Rasing the minimum wage could cost jobs

[dawny0826]

Not everybody is cut out to be a software engineer or an investment broker, Dawny. And there is a legitimate demand in our society for people who clean hotel rooms, pick fruit, scrape bubble gum off movie theatre seats, etc. That demand isn't going to go away just because one particularly talented fruit picker decides he'd rather be a brain surgeon and decides to go for it. And it's demand that creates the jobs. Long after he enrolls in med school, his low wage job will still exist. Somebody else will be doing it. Hopefully somebody who just doesn't have what it takes to be a brain surgeon.

What we hope for is that unskilled laborers are matched with appropriate work instead of living on welfare. If they're working full time already and contributing to society all that they are capable of or qualified for, and they are STILL dependent on government benefits for subsistence, something is broken in our economy and needs to be fixed.

Got it. But, here's what you seem not to get...you still can't make it on minimum wage in my community, even if it's a HIGHER mininum wage.

Maybe you have to work two mininum wage jobs to make ends meet, because that's what you can reasonably do instead of pursuing a degree or trade? Maybe you have to forego starting that family to avoid reliance on the government?

 

[esmith]

The thing is will raising the minimum wage help or hurt the poor and the unemployed?

It will neither help nor hurt the unemployed...they are unemployed. As far as the poor, it will not help them as much as finding a job that requires an education. Working at minimum wage will barely support one person. Take a look at the following link:
Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator

 

[Alceste]

At the present time it is the Democratic Party pushing this issue. They are looking at the 2014 elections with dismal expectations. They can not run on Obamacare, unemployment, the national debt and a host of other economic problems. They are running on the "war on women", and "income inequality"; that is why I said it is political not economics. Politicians only concern is keeping their job and will say or promote anything that they fell will accomplish this.

That's a rather narrow view, IMO. Unjustifiably so. Every government on earth has to deal with the job of striking a balance between labour protections, the demands of taxpayers and the freedoms of business owners. In fact, that's basically their whole job.

Minimum wage is a hugely a important piece of the economic puzzle.Set it too low and workers are horrifically exploited, unproductive and too dependent on government support. Set it too high and small to medium sized business owners lose their shirts.

I hate to burst your bubble, but American governments have been wrestling with this issue since long before Obama came onto the scene, and they'll still be wrestling with it long after he's gone, right alongside every other government on earth.

 

[Alceste]

Got it. But, here's what you seem not to get...you still can't make it on minimum wage in my community, even if it's a HIGHER mininum wage.

Maybe you have to work two mininum wage jobs to make ends meet, because that's what you can reasonably do instead of pursuing a degree or trade? Maybe you have to forego starting that family to avoid reliance on the government?

Not only do I get it, I already explained my position to you. I support a living wage model pegged to the basic cost of living, not an arbitrary minimum wage model.

A Living Wage for Families | Work should lift you out of poverty, not keep you there | A Living Wage for Families

It sounds like you are arguing that if we can't raise minimum wages to double what they are today, there's no point raising them at all. That's like arguing that if one staggering step doesn't get you all the way home, there's no point leaving the bar.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm skeptical about this "struggling American business". Profits are way up. And management wages are waaaay up. They are also sitting on a lot of money. Also realize that we aren't really talking about those cute little mom and pop startups. We are talking about McDonalds and Walmart. Yeah, really struggling there.

I specifically mentioned small bsuiness. And I agreed with you (care for me to repost?) that I too don't condone greed without investment back into a workforce.

Your choice of words here interest me. You've referred to the smaller business establishment as being "cute". I'm curious as to why you chose this descriptive.

You have yet to provide anything meaningful to quell my concerns for the smaller American business and their employees.

As for businesses who can't afford to pay their employees a reasonable wage, well, I don't see why we the people should be subsidizing a failing business. If whatever they are selling, producing, or offering, is in demand, then maybe some other business is better suited to meet it. And if it's not in demand, well, then it's a crappy business venture.

