I am assuming 12 hour work days and 6 day workweeks because Evil Captor mentioned that it’s not only teenagers that are working minimum wage jobs, but also adults who are trying to survive. If an adults is really that desperate to survive and earn money, they will work 12 hours a day and 6 days a week.
Note: I also assumed 50 weeks instead of 52.
That’s a bad assumption to make, as I doubt EC wants workers to have to work more than 40 hours/week in order earn their “Living Wage”. You’re making the numbers look better than they actually are in support of the LW argument.
You know, the real question here is “Why” don’t the Walmarts and McDonalds pay a decent wage? It’s quite clear they’re making a fortune, and yet they refuse to increase wages for their employees even after years of service.
Sure, it’s a job that anyone can do. But, I would think that turnover is bad for a company, and the promise of a making a wage comparable to $11-12 an hour over time and competent work performance would be an incentive for the employee. Other benefits like Healthcare, or maybe even funding for education related to their business could also be an incentive.
Instead, the average Walmart associate makes in the realm of $8 an hour. They get no benefits. They get their hours cut. Walmart helps them get assistance from the government, while at the same time the company lobby’s to have these programs cut. Keep in mind, “Walmart” is just an example. This is a systemic problem of mostly all the major retailers.
This is why we need a minimum wage. It’s clear that these companies have no moral compass.
No, they don’t have to do all these things. But, they should. For many, many reasons. Thats why left wingers get mad when you defend them. Because when you look at the big picture, it’s quite clear they are in the wrong.
I’m not sure why you think you can run WalMart’s business better than the current management. But if you do, why not use this as a great business opportunity to beat them at their own game? Open a store, pay the employees a higher wage, get many of their employees to defect to your company… Profit!
But your justification for the increase is one of good business practices. Why do you suddenly make it a moral argument?
See my post #218. Why must an employer, as opposed to society as a whole, pay for a result that society, as a whole, wants to achieve? Raising the MW is not the only way to give people a better life. You can institute an Earned Income Tax Credit (or enhance the existing one).
Der Trihs did use the word “generally.” Thus he didn’t mean that 100% of employers would certainly retain 100% of employees despite any wage hike. Did you think otherwise?
But while it is likely true that a MW hike to $9/hr would cause relatively few job losses, losses would increase with a MW as high as $100/hr. I’m sure you understand that, Rand Rover. 
A key question, which posters in these MW threads seem to prefer to ignore :rolleyes: , is how many MW workers will lose their job if MW is hiked, say, 10%?
An Australian researcher examines data in his country and estimates 1.5% to be the answer. The demand elasticity may be even lower in the U.S., with its current MW at a 60-year low, as the paper mentions:
Ignoring real data and guessing wage demand elasticity to be whatever suits our political prejudices, or constructing strawmen arguments about absurd wages, isn’t helpful.
I don’t think I can run Walmarts business better than them. I lack the ruthlessness it must take to make some of the decisions they do. However, I can point out where they are wrong.
Why don’t I open a store and run it my way? Well, for one I would go broke in no time. I couldn’t compete with Walmart’s practices, and at this point they have quite an influence over the market and government. Why do you think all of the mom and pop stores have closed?
I have stated that I think it is the responsibility of the government to take care of peoples basic needs when they cannot. However, at this point it is very complicated. You can’t just snap your fingers and fix things like that. But, why shouldn’t Walmart share some of the responsibility? Do they not operate in this country? Do they not meddle in our government? Are they not apart of this society? Why are they free to interact in all of these ways to their benefit, but off the hook for all the damage they cause?
What “damage” are they causing? What makes you think the millions of people employed by WalMart and the 10s of millions of WalMart customers would be better off that company didn’t exist?
If 10,000 tiny companies employ millions of people at MW, you don’t notice, but if one large company does, then it’s a moral crisis.
