"Raising the Minimum Wage Kills Jobs": A Scam Not a Fact

[Twilight Hue]

I have always thought that raising the minimum wage creates jobs.

Reason. When you give low paid workers more money they spend it immediately. They spend it on food, drink, clothes, fuel, maybe upgrade an appliance, a better second hand car, whatever, but they spend it. They spend it in the local economy which means that local shops and bars flourish and take on staff - i.e. more jobs.

If you give the 'well off' more money, they invest it (often abroad) put it in their pension pot, etc. In other words it vanishes into bankers pockets.

I don't disagree but it forces employers to be more selective in hiring, they must compensate those in higher positions that go beyond minimum raise itself. It causes automation and other similar venues to be implemented and of course all around higher consumer prices making things go back to square one in a vicious economic cycle.

 

[tytlyf]

It causes automation and other similar venues to be implemented and of course all around higher consumer prices making things go back to square one in a vicious economic cycle.

Good, bring on the automation! It's the 21st century after all. The automation line is used by all conservatives without proof. The corporations that want to profit off low wages are the ones telling you that.

At the end of the day, customer service is still king at McDonalds and other businesses. A machine isn't good at customer service. That's like saying why do people still have live customer service reps on the phone when it could be automated? Automation pisses people off and some people like hitting '0' over and over for a live person. Automation creates jobs too you know

 

[Ouroboros]

Good, bring on the automation! It's the 21st century after all. The automation line is used by all conservatives without proof. The corporations that want to profit off low wages are the ones telling you that.

I talked to some friends a few years back that they all should automate the fast food industry. You would get more consistent cooked food. Less cross-contamination. Easier ordering. And much more.

But... you still need people to clean the machine, prep it and load, and many other things. The ordering can be done over smart phone apps.

At the end of the day, customer service is still king at McDonalds and other businesses.

Nah. In-n-out has better customer service. And they actually do (already) pay their employees close to $15. Their success is found in the quality of the food.

Today, especially in the area I live in, it's becoming more and more important with good food. Prepared right. Get the order right. Healthy ingredients. And sometimes even gluten free, corn free, and whatnot.

A machine isn't good at customer service. That's like saying why do people still have live customer service reps on the phone when it could be automated?

Actually, calling Cox, AT&T, and many of the other customer service lines, you have to go through an automated system before you can talk to a real human. Sometimes the automated system can solve the problem for you. I remember years ago how Cox would have their automated system guide you through resetting your TV box and they would even send out a reset signal, before you even talked to a live person.

Automation pisses people off and some people like hitting '0' over and over for a live person. Automation creates jobs too you know

Yes, they do. More specialized jobs. People have to get more training and education before they can work at McDonald's in the future. They will become robot administrators rather than food specialists. A screwdriver in hand rather than a spatula.

 

[tytlyf]

I talked to some friends a few years back that they all should automate the fast food industry. You would get more consistent cooked food. Less cross-contamination. Easier ordering. And much more.

But... you still need people to clean the machine, prep it and load, and many other things. The ordering can be done over smart phone apps.


Nah. In-n-out has better customer service. And they actually do (already) pay their employees close to $15. Their success is found in the quality of the food.

Today, especially in the area I live in, it's becoming more and more important with good food. Prepared right. Get the order right. Healthy ingredients. And sometimes even gluten free, corn free, and whatnot.


Actually, calling Cox, AT&T, and many of the other customer service lines, you have to go through an automated system before you can talk to a real human. Sometimes the automated system can solve the problem for you. I remember years ago how Cox would have their automated system guide you through resetting your TV box and they would even send out a reset signal, before you even talked to a live person.


Yes, they do. More specialized jobs. People have to get more training and education before they can work at McDonald's in the future. They will become robot administrators rather than food specialists. A screwdriver in hand rather than a spatula.

