What I think would really happen would be BK would say “Hey, McD’s just lowered theirs to $7.50! We can do the same!” My fear is that abolishing the MW would force a downward spiral of wages and in turn stifle demand as workers have less money to spend and start a recession. The thing about minimum wage workers is they spend every nickel they make, it gets plowed right back into the economy. So if we raise it, we increase consumer spending, stimulate business, get more tax revenue, and reduce welfare benefits as fewer workers would need them.
There are some fast food joints that pay more than minimum wage in comparable positions. In N Out is a popular chain in CA and starts everyone at 30% above minimum wage (that varies by city since cities impose their own minimum wage above the state rate) with benefits and 401k matching. Not a race to the bottom by far. Their burgers are pretty good too.
Oh, I’m really happy to hear that. You made my day. I do hope it all works out for you. Please let me know what happens.
In addition to Bone’s answer, I think it’s safe to say that what BK needs more than saving 50 cents per hour is to have dependable employees that show up on time, are polite, keep the place clean and handle the cooking and orders well. If you owned a BK, which would you value more?
If you pay minimum wage, your employees, depending on the cost of living where you are, are eligible for a welfare payments. Thus, a company gets costs subsidized through welfare for the work it’s employees do.
Because of economies of scale. Fewer than 10 employees having a small cost decrease doesn’t really do much for them. For a huge company, each small cost decrease rolls together.
If a company can’t afford to hire someone at $7.50 an hour, what on earth makes you think that they can afford to hire someone at $2.00 an hour? The cost difference between the two for a single position is minimal.
What WILL happen is they will fire their $7.50 an hour employee and hire two employees for $3.75 an hour each. Now, how many jobs does an individual need to survive at $3.75 an hour? Well, just to make the federal poverty line you would need to work 3,112 hours a year, or 12 hours a day for 260 days a year.
Cite, please. If it’s opinion, I simply disagree. Removing the minimum wage will simply give more cash to the company doing the hiring.
How does removing the minimum wage change the balance of power in this way? People still won’t “be able to enter the workforce at the terms that suit them” because the companies, not required to pay them $7.50 an hour, simply won’t offer jobs at that pay scale, anymore.
Unless and only if there is a near universal push from people at the $10/hour level and below to force wages to rise to meet something approaching a usable wage will companies honor those wages.
This exists. It’s called “commission.” However, you simply can’t pay them less than 7.50 an hour. But, let’s say that wasn’t an option:
How do you know who is a better employee when you hire them? Do you simply start everyone out at $1/hour and magnanimously bring them to almost-poverty levels after they have worked their ass off proving their value to you?
Aside from all of that, I’m fairly certain that the big businesses will use their considerable market advantage in hiring to reduce the costs of the bottom rung of labor with or without the participation of small business. And they will flat line their wages as close to zero as they possibly can. You simply won’t be able to “enter the work force at terms that suit” you.
I base this off of observations of people advocating for a higher minimum wage. What businesses are rushing to increase their labor costs simply because their employees want it? You can pick some out here and there that already do it as a part of their business plan, but all you are going to find are the exceptions. The 600-pound gorilla of a rule that would be ignored when highlighting these exceptions is still the one with all of the power.
I think you guys are overestimating the good nature of CEOs. There may be a few good corporate citizens. like Costco and In and Out, but there are others like Walmart who are leeches who want to squeeze every nickel they can out of employees. Unfortunately, it’s the leeches who will profit the most from a drop in the minimum wage and they’ll squeeze the good guys out of business.
I would generally agree with this.
I think this answers your question. Despite your belief that you’re not siding with the corporation, you definitely are.
The media is owned by major corporations. They’re selling the corporate message. Obviously, they’re not going to say “We support this position because fuck the rest of you.” They’ll come up with some slick sales campaign and incorporate it into what you see, hear, and read. They’ll convince people that unions hurt workers and workers are better off without unions. They’ll come up with some slogan about how it’s better to be a rugged individualist or something.
And people will buy the message for the same reason they buy Budweiser or McDonalds - advertising works. Especially when you slip it into the content. So people are happy without unions not because they’re actually better off but just because they’ve been told that they should be happier without unions.
Whenever the choice is forcing someone, by law, to do something that he wouldn’t otherwise do, my side is against the force. Hope this explains it for you.
Sounds like you’re a libertarian, which to me is a subset of the Republican Party.
So you’re okay with the government not forcing women to complete their pregnancies? Or that government-run schools shouldn’t compel students to say the pledge? And that government shouldn’t say gay people can’t get married?
The military is NOT for you (or your side, perhaps) 
I am against murder. So are all libertarians. One can disagree if killing the fetus is murder, but one thinks it is, then government preventing such murder is a legitimate function of the government.
There should be no government-run schools.
Government doesn’t prevent gay people from marrying. They can do it any time they want. What you’re referring to is government not giving its sanction for such a marriage. Since sanctioning marriages is not a legitimate government function, I don’t really care.
I was in the military. Voluntarily.
So if you can’t afford to send your kids to a non-government run school, they don’t get educated?
Vouchers.
Understood. I disagree with your principles, but I see where you’re coming from.
Another chasm of attitude between conservatives and others. In conservative theology, anything run by the government could and would be better run by others. I, for one, don’t want to limit the educational opportunities available to our youth based on whether someone thinks he can make a buck by starting a school in the area. We all know who gets left behind in cases like this- the inner city kid.
Yes, cuz inner city kids are doing so great today in government-run schools.
Do you honestly think private schools are going to want to move in and do a better job for less money? For that matter, what about the rural areas where you might have a township with 100 kids in it. There might not be enough of a market there for the private sector to fill.
Yes. It would be very hard to do worse.
Sure. What about that family with kids that lives 100 miles away from everyone in the middle of nowhere? That definitely justifies having a state-run school system in the whole country.
I rather think the problem with the inner city schools is that the tax base is insufficient to provide quality facilities and teachers, not who writes the check for the teachers.
You’re wrong.