50% of Walmarts associates make $8.50 (the largest demographic of employees). That’s right around the poverty level. They offer no benefits or opportunities for education. Frankly, they do not invest in their employee one bit and these people depend on this job for their livelihood. If you can’t see the damage that causes then I don’t know what to say.
All the while they are fully capable of doing it. Sam Walton and his family members own more wealth than the bottom 30-35% of americans. Their handful of CEO’s are millionaires. They mass-manufacture goods that cause harm to the environment. They continually lobby to cut social programs and lower taxes. Their influence in this country is huge.
Yes, they have some redeeming qualities. They have created an efficient business, that services millions of people, and employs millions as well. But they also have a lot of negative factors as well. There would still be retail shops if there was no Walmart. There would still be restaurants if there was no McDonalds. What exactly have these companies done that is so unique besides corpartizing these already existing industries?
Again, they’re apart of this society in a massively influential way. Why do they not share some of the responsibility?
Perhaps if Evil Captor could define what a “living wage” is numerically, we could figure out what the minimum wage would have to be in order for it to be “living”. From there we could see if it’s really worth it to increase the minimum wage or not.
Listen Evil Captor, $11/hour is definitely not going to happen. Maybe my numbers are a bit inflated due to the fact that I assumed 12 hours a day for six days a week and 50 weeks a year, but the point stands. $11/hour is still 57% more than $7/hour; this means that employers either must earn 57% more money or cut down on employees. As stated above, they would probably find a healthy balance somewhere in between. My guess would be that they would probably terminate a few jobs and inflate prices by 25 or 30%. There’s really no way to do it. You basically have a spectrum:
Unemployment<------------------------------------------------------------>Price Inflation
So employers are going to try to find a healthy balance between the two. The issue here is that even a 10% increase is quite noticeable. If you are spending $100 a week on groceries for example, then with 10% price inflation, you can expect to spend $110 a week instead. Keep in mind, this is with only 10% price inflation. If the minimum wage increases by 57%, they will probably have to inflate prices by 25% or somewhere around there.
And if you argue, “It’s only the minimum wage people that are getting raised,” then my response is it will eventually affect all employees. I am going to come up with a scenario here. Let’s say you have 2 people working at $7 an hour, 2 people working at $9 an hour, 2 people working at $11 an hour, 2 people working at $13 an hour, and 2 people working at $15 an hour. If we increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour (I am now talking about Obama’s proposal), then the $7 people will be raised to $9 an hour. Eventually however, they will have to raise everyone else a little bit because they are not minimum wage; the $9 people who were originally at $2 an hour higher than the minimum wage, will now be at the minimum wage. But they weren’t minimum wage originally; they were higher than the minimum wage, therefore, their wage will have to be increased as well. Eventually, all employees will be working at $2 an hour more than they were when the minimum wage was $7 an hour.
With $9 an hour, you have increased the minimum wage by 28%; therefore, employers will probably have to inflate prices by 10-15% and eliminate a few jobs. However, there are several problems with this:
We shouldn’t be losing any jobs. We should be looking to open more job opportunities.
A 10-15% price inflation is still quite noticeable as explained above.
$9 an hour fails to really benefit the employees themselves. It’s not much more living than $7 an hour, and these jobs aren’t supposed to be for living wages. These jobs are entry level jobs that anyone can do with little to no skill. If you want to make a living, get an education or a degree. Or if you already failed to do that, well, tough luck. The negative impacts of increasing the minimum wage are not something we can accept. We can’t allow for any more unemployment and we really don’t want price inflation. And like I said earlier, some of the extra money earned is going to be lost due to price inflation. So it really isn’t all that beneficial.
And they would be better without WalMart how, exactly?
Their wealth is not the cause of anyone poverty.
These products wouldn’t be manufactured if WalMart didn’t exist?
If they do, and I don’t know that they do, it’s their prerogative as Americans to do so.
How huge?
I don’t really know, and I don’t care. They’ve made a good business and attracted lots of customers. If they’ve broken laws, they should be prosecuted. If not, then that’s what this country is all about.