Yep, In n Out does good work and has quality food. Their employees also share in the profits and performance of their restaurant. The food at a lot of these huge corporate food chains is crap because the corporation is profit minded and trying to reduce costs. There's nothing wrong with capitalism, that's the purpose of private businesses. But when capitalism gets to a certain level, corruption and greed take over. At that point the government needs to step in to curb the activity. (example: recent government strike down of merger of office supply corporations)

The fossil fuel industry is a good example of corruption and greed. Too much money on their hands. They hate regulations because safety laws bite into their profits. They don't care about anything outside their bottom line. Screw the little people in America in favor of profits.

When you hear a republican talking about smaller government, that's code for "take your safety laws out of our business so we can make more money."

 

[Ouroboros]

Another company who moves, this time from Washington state, after the minimum raise went into effect:

https://shiftwa.org/first-casualty-of-seattles-15-minimum-wage/

Founder John Burroughs and son David Burroughs (Vice Chair) said that Seattle’s $15 minimum wage “nudged them into action.” Burroughs wants to keep production in the United States, though the company does have a plant in Ireland. Burroughs said Seattle’s new minimum wage would “eventually add up to a few million dollars a year.”

 

[Ouroboros]

Yep, In n Out does good work and has quality food. Their employees also share in the profits and performance of their restaurant. The food at a lot of these huge corporate food chains is crap because the corporation is profit minded and trying to reduce costs. There's nothing wrong with capitalism, that's the purpose of private businesses. But when capitalism gets to a certain level, corruption and greed take over. At that point the government needs to step in to curb the activity. (example: recent government strike down of merger of office supply corporations)

True. But In-n-out is an example of a corporation that isn't corrupting the food or customer experience. And they can do so without having a government forcing them to do so.

We also have to be vigilant to an overgrown government. A government with a large base of employees costs money as well, and the answer isn't to just go ahead and "print" more. There has to be some responsibility there as well.

The fossil fuel industry is a good example of corruption and greed. Too much money on their hands. They hate regulations because safety laws bite into their profits. They don't care about anything outside their bottom line. Screw the little people in America in favor of profits.

Agree. Unregulated capitalism creates corruption in corporative management, while unregulated government creates corruption in government.

When you hear a republican talking about smaller government, that's code for "take your safety laws out of our business so we can make more money."

I can agree that this is what many republicans do, and I think many libertarians have a skewed idea of what the government should do and shouldn't do. I've become so independent to the degree that I can't call myself anything anymore.

 

[Ouroboros]

Garment manufacturer in California considers outsourcing when $15 goes into effect:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garment-manufacturing-la-20160416-story.html

 

[tytlyf]

Agree. Unregulated capitalism creates corruption in corporative management, while unregulated government creates corruption in government.

Corruption in government comes with the corruption of corporations first. For instance, the fossil fuel industry controls the republican party. They spend millions buying elections in all districts across the country in the hopes of having favorable/unfavorable laws introduced or removed. Corruption in government doesn't come on it's own, it comes from corporate influence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Corruption in government comes with the corruption of corporations first. For instance, the fossil fuel industry controls the republican party. They spend millions buying elections in all districts across the country in the hopes of having favorable/unfavorable laws introduced or removed. Corruption in government doesn't come on it's own, it comes from corporate influence.

Without a corporate infrastructure, there is no goverment. Are you suggesting Goverment should take control over corporations?

 

[Ouroboros]

Corruption in government comes with the corruption of corporations first. For instance, the fossil fuel industry controls the republican party. They spend millions buying elections in all districts across the country in the hopes of having favorable/unfavorable laws introduced or removed. Corruption in government doesn't come on it's own, it comes from corporate influence.

Soviet had a corrupt government without the influence of corporations. I can't say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if corruption existed in the Roman empire as well. But I do agree that a lot of corruption in American government comes from lobbyism by corporations.

Basically, power and influence fuel corruption. But ethics and rules can hold them accountable.

 

[tytlyf]

Without a corporate infrastructure, there is no goverment. Are you suggesting Goverment should take control over corporations?

I didn't say that, I said the government should step in and eliminate corruption and greed. Not all corporations have the problem.