But, this isn't the scenario that I provided. I used the term "struggling". A small business doesn't operate as a large corporation does. Contingent upon the types of services that it provides, it's capacity for profitability may not be the same.

What I find almost comical is that often, with the Mom & Pop type establishments, which you yourself have mentioned, when these establishments go under, where are we forced to shop? When the smaller business goes under, we're often left with fewer choices and have to succumb to the corporate beasts which we loathe. I find this quite interesting.

Lastly, as my Henry Ford quotes noted and Alceste's Canadian study shows, when you pay your employees more money they have more money to spend. And the awesome thing about the poor and middle class is that they basically will spend any increase in wages right back into the economy. Henry Ford realized that his company would be hurt if the average American couldn't afford to purchase his product. That's why raising wages is a good idea: It helps the employee and and the employer.

Yes. When you pay your employees more money, they have more money to spend.

But for the umpteenth time, I'm not griping over a raise in mininum wage as you seem to insist I am.

I'm pointing out that even if you have more money to spend, if you're not living within your means to begin with, you're still screwed until you make the necessary changes to move beyond that situation. If this doesn't compute...I raise my hands and give up.

That's not my job, nor is it my field. But again, just because I may not know doesn't mean that I can't see a positive step when one is suggested.

When you discover the next, positive step, please pass it my way, will you?

The ultimate goal needs to be to get our massive, crippling, destructive wealth and income disparity under control. Raising minimum wage to a more reasonable level is an easy step in the right direction. But we need to address low and midlevel wages as well. I think some sort of ratio or salary cap or bonus cap may be necessary if our businesses cannot learn to self regulate.

I don't agree with you, but, let's say we achieved this...Americans would still need to wake the **** up and approach their own life choices realistically if they want to be successful. This is a truth that cannot be escaped.

 

[dawny0826]

Not only do I get it, I already explained my position to you. I support a living wage model pegged to the basic cost of living, not an arbitrary minimum wage model.

A Living Wage for Families | Work should lift you out of poverty, not keep you there | A Living Wage for Families

It sounds like you are arguing that if we can't raise minimum wages to double what they are today, there's no point raising them at all. That's like arguing that if one staggering step doesn't get you all the way home, there's no point leaving the bar.

That's not what I've said at all.

What I've said is that EVEN IF/WHEN the mininum wage is increased, people are still going to struggle like hell, because you can't live comfortably on a mininum wage.

To avoid government dependency, some would benefit given their present circumstances to make different choices than what they do.

If/when a living wage solution is proposed by our government, I'll be ready to discuss it with you.

 

[Falvlun]

I specifically mentioned small bsuiness. And I agreed with you (care for me to repost?) that I too don't condone greed without investment back into a workforce.

This is the quote I responded to:

Oh sure. It's just not possible for a struggling American business to struggle even moreso if forced to pay their employees more?

No specific reference to small business.

But I also think that the term "small business" has wormed its way into our cultural consciousness as this some Something That No One Wants to Harm magic wand that people wave when they want to make people all patriotic and kumbaya about business. "Small Business" can mean many things. It doesn't always actually mean "small", and it doesn't always mean "struggling" either. Nor does it mean "Must Save at All Costs".

Your choice of words here interest me. You've referred to the smaller business establishment as being "cute". I'm curious as to why you chose this descriptive.

Because it's invocation seems to be to create a conditioned "Aww". "Small Business" has become the political equivalent of internet kittens. Everybody wants to be seen as their friend and no one wants to be accused of kicking one.

You have yet to provide anything meaningful to quell my concerns for the smaller American business and their employees.

Let me be clearer, then: It's strawmanish to act as if it's small businesses that are the primary target effected by a raise in minimum wage. The primary minimum wage employers are fast food and Walmart-like entities. I actually suspect that most small businesses likely pay their employees better, on average, than these big corporations that could much better afford to do so.

