makes no sense.
My Post #68 should answer your question.
That's the fundamental of running a good business. You don't waste your employees' talent on stuff that doesn't produces much value. Those tasks should be done by employees paid at lower wage.
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.