 

[Acim]

So, let's take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Bringing back slavery would be good for new businesses. So let's do it!!

Curious where you made leap from: labor costs are perhaps the biggest expense of any business
To: slavery would be good for new businesses

I'm thinking you are saying because slavery would reduce (labor) costs to nothing (for business owner), this would be ideal situation, from business owner's perspective. Yet, clearly it has other costs, namely that workers detest being treated as slaves, having zero freedom. If somehow, we could (magically) have voluntary slaves who would never seek to forego their servitude, then perhaps it would work out. If honestly playing with this idea, I think owner would be one that would be ripe for this type of position within their company and making as many people equal to their status as possible. Welcome to communism.

In some ways, I do actually see communism as the ideal, but loses its luster once people perceived to be 'more intelligent' or 'more resourceful' are advocating that there are certain jobs (i.e. entry level) that they should never have to perform given their level of experience/knowledge. Humans seem way too entrenched in the belief that great leadership matters, that I don't think the ideal could ever be realized as long as promotion away from front lines as seen as 'successful.'

I don't know how unique I am, but I've consistently felt over my working life that those on front lines deserve the most of whatever is connected to success (be that money, perceived political/organizational power, recognition). Yet, without those same people having equal sense of risk in any organization they are participating in, then it is unfair to say they deserve most/more of anything. With business, owner(s) risk own capital in the business and their work 'freedom' is tied to their ownership and the many responsibilities that come with that, some of which can be passed off to a management type people, but whom ultimately are responsibility of owner(s). A slave wants to runaway from their servitude because they hate the way they are treated (by management) or what their life has become and that is entirely on the owner, not the slave (at least in the business sense).

Here in the information age, the logical conclusion is create as many (technological) robots as possible who will never second guess their servitude. Champion science for creating all these highly industrious workers. Hope no one blames science for taking away the livelihood / joys that come from serving on the front lines. If they do start to blame science, start blaming Bush or Trump for their shortcomings, and hope for the best.

 

[Altfish]

Curious where you made leap from: labor costs are perhaps the biggest expense of any business
To: slavery would be good for new businesses

I'm thinking you are saying because slavery would reduce (labor) costs to nothing (for business owner), this would be ideal situation, from business owner's perspective. Yet, clearly it has other costs, namely that workers detest being treated as slaves, having zero freedom. If somehow, we could (magically) have voluntary slaves who would never seek to forego their servitude, then perhaps it would work out. If honestly playing with this idea, I think owner would be one that would be ripe for this type of position within their company and making as many people equal to their status as possible. Welcome to communism.

In some ways, I do actually see communism as the ideal, but loses its luster once people perceived to be 'more intelligent' or 'more resourceful' are advocating that there are certain jobs (i.e. entry level) that they should never have to perform given their level of experience/knowledge. Humans seem way too entrenched in the belief that great leadership matters, that I don't think the ideal could ever be realized as long as promotion away from front lines as seen as 'successful.'

I don't know how unique I am, but I've consistently felt over my working life that those on front lines deserve the most of whatever is connected to success (be that money, perceived political/organizational power, recognition). Yet, without those same people having equal sense of risk in any organization they are participating in, then it is unfair to say they deserve most/more of anything. With business, owner(s) risk own capital in the business and their work 'freedom' is tied to their ownership and the many responsibilities that come with that, some of which can be passed off to a management type people, but whom ultimately are responsibility of owner(s). A slave wants to runaway from their servitude because they hate the way they are treated (by management) or what their life has become and that is entirely on the owner, not the slave (at least in the business sense).

Here in the information age, the logical conclusion is create as many (technological) robots as possible who will never second guess their servitude. Champion science for creating all these highly industrious workers. Hope no one blames science for taking away the livelihood / joys that come from serving on the front lines. If they do start to blame science, start blaming Bush or Trump for their shortcomings, and hope for the best.

It was said partly in jest.
But since you brought employee moral up; how do you think minimum wage employees think of their worth?

