Yeah...about that $15 minimum wage .....

[Glorious Leader]

its not really hard to critically deduce, you can look yourself. if most people enter the work force at min wage, and id say most do (young adults or those who just lost a job), then nearly everyone rises above that. very few stay min wage. if MOST people stayed min wage, then it wouldnt really be a problem, as that would be the median income.

- - - Updated - - -



its not a societal problem, its a problem of leeches expecting more for nothing.

Mass unemployment and poverty are macro problems. They cannot be solved by individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh god, how dare they decide that 15 extra hours a week to do with as they please is worth a slight pay loss....!! Oh shit, they might like maybe even go to school or something. But nope, lets just generalize like an ignorant twat, just cuz.

Or spend time with their kids. Or spend time in the community. Or shit play some fucking video games who gives a fuck. Giving men free time away from toil is inherently good. I dont care what the ridiculous protestant work ethic demands. Toil for the sake of toil is so stupid.

[ItachiZaku]

>I want my company to have zero employee retention due to the insane turnover rate this will cause



>I want to further alienate employees and lower their quality of life. Additionally, just in case I didn't make it clear enough that I value a long-term employee the same as someone who just walked in the door, I'm going to increase the amount of inexperienced workers I have to train, yet give them no reason to stay at my company because under this asinine business model I clearly want to invest in future former employees.



>I want my company to have less operational time, but somehow meet national standards of productivity to maintain solvency. I also want to punish workers who put in extra time because reasons.

Not that I think there's any danger of you ascending to some kind of decision-making level, but for the sake of any lives you'd possibly ruin by being in such a position, keep your nose to the ground until you fix that myopia.

As I've stated numerous times on these boards, if given the opportunity, none of this would be a problem for my business. My people would be well compensated. They'd fucking love me. I am not, and I'm simply relaying what is happening across all locations that thought bumping MinWage to 15 was going to be victimless.

[Deleted]

A team of economists at the University of Washington recently found that low-income workers across all businesses in Seattle lost an average of $125 a month because of reduced hours or job loss after that city enacted a $15 minimum. No doubt the PFM study can, and will, be attacked on the basis that it was produced at Mr. Leggett’s request. No doubt, too, a different study of Seattle restaurant workers by a University of California at Berkeley team found much more benign results from the city’s mandated wage hike. But the existence of so much controversy over the real-world impact of previously untried minimum-wage levels suggests that it’s better to proceed cautiously, especially because the risks of error would be borne by the very workers the policy intends to help. At the least, $15-an-hour advocates owe the new report a careful reading and a respectful response.

Maybe it's this. When forced to pay employees $15 an hour employers just reduce hours.

The high pay increase will result in some companies doing a reorganisation or optimisation. The same thing that happens during economic crisis.
So it's inevitable, might as well do it when the worker gains something aswell.

It will cause some starting problems anyway, and many try to make the problems to big like your completely damned if you do.
Even if your damned if you do, i rather do something than nothing.
Their could be something said about not doing it gradually. But thats an extremely though one to answer.

[Aphrel]

This makes no sense at all. either the work of an employee is more valuable than 15$ an hour or less. If less it whould be madness to keep the employee with a 15$ wage, if more you just keep as many employees as you need to meet consumer demands, just as before.

[ati87]

This makes no sense at all. either the work of an employee is more valuable than 15$ an hour or less. If less it whould be madness to keep the employee with a 15$ wage, if more you just keep as many employees as you need to meet consumer demands, just as before.

that's how it noramlly would work but you know the conservative mind doesn't do that.

They would rather lose more money because of ideolog then to pay somebody for their worth

[Pickynerd]

They should just raise minimum wage for those not on government assistance like section 8.

Some people really need the money to get by, some don't.

[Machismo]

I mean you say this, yeah but let's look at some stuff here.

Say you work 40 hours working for 7.25. The min wage was increased to 15 and now you're suddenly making 125 less dollars on average than before. You do realize that means they cut your hours? I don't know about you, but I'd rather make nearly the same amount of money in slightly less than half of the time.