Do they not pay their taxes? Do they not have legions of loyal customers? Do they force anyone to work for them? Other than that, no, they don’t have any responsibilities.
Big picture, John. These companies have their agenda and show no signs of changing. That’s called being unreasonable and is counter-productive to cooperation. They are leading us into dangerous territory. I can appreciate the good that they have done, but at the same time recognize the bad. So, I choose to side with my fellow man in the middle class because their actions are threatening our existence. I don’t know why anyone else in the same position wouldn’t do the same thing.
Their “agendas”, if they exist, are no different than most any other company’s.
Don’t shopt there if you don’t like it. Organize a boycott if you want-- let the people decide.
I would appreciate that. People keep throwing the term around, but I don’t know what it means. As I’ve posted before, I did very well working 70 h/week. Paid out of pocket for health insurance, ate well, maxed my IRA contributions, got valuable training. Now, I didn’t have a kid. Or two kids. Or 10 kids. I know there were assistance programs for some folks I knew in a similar situation who had children, but I never looked into the details since I didn’t want a child at the time and thus didn’t have one.
A problem I haven’t seen addressed is, how feasible is it to find 70 h/week of work if you have a job at most minimum wage-paying jobs? Walmart isn’t going to give you that much work, so you have to have another job(s). If they’re jerking your schedule around, that can be really hard to do.
Do you have any idea how many teens who are working minimum wage are doing it to help their impovershed families, and it isn’t just pocket money for them? I will admit that I don’t, but I know the number is less than zero. My mother and both my uncles had to get jobs as soon as it was legal for them to have, because they were being raised by my grandmother on her own who was piecing together a string of part time jobs. Their teenage paychecks helped keep a roof over their heads and food in the house. I would bet dollars to donuts the type of thinker who thinks teens working the same job should somehow be able to be payed less, wouldn’t be likely to support welfare for a single mom and three kids?
And unlike right wing fantasies she was not a welfare queen, my grandfather died suddenly of cancer while the kids were very young. Before that our family was firmly middle class.
So instead of paying the teenagers a decent wage because… YOU decide they don’t need it, management and owners should just get MORE profits, because it would be sinful for teenagers to get more than they “need”? Let’s talk about CEO wages and legislate those before we even talk about what people working for minimum wage “need” or don’t need because they live with “mommy and daddy”. You will find lots more money to legislate at the high end than the bottom end after all.
roger-I agree that corporate profits are out of whack. You do realize your family is the exception right? The overwhelming majority of American teenagers are high schools students whose primary spending is on their SO and car insurance?
Who cares? If you have a trust fund should I get to legislate how much money you make at your job based on need? If not, what is so special about minimum wage workers that only THEIR wages should be based on need?
Also, considering the people that I am talking about are on the ABSOLUTE BOTTOM of society, why do you think devastating them is worth it to lower the minimum wage for teenagers? What do you hope to accomplish by making teenage minimum wage $5.75, you will be devastating a non-zero number of families so fast food franchise owners can pocket the savings-why?
Also, when I was a teenager, I was working damn hard…why shouldn’t I get the same wages as an adult doing the same job? 
Roger-If you met me IRL you’d see I’m ALOT closer to the bottom than top of society. I’m done with you.
I wasn’t accusing you of having a trust fund (nor do I think someone is bad for having one), it was meant to be read as a general, hypothetical “you”, otherwise I can’t figure out what I said that made you “done” with me and not wanting to debate my ideas. I hope things improve for you, I am not well off myself but thankfully I am not making minimum wage… I couldn’t survive on it and I am a single guy with no dependents, just rent, food, phone etc to pay.
What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?
Well, the first step is to show people that raising the MW does have an effect on unemployment–we can get to how much of an effect later. As you’ve seen from Der Trihs and others, some people just can’t seem to apply the simple principle of “when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it” to labor.