But, this isn't the scenario that I provided. I used the term "struggling". A small business doesn't operate as a large corporation does. Contingent upon the types of services that it provides, it's capacity for profitability may not be the same.

I don't see how what you are saying is different than what I answered.

Let me put it this way: If I am struggling in my finances, does that mean that the company I work for should have to pay me more?

Sounds ludicrous, right? Then why do we think it makes sense to allow a company to pay us less simply because they are struggling financially?

What I find almost comical is that often, with the Mom & Pop type establishments, which you yourself have mentioned, when these establishments go under, where are we forced to shop? When the smaller business goes under, we're often left with fewer choices and have to succumb to the corporate beasts which we loathe. I find this quite interesting.

Raise minimum wage and maybe your Mom and Pop establishments will better able to compete with Walmart.

Yes. When you pay your employees more money, they have more money to spend.

But for the umpteenth time, I'm not griping over a raise in mininum wage as you seem to insist I am.

I'm pointing out that even if you have more money to spend, if you're not living within your means to begin with, you're still screwed until you make the necessary changes to move beyond that situation. If this doesn't compute...I raise my hands and give up.

I don't see how anything I said here was about minimum wage specifically, nor where I have insisted that you are griping over minimum wage raise.

You asked how raising the minimum wage could possibly help already struggling businesses. You included a sarcastic smilie to indicate how unlikely you found this to be.

This was an example of how it could help businesses: Higher wages mean more spending money.

Yes, people still need to live within their means, but that's not really about the question that you asked, and I was answering.

When you discover the next, positive step, please pass it my way, will you?

Again, not my job.

I don't agree with you, but, let's say we achieved this...Americans would still need to wake the **** up and approach their own life choices realistically if they want to be successful. This is a truth that cannot be escaped.

Sure. But lets at least make the mythos of the meritocracy we want at least a chance of being possible, before we crucify people for not being able to make it in the meritocracy that only exists in our imagination.

 

[dawny0826]

This is the quote I responded to:
No specific reference to small business.

Fair enough and I apologize. I intended to reference small businesses but did not.

I posted this:

I have stated that not all American businesses will benefit in the same way from such increase and may, in fact, raise prices and cut jobs to adjust.

I was inferring small business here, but, I didn't elaborate as I thought I had.

But I also think that the term "small business" has wormed its way into our cultural consciousness as this some Something That No One Wants to Harm magic wand that people wave when they want to make people all patriotic and kumbaya about business. "Small Business" can mean many things. It doesn't always actually mean "small", and it doesn't always mean "struggling" either. Nor does it mean "Must Save at All Costs".

Per above, I have not used blanket label terminology. I can't accept that all business will benefit in the same way from an increase in mininum wage and utilized my own experience as an example.

I worked for a small, appraising firm and there were less than 10 employees with the company. When business was tight, as was usual during certain seasons, I was fortunate to keep a job and was fortunate to make above mininum wage to begin with.

If the government demanded that hourly employees be paid more, they would not be able to do so without cutting one of the office jobs or cutting back hours, to compensate. Contarary to what you suggested in your last post, this was a profitable business, but a very small business, unable to extend too far outside their scope of operation if they wanted to maintain their employees and maintain profitability.

Because it's invocation seems to be to create a conditioned "Aww". "Small Business" has become the political equivalent of internet kittens. Everybody wants to be seen as their friend and no one wants to be accused of kicking one.

Sometimes, the decisions that our government makes does translate to kicking the smaller business in the balls and this does have a direct impact on people like you and I.

Let me be clearer, then: It's strawmanish to act as if it's small businesses that are the primary target effected by a raise in minimum wage.

I didn't freaking say that! You present this back to me in a different vein.

I never said that the small business was a target. I'm acknowledging the fact that smaller business can be impacted DIFFERENTLY. Not all businesses are going to be impacted in the same way.

How does this translate to "small business are the primary target impacted by a raise in minimum wage"?

