Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I very much doubt that a decrease in the minimum wage would result in some huge hiring boom. What would likely happen is that existing minimum wage workers might pick up more hours -- at a lower wage. A majority of employers would merely pocket the savings.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In order for most fast food franchises to "break even" on the hourly rate they are paying minimum wage employees, we're talking about the sale of a few value meals per employee per hour. Most of these employers are not offering any sort of medical or other benefits, so the cost per worker is pretty cheap as it is.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Any effects would be mostly contained to the market for teenage labor. "A majority of employers would merely pocket the savings." Not when they could make more money by hiring more workers and expanding operations.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "In order for most fast food franchises to "break even" on the hourly rate they are paying minimum wage employees, we're talking about the sale of a few value meals per employee per hour." The cost of running a fast food restaurant does not consist of just labor.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yes, I am aware of that. >>Not when they could make more money by hiring more workers and expanding operations.<< If we encourage the continued downward spiral of income, there won't be any expansion of operations. Lower the minimum wage and that's less folks spending money on fast food and at retail stores. Stuff like that trickles up, as we have seen over the past year and a half.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> <a href="http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/minimum-41591-span-victims.html" target="_blank">http://www.gastongazette.com/a...ims.html</a> << Whoa ... the Gaston Gazette has an internet connection now? (I kid, I kid.)
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If we encourage the continued downward spiral of income, there won't be any expansion of operations." It's definitely a complicated situation that we don't have the time to tackle on a forum about Disneyland, but I presume there is some floor on the wage in which people would be willing to work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If they're desperate enough, sure. But that's why we have a minimum wage. To make sure that desperate people aren't taken advantage of more than they already are. If a drop in the minimum wage would ease unemployment, then the converse should be true: when the minimum wage rises, there should be a spike in unemployment. In fact, every time raising the minimum wage is proposed (usually, just to get it to catch up to inflation since the last time it was raised), conservatives typically issue dire warnings of just that. That unemployment will spike. And then it doesn't happen.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Hyperbole on my part, but a small part of me think the right wing would still favor slavery to a degree, if they could get away with it. Minimum wage poverty liners more or less are, or people who stay in a bad job for the medical coverage, or those that join the military as a way to an education and career. Makes my blood boil the way they try to perculate further social injustices!
Originally Posted By DAR <<Hyperbole on my part, but a small part of me think the right wing would still favor slavery to a degree, if they could get away with it. >> It might be hyperbole but come Dave your better than that.
Originally Posted By DAR Let's edit that last sentence It might be hyperbole but come on Dave you're better than that.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo WEll let me present exibit A: Nike. Or how about B: Walmart. If there was a way to get away with it, they would try. I learnt some hard lessons when I was an exec for a top stock market service company, it is why I resigned (it was from an old co-operative group that was bought out - loved the old culture).
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The minimum wage is not an effective instrument at combating poverty. It largely benefits teenagers (the ones who keep their jobs after a minimum wage increase, that is) and has a minimal effect on working families.>> I suggest you read a book titled "Nickled and Dimed". As for menial jobs being only for Teens, you couldn't be more wrong.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<It might be hyperbole but come Dave your better than that.>> Heck, I've heard Evangs say that slavery wasn't all that bad, and that its condoned by the Bible.
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't think it's hyperbole at all. Of course, if you asked any Republican if they were for slavery, they'd be shocked and insist they weren't. And they'd mean it. I don't think they go around secretly wanting a return of slavery. But I am amazed at how warped someone's thinking can become when it comes to business. I've seen it at my own work. I work for a Fortune 100 company. In some of these meetings about financials, up becomes down and black becomes white. The betterment of society, the good of the consumer, the needs of the employees, etc., all goes out the window. All the talk is about growth, cutting costs, maximizing profits, etc. And you might be astounded at just what comes out of an otherwise decent person's mouth while they're trying to explain or defend cost-cutting practices. Human beings are reduced to "resources" or even "liabilities." There's no talk of what DAR always says when he's defending businesses because they employee workers - paying your mortgage, working hard, just getting by. These companies don't consider that for a second. They might as well be talking about a 2X4 as a human being. I think in some of those moments, if these people thought they could get away with it, they absolutely would employee people for nothing, then just give them room and board and feed them enough to survive. I mean after all, on plantations, even slave owners had to shelter and clothe and feed their slaves. Is that really any different?
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's an example: I was in a meeting last week with an executive who was telling us that in an economic downturn it's a great way to "upgrade our talent." Meaning, we can get rid of some employees because there are people so desperate for work we can hire them and they'll perform better. Maybe that sounds perfectly normal to some of you, but the thought of talking about people like they were a piece of computer hardware and "upgrading" them, is astounding. The thought of saying we just ought to toss people out on their ass in this economy because we could get someone who will work harder, boggles my mind. It is the most amoral, messed up thing I've seen in a while. And it's defended wholesale by conservatives.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It is the most amoral, messed up thing I've seen in a while. And it's defended wholesale by conservatives. >> . . . in this "Christian" nation.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^Heck, its even defended by people who claim to be Christians! Somehow I have a hard time believing that Jesus is pleased with the Social Darwinism we seem to love in this country.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed guys. I remember in my old FTSE 100 company (the UK = to a Fortune 100), each quarter I would go into meetings and we would talk about slashing 800 people, off shoring to India where service costs were 40% of the UK. We would talk about buying off people over 50. And stopping the graduate programme but pump funding the intern programme for free labour (except training and expenses). In the end, my ethics as the head of the Community Care division could not do it anymore. At first, I fooled myself into the nobel cause that I was saving our best and hardest workers by maximising profits, but sadly that was not the case. Especially when our best and brightest got worried about their security, sent their CVs out and got snapped up. I used to be pro big business, but after a while, I learnt it is a problem. My £12m p.a. business stream ($18m) was seen as a PR investment. Broke my heart. I was kept in the leadership as a face of the public sector business and ideas guy, but it was all a facade. And we were voted the most ethical company several times by Forbes and the Financial Times.