 

[Acim]

I am not personally aware of raising wages killing jobs in and of itself.
Although I do have first hand experience with raising the cost of doing business will raise the cost of the product to offset any loss.
In that case it would depend on how much the price increase is and if people are still willing to buy it. If so than alls good, if not than yes, surely jobs will be lost and business's could close.

IMO, if you understand product cost to consumer must necessarily go up to balance the budget, then raising wages is killing jobs in and of itself. Or akin to saying, jumping off a cliff won't kill you in and of itself, but once you hit the ground you could be killed. Therefore okay to jump off cliffs (as a general principle) since we know that in and of itself won't kill you.

Really, the only part of this that doesn't jive up well, and has been brought up probably several times in the thread already is that big shots in a company would possibly be helpful to take wage cuts, going from $2.5 million annually to perhaps as low as $300,000 annually. Must be rough. Until you realize that their talents / knowledge (of personnel/resource management) would be coveted by companies (i.e. Big Corporate) who could handle paying them $300 million annually.

It truly strikes me that raising the minimum wage is designed to impact the little guy in the business world: the smaller businesses. It'll impact all businesses for sure, but could rather easily kill off a bunch of mid-sized companies or lower. The workers at those companies will love (in the short term) the wage increase, but probably hate the fact that suddenly the market no longer wanted to pay $15 for the same product they were getting for $9.95 before the wage increase. And when they see the big shots in the company are still retaining their umpteen hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars a year jobs, they'll scapegoat them more than the market (much less themselves).

Adding taxes (based on zealous regulations) only compounds all the inherent problems. How about if we are going to increase labor costs, we put an indefinite hold on certain regulations to help make sure those (smaller) businesses can stay afloat?

 

[Acim]

Good, bring on the automation! It's the 21st century after all.

Automation pisses people off

All in the same post.

 

[Walter Russell]

IMO, if you understand product cost to consumer must necessarily go up to balance the budget, then raising wages is killing jobs in and of itself. Or akin to saying, jumping off a cliff won't kill you in and of itself, but once you hit the ground you could be killed. Therefore okay to jump off cliffs (as a general principle) since we know that in and of itself won't kill you.

Really, the only part of this that doesn't jive up well, and has been brought up probably several times in the thread already is that big shots in a company would possibly be helpful to take wage cuts, going from $2.5 million annually to perhaps as low as $300,000 annually. Must be rough. Until you realize that their talents / knowledge (of personnel/resource management) would be coveted by companies (i.e. Big Corporate) who could handle paying them $300 million annually.

It truly strikes me that raising the minimum wage is designed to impact the little guy in the business world: the smaller businesses. It'll impact all businesses for sure, but could rather easily kill off a bunch of mid-sized companies or lower. The workers at those companies will love (in the short term) the wage increase, but probably hate the fact that suddenly the market no longer wanted to pay $15 for the same product they were getting for $9.95 before the wage increase. And when they see the big shots in the company are still retaining their umpteen hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars a year jobs, they'll scapegoat them more than the market (much less themselves).

Adding taxes (based on zealous regulations) only compounds all the inherent problems. How about if we are going to increase labor costs, we put an indefinite hold on certain regulations to help make sure those (smaller) businesses can stay afloat?

I only take issue with your first point.

My meaning "in and of itself" is because if the product has enough demand that ppl still buy it after the price increase than theres no reason for job loss. Its only when enough customers decide that the product isnt worth the increase that jobs are affected.

I will agree, considering these are low wage jobs, theres probably not enough value in the product their producing for ppl to continue buying it but that would just be my assumption reguardless of the likelyhood.
Its not like these low wage workers are building iphones or something like that in which ppl will pay about anything for.

 

[Acim]

It was said partly in jest.
But since you brought employee moral up; how do you think minimum wage employees think of their worth?

I don't think there's a monolithic response.

I do think for people gaining their first job, it's unbelievably great to have steady income.
I think for people who have self convinced themselves that there is no reason to move beyond entry-level or who do things to sabotage their own ability to advance, it can suck to stay at the lowest level of the payment scale.

