Leaving for Las Vegas: California's minimum wage law leaves businesses no choice

[Wolfheart9]

Because for the most part, the average worker sucks with money. Giving most people a raise has a short term benefit with their expenses eventually outstripping the increase before inflation is even an issue. When I got raises, I went out and celebrated once. Then every raise after that had the increased earnings (and sometimes bonus) funnelled into savings.

I run my own business, pay my overseas staff well over my local minimum wage (Australia), and still charge half what local competitors do. I have no intention of handing money over to someone who thinks a shitty diploma and two years work experience entitles them to earn management wages. And that's the unfortunate reality of the situations. More than 75% of the people I've tried to interview locally for entry level positions manage to talk about the following in their interview:

- Their expectation for a management role within 12 months.
- Their expectation for six monthly wage reviews.

And they manage to have the latest iPhone and Apple Watch for their interview. I'm only 29 and I don't bother with that shit.

If I was forced to hire local only, the reality is that I would shelve half my services and not hire anyone new. My business model works just fine without the outsourced elements, but it's a nice cherry to have. So in the end, no one local gets work and my overseas staff lose their jobs.

Real nice.

So you want everything to stay as is, never raise wages, and have more and more fall onto the government until the economy implodes, gotcha. Since the only alternatives you've listed would require an entire restructure of the complete US economy.

[Wolfheart9]

No it doesn't.



Such an impossible task...

Now take what you have there, and relate it to the minimum wage based on every county and city you have listed there for cost of living. That's what you asked for. If that's what that map already does, link the source so people can see it in full.

[unfilteredJW]

So you want everything to stay as is, never raise wages, and have more and more fall onto the government until the economy implodes, gotcha. Since the only alternatives you've listed would require an entire restructure of the complete US economy.

Have you not picked up on the "fuck you, I got mine" vibe yet?

[Wolfheart9]

Have you not picked up on the "fuck you, I got mine" vibe yet?

Good point.

[Torgent]

you realize i own my own business right? im not going to sit here and fix everything so you kids understand. business is way above your education level.

By "own my own business" you mean you sell weed out of your trunk? If you genuinely own a business and you believe even half of the bullshit you posted here....I think you need to start applying elsewhere. You understand nothing of economics or business.

[Snuffleupagus]

So you want everything to stay as is, never raise wages, and have more and more fall onto the government until the economy implodes, gotcha. Since the only alternatives you've listed would require an entire restructure of the complete US economy.

I'm saying that there is no singular solution, but sure... whatever you reckon.

[Barnabas]

Err what?????

The state has been liberal for decades, and there's no way you can describe someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger as a "conservative". It isn't just California either if you look at the most prosperous states they are basically all liberal.

Oh really. Ok let's compare then. Democrats trifecta occurs in 5 states. Republicans trifecta is 33 states. So go do your math and come back with an honest answer of who the american people think are doing better for them? If you care to look you'll see in 2010 democrats controlled more states. Double what they have now? I mean chicago and detroit are prime examples of democrat leadership for decades. Democrats are still clueless about what the majority of Americans want.

https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatoria...ate_government

enjoy

[Cthulhu 2020]

People seem to forget that the US was pulled out of a two class system precisely because of the minimum wage. The comfortable life you have today is in large part (but not wholly) due to people being able to afford higher quality goods, and not getting 5 dollars a day and barely able to live.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm saying that there is no singular solution, but sure... whatever you reckon.

No absolute solution, but there not being a perfect magic bullet for it doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make the situation better.

"Well we can't FIX that there's a huge gap between a living wage and minimum, so let's just not do anything at all!"

[Katchii]

The problem is that the evidence you are citing for the idea that the minimum wage seriously effects employment rates isn't very good. Look at that first article, for example, and you'll see some curious jumps back and forth between the teen rates and the overall rates, which is very misleading. Your article from Forbes does similar tricks and does a whole lot of deflection by referring to what WOULD HAVE BEEN, an impossible metric that anyone can twist to be what they want. Even at worst, the evidence shows that the effect is small and temporary.

I did notice those things, so my argument has shifted a little bit. On the whole the problem is small and temporary on a nationwide scale, but for some families the effect can last far longer. 100 people getting laid off in California followed by 100 people being hired in Texas, for example, is a net zero effect on employment/unemployment nationwide but means that those 100 people in California are still jobless, potentially. Nationwide job opportunity doesn't mean much to most people since most people can't just move when things get bad. The kinds of jobs these people get are not usually known for looking across state lines for potential candidates and paying for the employee to move.

[Wolfheart9]

I did notice those things, so my argument has shifted a little bit. On the whole the problem is small and temporary on a nationwide scale, but for some families the effect can last far longer. 100 people getting laid off in California followed by 100 people being hired in Texas, for example, is a net zero effect on employment/unemployment nationwide but means that those 100 people in California are still jobless, potentially. Nationwide job opportunity doesn't mean much to most people since most people can't just move when things get bad. The kinds of jobs these people get are not usually known for looking across state lines for potential candidates and paying for the employee to move.