And if you want more money then you just try to find a second job. Those people who work 60 hours a week at min wage jobs right now can make more money in only 30 hours of work. I think a lot of people would greatly appreciate the quality of life improvement that would bring to them.

Like I'd much rather work 20 hours a week for the same pay as 40 and then be an Uber driver on the side with all my extra free time.

That's the issue, the second jobs are not going to come around, because the market wants less labor hours because of the increased costs. It harms businesses, harms consumers, and actually harms most of the non-minimum-wage employees. People who were making above minimum wage did not see their wages increase at the same rate, yet the inflation hit them all the same.

[kamuimac]

The thing is that many small businesses are only just profitable by a very small margin.
If you up the wages that much and that fast, it's going to be too much for many businesses.

thats because people are incompetent idiots - for example they hear - this company is worth 1 mln dollars - and automatickly think - oh wow the owner has 1 mln dollars in pocket instead "oh so he has a building worth 200k machines worth 500k materials he work with worth 250k and month payment of debt he took to get those machines/materials of 25k which leaves him with 25k for liquid assets for salaries and and anything more he needs to buy/repair for his company " - in their eyes he still should have mln dollars to spend after all he has a million dollar worth company

[Tehshocka]

I am convinced a lot of folks in this thread never owned a business, managed a business, or had a job in general.

If you are not growing your business YoY in general, the first thing to get slashed in capex is human capital. Whether that is through reorganization, termination, or having less employees gain overtime/no overtime.

A large business in general is on here to appease it's shareholders. Not its workers. Until some of you grasp this concept, you will have a better understanding of why things happen the way they do in the business world.

FYI, just because a business slashes human capital, does not mean it has a shitty business model. They are simply trying to reduce spending so overall profits are flat or grow YoY. I know that is a hard concept for liberals to understand and all (reduce spending.)

[melodramocracy]

I am convinced a lot of folks in this thread never owned a business, managed a business, or had a job in general.

If you are not growing your business YoY in general, the first thing to get slashed in capex is human capital. Whether that is through reorganization, termination, or having less employees gain overtime/no overtime.

A large business in general is on here to appease it's shareholders. Not its workers. Until some of you grasp this concept, you will have a better understanding of why things happen the way they do in the business world.

FYI, just because a business slashes human capital, does not mean it has a shitty business model. They are simply trying to reduce spending so overall profits are flat or grow YoY. I know that is a hard concept for liberals to understand and all (reduce spending.)

And that's actually one of the fundamental problems. Friedman had some good ideas, but his shareholder theory absolutely wasn't one of them, and it's rather awful that it's integrated into business laws.

In the meantime, these cuts are generally done to show a quick, short term improvement, and rarely tied to actual individual performance.

[Illana]

pleasing shareholders is inextricably linked to making sure your employees are at least content. You get shit throughput and quality if the people working for you do not want to work for you

[SupBrah]

pleasing shareholders is inextricably linked to making sure your employees are at least content. You get shit throughput and quality if the people working for you do not want to work for you

With low-skill jobs that's not as much an issue though.

Don't like having your hours cut? Quit. There's a stack of applications in the manager's office who would love to have a job and who could be trained enough to fully replace you in a day or 2.

[Deleted]

What happens to the person that creates $14 of value every hour, when he suddenly needs to be paid $15?

[Zarc]

How can anyone be against the minimum wage being a living wage?

Of course if you have a full-time job you should earn enough to meet your basic needs. There's no excuse not to have that in the United States. You could even be pro-business and pro-raise minimum wage by reducing costs for businesses while also raising the minimum wage by raising the tax on the rich to make up for the revenue lost as you reduce the cost for businesses.

After all you are an extremely rich nation, just that the top 1% hold 35% of all wealth, the top 5% holds 62% of all wealth. Top 20% holds 85% of all wealth. Just tax those wealthy individuals more to make up for the revenue lost for lowering the cost for businesses so that they won't suffer economically from the minimum wage going up. It's not rocket science.

[Tehshocka]

With low-skill jobs that's not as much an issue though.