Because the value of entry level/minimum wage is across the board in terms of how higher wage earners treat these type of employees (same with how public treats them), it is challenging to convey how all view it. In very general terms, and a bit from my experience in companies, it seems like minimum wage workers are under valued, considered expedient. That they ought to consider themselves lucky to have a job at all and that they are easily replaceable. I think under valuing entry level jobs is a huge reason why companies or markets go on a downward trend. At same time, I'm not sure of how to get around that for everyone.

@tytlyf wants to bring up greed as if that is only occurring at upper level management and thus where corruption happens (solely). It's hard to disagree with that to level of complete denial, but I actually think the greed starts far lower than that. I think wanting to have minimum wage raised for all companies is clearly a sign of greed, especially if willing to protest about it. Unless workers are all making the same amount, you're always going to have perceived differences in 'level of success' and customers will be tuned into it. If having problem with a company and wanting to get it straightened out sooner than later, do you not ask to speak to a supervisor immediately because the perception is they are more successful at resolving customer issues? Whereas reality strikes me that the higher it goes in management, the more the company will give away to get the customer off the phone and get everyone back to 'normal' operations. If front line was empowered to give everything upper level management could give to satisfy a customer, then there would be no need to escalate and front line would be deemed highly valuable. As it stands, they are sometimes treated more like first line of defense in a company that wishes to do as little as possible in appeasing customer issues.

 

[YmirGF]

I didn't say that, I said the government should step in and eliminate corruption and greed. Not all corporations have the problem.

How do you propose governments steeped in corruption attempt to solve corruption elsewhere? Isn't it akin to letting the foxes police the hen houses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The thread is about showing any evidence for companies cutting jobs because of the $15 minimum pay. These articles show directly that there are companies who are doing exactly this simply because (as they say) can't take the $15.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Large corporations are what kill mom and pop shops, they are economy killers, and economically we'd all better off without them. It would kill Indiana, but California has more high-tech jobs and other positions that it may be better off if they start propping themselves up rather than relying on these large corporations do (and who certainly are not keeping their money in the state).

Let me ask a very simple question that does not have a simple answer
If the minimum wage is raised does this not cause workers to ask for a raise.
Look at it this way
Minimum wage Y is raised X amount. Workers with skills higher that minimum wage earners who were making Y+W now see their relative wage reduced to Y+W-X. Would not they, especially in unions, demand a raise by X amount or more?

So? More money for more people benefits more people rather than more money for a few people. Workers are having to do more and more for less pay and benefits, and it is about time they get paid for their work.

Yes, but that's not intrinsically a negative. There's a rule of thumb that goes like this: a rising tide raises all ships. You, I, and everyone here in all likelihood very much were positively affect by the development of labor unions even if one didn't belong to one because it led to higher wages overall.

Where I live, union jobs may not have raised wages for everybody else, but it's kept local unemployment low. The union workers (who are mostly Chrysler but used to be that and Delco) are known for loving their toys and being big spenders. There are actually a ton of restaurants and fast food joints in the city, and many union workers here make up a good part of the daily/routine customers for many of those places.
But, it also does kind of suck because the town pretty much exist to serve Chrysler workers, because not that many people who don't work there make enough to frivolously spend, and outside of Chrysler those with money tend to not live here.

 

[esmith]

So? More money for more people benefits more people rather than more money for a few people. Workers are having to do more and more for less pay and benefits, and it is about time they get paid for their work.

.

Not necessarily. Increase in wages across the board by X amount ultimately causes a rise in goods and services which then makes the dollar you earn worth less.
I can see a raise in the minimum wage by a percentage based upon the CPI since 2009 (last time the minimum wage was raised) If I have done my figures right the CPI has increased around 11% since 2009
CPI July 2009 = 215.351
CPI July 2015 = 238.654
gain of 23.303 or a gain of 11%
based on this I have no problem raising the minimum wage to $8.05 (minimum wage July 2009 was $7.25)
figures on CPI from http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx?reloaded=true