I'm a The primary minimum wage employers are fast food and Walmart-like entities. I actually suspect that most small businesses likely pay their employees better, on average, than these big corporations that could much better afford to do so.

In my personal experience, I was paid about the same. I had less job stability when working for a smaller business, but this was attributable to the nature of that specific business.

A family member of mine works at WalMart and is actually pleased with his wages, considering the work that he does. He's treated well and has a comparable benefit package to mine.

Not every personal experience matches the next.

Then why do we think it makes sense to allow a company to pay us less simply because they are struggling financially?

Where did I imply that a company should pay us less BECAUSE they are struggling?

What I was trying to get at is that the company that's struggling will likely struggle moreso if required to increase its employee wages, which may have an adverse impact on its employees.

Your commentary was that such a business is probably not the best suited anyway since it's struggling and perhaps its competitors can do the job better.

Well, maybe so. But, it doesn't change the negate impact that such experiences have on people who lose their job. And I'm not saying that this negates any positives that an increase in mininum wage could have, but, I won't pretend that these sorts of scenarios won't happen either.

Raise minimum wage and maybe your Mom and Pop establishments will better able to compete with Walmart.

Where I was trying to get at with my example was that the Mom and Pop establishment wouldn't be able to keep up with higher wages and maintain profitability. It won't be competing. It's going to close.

I don't see how anything I said here was about minimum wage specifically, nor where I have insisted that you are griping over minimum wage raise.

You've restated to me several times that raising the mininum wage is still a good idea, when I never objected to it in the first place.

You asked how raising the minimum wage could possibly help already struggling businesses. You included a sarcastic smilie to indicate how unlikely you found this to be.

You have yet to provide a sufficient answer, hence my sarcasm.

This was an example of how it could help businesses: Higher wages mean more spending money.

Nevermind.

Yes, people still need to live within their means, but that's not really about the question that you asked, and I was answering.

For crying out loud! This has been my key concern all along.

Sure. But lets at least make the mythos of the meritocracy we want at least a chance of being possible, before we crucify people for not being able to make it in the meritocracy that only exists in their imagination.

Mythos my managerial ***.

 

[Alceste]

That's not what I've said at all.

What I've said is that EVEN IF/WHEN the mininum wage is increased, people are still going to struggle like hell, because you can't live comfortably on a mininum wage.

To avoid government dependency, some would benefit given their present circumstances to make different choices than what they do.

If/when a living wage solution is proposed by our government, I'll be ready to discuss it with you.

Again, it's as if you're saying that since the proposed increase is too low, there's no point going through with it. That's like saying to a dehydrated man on the brink of death "well I could give you half a glass of water, but since it's not going to fix all your problems completely I won't bother".

You've dodged my point, too. If a fruit picker wakes up one day and says "Screw this, I'm gonna be a brain surgeon" and leaves his job, the job doesn't disappear. The job will be filled by somebody else, and we NEED it to be filled by somebody else or the fruit will rot on the vine.

Good for him for improving his individual circumstances, but where there was once a fruit picker making less than a living wage, there is STILL a fruit picker making less than a living wage after the aspiring brain surgeon leaves. And it's still a problem. After the brain surgeon leaves, the person who takes over his job will be just as dependent on government assistance as he was.

We should not be expected to pass through a phase of welfare, food stamps and government benefits as a natural part of ANY career path, whether we end up picking fruit or doing brain surgery in the end. Those benefits should be reserved for people who are not employed. Especially those who are unable to work.

As a taxpayer, I prefer not to spend my hard-earned dollars supporting other Canadians who are working full time just because their employers have been allowed to pinch pennies. We can't just leave it to the "free market" because we already know the end game: many "employers" were perfectly happy with slavery. They had to be forced to give it up, by the government.

 

[Alceste]

Raise minimum wage and maybe your Mom and Pop establishments will better able to compete with Walmart.