Again however in your example, you are assuming 100 people will lose jobs in California, but NO new jobs will open in California, that's the problem. We'll go low class on this. ShopKo has 5000 employees in a state. Minimum wage goes up, they lay off 200. However due to more spending power, people buy more at ShopKo. They have to have more people to handle the flow because the 5000 limit was the bare minimum to keep things running BEFORE the higher spending power. They have one of two options: Make their people work overtime to handle the offset, or hire on more people to fill the gap. Generally they tend to go with number two.

Every job and every city will be different, but I can't recall a single case of a city net losing jobs from a minimum wage increase without ever getting new jobs opening.

[oxymoronic]

So you are providing data to prove me right? I don't get what your point is.....

i guess if you cherry pick the best years. but if you're not a total idiot you can see in 2011 are making more per hour than people in 1960. wasn't till the knee jerk reactions that the numbers get skewed. besides where is all this hate coming from? i agree min wage needs to be increased yearly by about the same as inflation (not 100% the same mind you, there is other factors that come into play). problem is many years that did not happen and now all of a sudden people want huge increases. you can't do that and expect an economy to just handle it. which is why none of you own a business or do anything business related. not my fault your lack of education on the matter shows in your posts.

people in 1989 should be really mad right?

[oxymoronic]

Again however in your example, you are assuming 100 people will lose jobs in California, but NO new jobs will open in California, that's the problem. We'll go low class on this. ShopKo has 5000 employees in a state. Minimum wage goes up, they lay off 200. However due to more spending power, people buy more at ShopKo. They have to have more people to handle the flow because the 5000 limit was the bare minimum to keep things running BEFORE the higher spending power. They have one of two options: Make their people work overtime to handle the offset, or hire on more people to fill the gap. Generally they tend to go with number two.

Every job and every city will be different, but I can't recall a single case of a city net losing jobs from a minimum wage increase without ever getting new jobs opening.

wouldnt prices just go up to compensate for the higher paid? business owners price things at what they think/know you will pay, not a certain % profit. if you will pay $100 and it cost me $1, i charge $100. if i cant get 100, then 99, then 98, so on. this is how capitalism works.

- - - Updated - - -

and can you libs stop being so mad, like somebody pissed in your cheerios cause i dont think min wage should be increased so fast. ffs chill out children

[Theinquisition]

Any business owner that cannot raise prices slightly in order to absorb that small increase is not fit for business. You want capitalism, but suddenly throw a fit when capitalism puts a small business out in effort to pay workers decent wages.

Yeah, the ol FDR quote is outdated and never really correct.

It's cool though, im sure all those people soon to be unemployed in CA will be feed well with good intentions.

[Wolfheart9]

wouldnt prices just go up to compensate for the higher paid? business owners price things at what they think/know you will pay, not a certain % profit. if you will pay $100 and it cost me $1, i charge $100. if i cant get 100, then 99, then 98, so on. this is how capitalism works.

- - - Updated - - -

and can you libs stop being so mad, like somebody pissed in your cheerios cause i dont think min wage should be increased so fast. ffs chill out children

Ah there it is again, more 'I can't back up things so it's only Libs angry at me, insult the libs!'

[oxymoronic]

Ah there it is again, more 'I can't back up things so it's only Libs angry at me, insult the libs!'

what is there to back up? that people in 1960 had a higher min wage than people in 2011? check

that unions are only approved of by 58% of the population. and that doesnt mean more americans want more unions. check

what else do you want from me?

- - - Updated - - -

How is providing the data for the last fucking century cherry picking?

how am i arguing with people this dumb, im done. cya


[Infracted]

[Fojos]

I don't know why people continually do what you're doing here. You assume I asserted some position. All I said was that a company that can't afford a $1/hr increase in employment costs must be running real slim on funds. Nothing about whether they're "rich" or "close" or a "no name fashion company". Stop assuming I'm taking a position or a side. I stated a fact and corrected an incorrect part of the OP.

More than 1000 people surveyed is a plenty large sample size to gauge the population of the USA, assuming good methodology. It's pretty reasonable to say that "very few americans want to see more unions" isn't correct -- 58% of the US isn't "very few" at all. One set of polls being wrong (they weren't even that wrong...) doesn't suddenly make all polls incorrect.

It's not that they can't afford it. Reading the owners twitter it's obvious he's taking a lot to himself and paying the workers as little as possible because he wants to "live the amuuuurican dream".

[Fojos]

Because for the most part, the average worker sucks with money. Giving most people a raise has a short term benefit with their expenses eventually outstripping the increase before inflation is even an issue. When I got raises, I went out and celebrated once. Then every raise after that had the increased earnings (and sometimes bonus) funnelled into savings.

