Realistically we all know there will be drastic increases in the price of food at restaurants. Someday has to pay for the minimum wage almost doubling. Naturally, they’ll lay off as many people as possible. Then they pass on the costs to us, the consumer.
I expect a Quarter Pounder meal deal at McDonalds easily jumping to $9. It’s about $6 now after sales tax gets added. A $12 per person restaurant meal might jump to $18.
Everybody will get hurt and bad. A lot of us will just have to stop eating out. Go back to cooking at home.
Maybe someday people will learn how to pay attention to their own links.
That was written by somebody who knows absolutely nothing about economics. “Improved efficiency” is a synonym for “we don’t need to hire as many people.” In addition, higher prices due to increased labor costs will produce the opposite of “increased demand.”
And in the article that your link linked to, it says,
Those tax credits could be changed at any time. Basing permanent strategy on something that is likely to be temporary is a very bad idea.
Furthermore, that study apparently did not even attempt to quantify the effect of a minimum wage increase at larger stores.
In other words, ‘and therefore avoid layoffs’, which you quoted, means more layoffs. Maybe someday people will learn how to pay attention to their own quotes.
And ‘increased prices’, in the case of a Big Mac, is an extra 17¢. Big deal. If you’re buying a Big Mac, you’re not going to turn around and make your own damned burger over 17¢.
Like many of you, I used to be for a large increase in the minimum wage, but now realize that doing that is unnecessary and counter-productive. This is a case where “the market” be left to sort the better workers by paying them more than minimum.
And you can’t dismiss the fact that many recent college grads and responsible, experienced people haven’t been able to find a job that pays more than 35 or 40K per year. Now you think any and every uneducated, unproven, inexperienced kid make 30K ??? Fast-food worker is an entry-level job, not a career.
Yeah, it’s hard to move up into a better paying job, but that doesn’t mean the government should mandate that we all move down!
How does other people making a living wage make me ‘move down’? I’m not going to get a pay cut just because a janitor is able to contribute more to the economy.
Any 40-hour a week job should pay enough to live on without food stamps; even entry level jobs. Why should entry level workers be reduced to couch surfing and living on ramen?
Because if they don’t make enough to live on without food stamps, then they’ll be on food stamps and receive other public support/subsidies that are paid for by taxpayers. You can have people making a living wage, or you can support them through taxes. Choose one.
Why should companies making record profits not pay their employees a living wage? They are receiving ‘free money’ from the government. If they can’t operate without the government subsidies they get by virtue of the government picking up the slack, why should they stay in business? If they can’t compete, the Holy Church of the Free Market deems they should go under.
Not quite. A living wage, whatever that means, is different for each person. Plenty of minimum wage workers are from households with high income. They won’t be supported by taxes.
If your intent is to make sure poor people have a living income, which the MW was not instituted to do, government subsidies are a much less blunt instrument.
A government subsidy to an individual is not a subsidy to his employer just because he happens to be employed.
Not if they don’t make enough. People need to pay rent. They need to eat. They need to get from home to work, either in a car that they have to buy gas for and insure, or by public transportation. They need to clothe themselves. They have medical expenses. Single parents have to arrange daycare – or else not work.
You didn’t answer the question.
If a company does not pay enough for a person to live on without government subsidies, they are shifting the burden to taxpayers. In other words, the taxpayers are paying part of the employees’ compensation. Thus the company is effectively receiving corporate welfare. They claim that in spite of record profits, they will go our of business if they have to pay their employees more.
If that is true, then why should they stay in business? If they can’t compete without corporate welfare, they should close down.
And what do you think people will do with a higher minimum wage? Hide it under the mattress? No. They’ll spend it. They may spend it on rent, or they may spend it on food, or they may spend it to keep their cars that are falling apart from falling apart. They’re going to support the economy, keeping businesses in business, and paying more in taxes to help people do need government assistance. A rising tide lifts all boats.