That's for sure. I know I only ever go to a place like Walmart when I'm feeling a major financial pinch and there's something they have that I desperately need. Otherwise, I always choose to support local mom and pop businesses, local food producers, local artisans, etc.

 

[dawny0826]

Again, it's as if you're saying that since the proposed increase is too low, there's no point going through with it. That's like saying to a dehydrated man on the brink of death "well I could give you half a glass of water, but since it's not going to fix all your problems completely I won't bother".

I have NO PROBLEM with a raise in mininum wage, as I've stated now for the umpteenth time.

You've dodged my point, too. If a fruit picker wakes up one day and says "Screw this, I'm gonna be a brain surgeon" and leaves his job, the job doesn't disappear. The job will be filled by somebody else, and we NEED it to be filled by somebody else or the fruit will rot on the vine.

It's at the discretion of the owner/management of the orchard as to whether or not the job NEEDS to be filled, Alceste. It's quite possible that the orchard was pleased when the worker left, as he wasn't making goals. It's quite possible that orchard has had a rough season and will recuperate losses by refraining from bringing onboard a replacement employee and perhaps invest savings in other workers.

Or perhaps you're right, the position does need to be filled by someone else.

Good for him for improving his individual circumstances, but where there was once a fruit picker making less than a living wage, there is STILL a fruit picker making less than a living wage after the aspiring brain surgeon leaves. And it's still a problem. After the brain surgeon leaves, the person who takes over his job will be just as dependent on government assistance as he was.

That's bull ****, if the next person has a better life plan. The orchard may not have the ability to pay its employees above a certain hourly wage and that may be a known aspect of working for the orchard. These are your wages. These are the perks. If you can't swing it, don't work here.

My point still stands, the employee has to make the appropriate choices as per their personal circumstances and for some depending on the government for assistance will be the way to go. For others, going to school to pick up a trade, skill or diploma or working another job is a better choice.

The orchard is not obligated to work outside of its business model as long as it is acting lawful. As I've mentioned to you, a liveable wage for most people in my area FAR exceeds the mininum wage and most small companies couldn't pay someone like a orchard worker $30+ an hour to pick fruit.

Your expectations are unrealistic.

We should not be expected to pass through a phase of welfare, food stamps and government benefits as a natural part of ANY career path, whether we end up picking fruit or doing brain surgery in the end. Those benefits should be reserved for people who are not employed. Especially those who are unable to work.

I haven't had to. Neither has my family. We've never had to look at our employer and demand more or look to our government for assistance.

What's the differentiation between those Americans who make it and those who don't, huh?

As a taxpayer, I prefer not to spend my hard-earned dollars supporting other Canadians who are working full time just because their employers have been allowed to pinch pennies. We can't just leave it to the "free market" because we already know the end game: many "employers" were perfectly happy with slavery. They had to be forced to give it up, by the government.

This is almost laughable in the context of our conversation.

You're right. We can't leave these things to a "free market". PEOPLE also have to take personal responsibility for their own lives and choices.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Interesting story about the burger bot, but I still maintain that fast food joints will stick with human labour for the foreseeable future. I'm confident people would prefer a burger served by a person to one out of a vending machine.

I know I would.

As a Network Engineer, someone familiar with writing code and designing websites as well as being involved in the Robotics program at my job...teaching kids Robotics I can tell you that it isn't a simple or cheap to have Robots do this the way people are suggesting here. We all know how technology is. When the burger bot breaks down, and trust me it will, they better have another one on hand to meet the demands. The cost for parts, the salary it will cost for the technician to be on staff to fix, the cost in dollars for down time...and may be a few other unforeseen variables. Shucks, even the initial cost up front for the robot won't be cheap. Over time it will net a business a lot of money and it is cheaper per hour to run a robot.....but simply having a robot make your burger is nowhere the same as having a person make....and in many cases making it the exact way you want it.

Me, personally, I'm worried about a metal machine like the one in esmith's web link handling my food. How can it be cleaned. I'm uneasy about my exposed burger sitting on a conveyer belt surrounded by oily chains...

But for full disclosure....I don't eat fast food anymore. Here in VA. I buy Bison (which is naturally raised), grass fed beef and chicken....and my fruits and veggies from local farmers. I make my own burgers in house.

Oh!...and this whole thing, once again, reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"

[youtube]wW-4LU79qbU[/youtube]
Idiocracy - YouTube

 

[Reverend Rick]

If your well being is dependant on the minimum wage rate, your in for a painful life. Who on earth believes the middle class is going to include a minimum wage worker?

What is going to happen is young folks will be shut out of a first time job while the current employees will have a reduced work force or less hours.

Bottom line, they will have to work harder for more money or they will take home the same check and work less.

Where is the additional wage money going to come from? It does not exist. Anyone who has run a business understands that there is only so much money in the payroll account and you have to maintain a certain wage cost percentage to keep the doors open.

 

[Alceste]

I know I would.

As a Network Engineer, someone familiar with writing code and designing websites as well as being involved in the Robotics program at my job...teaching kids Robotics I can tell you that it isn't a simple or cheap to have Robots do this the way people are suggesting here. We all know how technology is. When the burger bot breaks down, and trust me it will, they better have another one on hand to meet the demands. The cost for parts, the salary it will cost for the technician to be on staff to fix, the cost in dollars for down time...and may be a few other unforeseen variables. Shucks, even the initial cost up front for the robot won't be cheap. Over time it will net a business a lot of money and it is cheaper per hour to run a robot.....but simply having a robot make your burger is nowhere the same as having a person make....and in many cases making it the exact way you want it.

Me, personally, I'm worried about a metal machine like the one in esmith's web link handling my food. How can it be cleaned. I'm uneasy about my exposed burger sitting on a conveyer belt surrounded by oily chains...

But for full disclosure....I don't eat fast food anymore. Here in VA. I buy Bison (which is naturally raised), grass fed beef and chicken....and my fruits and veggies from local farmers. I make my own burgers in house.

Oh!...and this whole thing, once again, reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"

[youtube]wW-4LU79qbU[/youtube]
Idiocracy - YouTube

Exactly. The whole time we were talking about burger flipping robots I couldn't stop thinking of this...

[youtube]JcniyQYFU6M[/youtube]
Heinz Automato 2 - YouTube

[youtube]4WX58CZwyiU[/youtube]
Ketchupbot + 20th Century Fox Theme on a Flute - YouTube

We found these after he told me robots could do everything better than people and I didn't believe him. So, both being intelligent people, we decided to look it up and hours of hilarity ensued.

I was also going to mention that if all the fast food joints wanted to buy burger robots, there would be a huge spike in demand for jobs building burger robots, but I think that concept is a bit beyond the audience here, so I didn't want to drag it in.

 

[Alceste]

I have NO PROBLEM with a raise in mininum wage, as I've stated now for the umpteenth time.



It's at the discretion of the owner/management of the orchard as to whether or not the job NEEDS to be filled, Alceste. It's quite possible that the orchard was pleased when the worker left, as he wasn't making goals. It's quite possible that orchard has had a rough season and will recuperate losses by refraining from bringing onboard a replacement employee and perhaps invest savings in other workers.

Or perhaps you're right, the position does need to be filled by someone else.



That's bull ****, if the next person has a better life plan. The orchard may not have the ability to pay its employees above a certain hourly wage and that may be a known aspect of working for the orchard. These are your wages. These are the perks. If you can't swing it, don't work here.

My point still stands, the employee has to make the appropriate choices as per their personal circumstances and for some depending on the government for assistance will be the way to go. For others, going to school to pick up a trade, skill or diploma or working another job is a better choice.

The orchard is not obligated to work outside of its business model as long as it is acting lawful. As I've mentioned to you, a liveable wage for most people in my area FAR exceeds the mininum wage and most small companies couldn't pay someone like a orchard worker $30+ an hour to pick fruit.

Your expectations are unrealistic.



I haven't had to. Neither has my family. We've never had to look at our employer and demand more or look to our government for assistance.

What's the differentiation between those Americans who make it and those who don't, huh?



This is almost laughable in the context of our conversation.

You're right. We can't leave these things to a "free market". PEOPLE also have to take personal responsibility for their own lives and choices.

I'm glad you support a minimum wage increase. I must have missed it when you mentioned this before. In that context, the rest of your comments make a lot more sense to me!

I'm not going into the details of the operation of my hypothetical orchard. It doesn't exist - it was a rhetorical device to help me communicate an idea. I'll try just saying the idea instead, in one single sentence so as to avoid the chopping block.

The economic mobility of individuals can not be used as an argument against a systemic wealth imbalance that leaves some full time employees reliant on government benefits because an individual's choice to change jobs does not affect the number or quality of available jobs, which is dictated only by public demand for goods and services.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Exactly. The whole time we were talking about burger flipping robots I couldn't stop thinking of this...

[youtube]JcniyQYFU6M[/youtube]
Heinz Automato 2 - YouTube

[youtube]4WX58CZwyiU[/youtube]
Ketchupbot + 20th Century Fox Theme on a Flute - YouTube

We found these after he told me robots could do everything better than people and I didn't believe him. So, both being intelligent people, we decided to look it up and hours of hilarity ensued.

I was also going to mention that if all the fast food joints wanted to buy burger robots, there would be a huge spike in demand for jobs building burger robots, but I think that concept is a bit beyond the audience here, so I didn't want to drag it in.

Too darn funny.....:biglaugh:

I'll stick with a person making my food. At least with a person there's accountability. With a machine all you're going to get from the manager is an apology (maybe).....

 

[dawny0826]

I'm not going into the details of the operation of my hypothetical orchard. It doesn't exist - it was a rhetorical device to help me communicate an idea. I'll try just saying the idea instead, in one single sentence so as to avoid the chopping block.

Doesn't matter whether you were asking or commenting rhetorically. This is a real life example of an American business, somewhere.

A good business makes decisions that yield profit, return and longevity to all of its constituents and hopefully has the ability to invest in its employees, also constituents and stakeholders. As I've stated before, I absolutely think more of those companies that pay their employees well and invest in the development of employees.

The economic mobility of individuals can not be used as an argument against a systemic wealth imbalance that leaves some full time employees reliant on government benefits because an individual's choice to change jobs does not affect the number or quality of available jobs, which is dictated only by public demand for goods and services.

You never answered my question.

Why is it that some Americans are reaching financial and personal goals within this "imbalanced system of wealth" while others are failing miserably?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If your well being is dependant on the minimum wage rate, your in for a painful life. Who on earth believes the middle class is going to include a minimum wage worker?

They already are. That's the crux of this whole debate. Where have you been?

What is going to happen is young folks will be shut out of a first time job while the current employees will have a reduced work force or less hours. Bottom line, they will have to work harder for more money or they will take home the same check and work less.

Because of a raise in the minimum wage? No they won't. Again, that's the crux of this whole argument. None of what you said meets reality. None of what you just said has the evidence to back it up. Companies, like always, will past the cost onto the consumer. Consumers are use to high and low priced goods and services. There's no shortage of people at the gas pump even though prices have doubled and tripled even though "we're more energy independent", and "we're importing less foreign oil than ever before"....yet people continue to show up at the pump, at the grocery stores and at the malls with cash in hand and ready to spend. Even the fast food industry has increased the price of their food over the years despite the miniscule minimum wage raises...on top of that they're seeing record profits. People, be they the working poor or the "middle class", are in fact working a lot harder while their pay has remained relatively flat.



It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think a raise on the minimun wage would be justified. