Raising minimum wage

A

abcxyz

New Member
Why not just make it $15/hour?

Are the rest of my employees going to want minimum wage plus 25% to equal what they make now?

If it costs X to produce Y, if X goes up so does the cost to produce Y, which means you are going to have to sell it for Y+profit percentage regardless of what X is. If it cost more to produce, it is going to cost more to purchase.

It is all about taxes. 6% sales tax on a $1.25 former dollar menu item is more than 6% of $0.99.
 
P

philibusters

Active Member
This is an issue where I can really see good arguments both ways.

Ideally taxes would be lowered on businesses and there would be a living minimum way (not sure I like a federal minimum wage---For example, $8.50 may be fair in Maryland, but way too high in some of the more rural states and areas.
 
FreedomFan

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
Milton Friedman has it right. Minimum wage laws hurt precisely the targeted group of people they ostensibly are designed to help. Once you figure out salaries are an integral part of the cost of goods sold, I think most rational actors will look at things completely differently.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I can't see the economic wisdom of a minimum wage. You work harder and you improve your skills to make more money. That's the way a growing economy works. The data doesn't show what people like to whine about - most minimum wage jobs go to kids and elderly and very very few are the primary breadwinners.

An entry level job is SUPPOSED to be low paying and you have a built in incentive to do better, work harder, improve the business and earn a better wage.

A high minimum wage works against that - if you make a decent wage doing the very lowest paying work available, there's little incentive to do a good job or work harder or be a more productive employee. In a good economy, a good worker should be able to find better work if his employer won't give him a raise - but not if everyone also gets a high minimum wage. In a bad economy, an employer has to cut staff, because a high minimum wage cuts into business.
 
afjess1989

afjess1989

Amount of F##Ks given, 0
My 2 cents

I think they should raise it based on the area. I agree with philibusters what's good for Maryland might not be good for say Ohio for example. They should raise it anyway. the Cost of living is going up and alot of these minium wage places hire people as part time anyway so they don't have to pay for Benifits. So people have to work 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet and taxes keep going up because more people wanna get a hand out instead of working for that lobster dinner they want. And they just charge it with the food stamps. Ok rant over.
 
somdfunguy

somdfunguy

not impressed
What's good in one part of the state may be too high/low in another part of the state. They should do it by voting precinct
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
afjess1989 said:
I think they should raise it based on the area. I agree with philibusters what's good for Maryland might not be good for say Ohio for example
Click to expand...


where do you expect this money to magically come from ?

either the cost of a Pizza goes up, or the store fires a person ..... Taxes still have to be paid and flour purchased ......

so the cost of a bunch of things goes up, and people complain they need another pay raise ....
 
P

philibusters

Active Member
GURPS said:
where do you expect this money to magically come from ?

either the cost of a Pizza goes up, or the store fires a person ..... Taxes still have to be paid and flour purchased ......

so the cost of a bunch of things goes up, and people complain they need another pay raise ....
Click to expand...

Prices will either go up or a business will employ less people. Looking at those two scenarios:

1. Prices go up: I am not overly concerned about that. Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements. For one thing, in order to benefit from this type of wealth distribution, you have to be working, so its the opposite of welfare not tied to work, it directly gives somebody an incentive to work. If these people are working and being productive rather than being non-productive members of society then the economy has a whole will benefit as that will slightly increase the growth of the economy.

2. Businesses employ less people: It really depends on the local economy. If unemployment is 2% or something really low like that, its not really an issue because the workers who were let go or not hired at one business will be able to find work someplace else. Basically we are talking about an economy where the demand for workers is high. In an economy with high employment and lower demand for workers, a minimum wage law can have the unintended consequence of causing high rates of unemployement for unskilled workers. That is a real problem and another argument minimum wage laws are best dealt with on a local basis.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements.
Click to expand...

yeah sure ok ...

... except the GOV. is NOT Lowering taxes, just because the raise the MW


that is offensive to think of MW as nothing more than another Gov. Wealth Redistribution Scheme ....
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
FreedomFan said:
Milton Friedman has it right. Minimum wage laws hurt precisely the targeted group of people they ostensibly are designed to help. Once you figure out salaries are an integral part of the cost of goods sold, I think most rational actors will look at things completely differently.
Click to expand...

My paycheck is larger, that must be a good thing. Why am I still living payday to payday?

Raising the minimum wage decade after decade and minimum wage earners are still living payday to payday.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
philibusters said:
2. Businesses employ less people: It really depends on the local economy. If unemployment is 2% or something really low like that, its not really an issue because the workers who were let go or not hired at one business will be able to find work someplace else. Basically we are talking about an economy where the demand for workers is high. In an economy with high employment and lower demand for workers, a minimum wage law can have the unintended consequence of causing high rates of unemployement for unskilled workers. That is a real problem and another argument minimum wage laws are best dealt with on a local basis.
Click to expand...

Minimum wage laws are the sort of thing the Constitution was meant to prohibit; abuse of a minority by the majority. Same with withholding taxes. We make business do things we can not and should not do.

Consider. If a minimum wage is something the community wants then, let the community pay it. Directly. Freeze minimum wages where they are RIGHT now and every time there is a desire to raise it, simply require folks to bring in their paychecks and pay them the difference between what they are making and what it 'should' be. This does several things;

1. Gives people the money the community, through it's politicians, thinks they should have.

2. Encourages having a job and remaining employed.

3. Puts the cost of what the community thinks where it should be, on the community.

Business should be exempt from ALL taxes. Payroll, income, unemployment, all of it because ANY tax on business simply gets passed on to the voters ABSENT the check and balance of responsibility that should be on politicians
and, more importantly, on us, we, the people.

:buddies:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
philibusters said:
1. Prices go up: I am not overly concerned about that. Prices going up slightly to cover a new minimum wage is a much much more effective method of redistribution of wealth than the gov't taxing money and then giving the money out in entitlements. For one thing, in order to benefit from this type of wealth distribution, you have to be working, so its the opposite of welfare not tied to work, it directly gives somebody an incentive to work. If these people are working and being productive rather than being non-productive members of society then the economy has a whole will benefit as that will slightly increase the growth of the economy. .
Click to expand...

I think my other post killed two birds with one stone. Call it a hi capacity assault stone.

:buddies:
 
P

philibusters

Active Member
GURPS said:
that is offensive to think of MW as nothing more than another Gov. Wealth Redistribution Scheme ....
Click to expand...

That is what it is and it doesn't really bother me. If there is going to be wealth distribution as I noted earlier I would much rather it be in the form of a minimum wage increase rather than through means tested welfare.
 
A

abcxyz

New Member
I agree to some extent, however if wages go up at the bottom they are going to have to go up at the top as well.

My $7.25 person is now making $10, a 38% raise. Now my $10 person is going to want to go to $13.80 to get their 38% raise as well.

What comes after that? Prices go up and layoffs, which means more people on welfare. Vicious cycle and we are spiraling in the wrong direction.
 
mAlice

mAlice

professional daydreamer
philibusters said:
That is what it is and it doesn't really bother me. If there is going to be wealth distribution as I noted earlier I would much rather it be in the form of a minimum wage increase rather than through means tested welfare.
Click to expand...

But, we have both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top