Don't like having your hours cut? Quit. There's a stack of applications in the manager's office who would love to have a job and who could be trained enough to fully replace you in a day or 2.

I agree and it happens everyday.

[dacoolist]

If everyone made 15$/hour base - instead of around 8$/hour base - I'm not even worried about business's staying afloat etc etc as much as I'm worried about inflation! I remember a few years ago when this 15/hour thing was much bigger because folks were having a hard time living when they worked 30 hours a week at 8/hour and basically had to get another job working another 30-40 just to make ends meet - I get all of this, but if EVERYONE makes more money, the currency we have WILL adjust accordingly. If people right now are making 15/hour vs. the people making 8/hour - what, do you think the people working their ass off for 7/more an hour is just going to take the same pay?

The cost of everything will go up if people all make more

[VinylScratch]

It always amuses me to see posters who seem to think businesses have an inherent right to exist and that some how tagging the word business on practices that would otherwise be considered wholly dispicable turns those acts into virtues.

Won't some please think of the businesses!

You mean like how Liberals think they have an inherent "right" to goods and services and therefore believe they are justified in using any means necessary to force people to buy things for them just because they slap the word "right" on it when in reality it isn't a right?

You have a right to pursue good health, nobody is going to argue against that. If you want to eat healthy, or poorly, that's on you and that is your right to make that decision. However you DO NOT have a right to healthcare. You have a privilege to purchase healthcare because it's a service, or otherwise a "good" they sell. Also, universal healthcare isn't morally justifiable when you have to break the non-aggression principle to achieve it. In this instance, NAP is broken because it uses either force, or threat of force to make people pay the extra taxes to fund this. Force or threat of force being prison to people who don't pay taxes.

[Tehshocka]

How can anyone be against the minimum wage being a living wage?

Of course if you have a full-time job you should earn enough to meet your basic needs. There's no excuse not to have that in the United States. You could even be pro-business and pro-raise minimum wage by reducing costs for businesses while also raising the minimum wage by raising the tax on the rich to make up for the revenue lost as you reduce the cost for businesses.

After all you are an extremely rich nation, just that the top 1% hold 35% of all wealth, the top 5% holds 62% of all wealth. Top 20% holds 85% of all wealth. Just tax those wealthy individuals more to make up for the revenue lost for lowering the cost for businesses so that they won't suffer economically from the minimum wage going up. It's not rocket science.

LOL.

According to 2011 tax figures. Individuals who made 68.7k or above paid 82% of the taxes in that fiscal year. Yeah let's tax these folks more!!!! You can't make this shit up.

Flipping a burger should not grant you some alienable right to not struggle. Learn a trade, go to school, don't get/or get someone knocked up. Nothing is owed to you. Your life is what you make it.

[melodramocracy]

Flipping a burger should not grant you some alienable right to not struggle. Learn a trade, go to school, don't get/or get someone knocked up. Nothing is owed to you. Your life is what you make it.

Your first mistake is believing there should be a 'struggle' for any other reason than "well, that's the way it's always been". The second is believing that opportunity actually exists for all willing participants. It never has, and never will.

You mean like how Liberals think they have an inherent "right" to goods and services and therefore believe they are justified in using any means necessary to force people to buy things for them just because they slap the word "right" on it when in reality it isn't a right?

That isn't what 'liberals' think. Project a bit less next time.

[Zarc]

LOL.

According to 2011 tax figures. Individuals who made 68.7k or above paid 82% of the taxes in that fiscal year. Yeah let's tax these folks more!!!! You can't make this shit up.

Flipping a burger should not grant you some alienable right to not struggle. Learn a trade, go to school, don't get/or get someone knocked up. Nothing is owed to you. Your life is what you make it.

That's not true at all. In fact, Warren Buffet has gone on record to disclose that he pays only an effective tax rate of 16%.

You seriously believe Bill Gates have payed 391 billion dollars in taxes on his road to his current personal net worth of 86 billion? News flash, he didn't. The share of taxes payed by the most wealthy people have declined dramatically since the 1970's. You'd have to been living in a cave for all these decades not to know that.