I run my own business, pay my overseas staff well over my local minimum wage (Australia), and still charge half what local competitors do. I have no intention of handing money over to someone who thinks a shitty diploma and two years work experience entitles them to earn management wages. And that's the unfortunate reality of the situations. More than 75% of the people I've tried to interview locally for entry level positions manage to talk about the following in their interview:

- Their expectation for a management role within 12 months.
- Their expectation for six monthly wage reviews.

And they manage to have the latest iPhone and Apple Watch for their interview. I'm only 29 and I don't bother with that shit.

If I was forced to hire local only, the reality is that I would shelve half my services and not hire anyone new. My business model works just fine without the outsourced elements, but it's a nice cherry to have. So in the end, no one local gets work and my overseas staff lose their jobs.

Real nice.

If all managers thought like you, your business would be gone. Who do you think pays for your services/goods (in terms of attitudes towards workers and spending, not entry-level positions)?

[Katchii]

Again however in your example, you are assuming 100 people will lose jobs in California, but NO new jobs will open in California, that's the problem. We'll go low class on this. ShopKo has 5000 employees in a state. Minimum wage goes up, they lay off 200. However due to more spending power, people buy more at ShopKo. They have to have more people to handle the flow because the 5000 limit was the bare minimum to keep things running BEFORE the higher spending power. They have one of two options: Make their people work overtime to handle the offset, or hire on more people to fill the gap. Generally they tend to go with number two.

Every job and every city will be different, but I can't recall a single case of a city net losing jobs from a minimum wage increase without ever getting new jobs opening.

Wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I used totally different locations as a means to easily illustrate the extreme end of how/ why geographic location of the available jobs matter. For these minimum wage jobs though sometimes even a job just 20 miles away could just as well be nonexistent because they have no reliable way of getting to it, the methods of transportation are too...unsavory (unsafe mainly) or if they could the amount of money they'd need to spend getting to and from wouldn't be justified by the wage. When the alternative, in many cases, is to sit on your ass and collect unemployment until you can find a job that's closer or deal with that many folks would simply go for unemployment.

Granted, this is on a micro scale and overall the country would benefit, but I've seen what this can do to smaller already low income areas that run off of small mom and pop shops that barely make ends meet and it sucks. My wife ran a preschool as the director in a small area of a small retirement town, so business wasn't exactly booming. The minimum wage in the area went up $1, and the preschool ended up having to shutdown because many of the children were on government funds already anyway so a service rate increase would not have affected the rate they paid and because of childcare requirements (child/ teacher ratios) they simply couldn't take on more kids without hiring more teachers and aids which they already could barely afford. So every employee at the pre-school, not just the minimum wage ones, lost their job in this scenario.

I understand improving the country as a whole is obviously a good thing, but I can't help but think about these individual type scenarios when I hear about so many people making light of the situation. Yes, the economy will likely benefit in the long term, but in the short term, many families will be negatively affected.

[THE Bigzoman]

How is it good? Their welfare program budgets will bloat.

Yeah, those unemployed people will be worse off and demand more money from the government after acquiring these jobs. City council ought to run them out of town. Nothing but trouble.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, the ol FDR quote is outdated and never really correct.

It's cool though, im sure all those people soon to be unemployed in CA will be feed well with good intentions.

Nom nom nom motherfucker.

[Wolfheart9]

Wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I used totally different locations as a means to easily illustrate the extreme end of how/ why geographic location of the available jobs matter. For these minimum wage jobs though sometimes even a job just 20 miles away could just as well be nonexistent because they have no reliable way of getting to it, the methods of transportation are too...unsavory (unsafe mainly) or if they could the amount of money they'd need to spend getting to and from wouldn't be justified by the wage. When the alternative, in many cases, is to sit on your ass and collect unemployment until you can find a job that's closer or deal with that many folks would simply go for unemployment.

Granted, this is on a micro scale and overall the country would benefit, but I've seen what this can do to smaller already low income areas that run off of small mom and pop shops that barely make ends meet and it sucks. My wife ran a preschool as the director in a small area of a small retirement town, so business wasn't exactly booming. The minimum wage in the area went up $1, and the preschool ended up having to shutdown because many of the children were on government funds already anyway so a service rate increase would not have affected the rate they paid and because of childcare requirements (child/ teacher ratios) they simply couldn't take on more kids without hiring more teachers and aids which they already could barely afford. So every employee at the pre-school, not just the minimum wage ones, lost their job in this scenario.

I understand improving the country as a whole is obviously a good thing, but I can't help but think about these individual type scenarios when I hear about so many people making light of the situation. Yes, the economy will likely benefit in the long term, but in the short term, many families will be negatively affected.

Alright, you think on the small scale, about the 100 or so that will lose jobs, to use your example. You even admit that new jobs can open up, so they may not be out for long.

Now, compare it to all the people making minimum wage. They can't afford a place to live on their own. A couple making minimum wage can't afford to start a family, keep up pets, have a vehicle of their own, or afford a house made for two. Someone making minimum wage can't have even a half way decent healthcare plan without living at home or in a large group of others.

This isn't 100 here or there, this is thousands, everywhere.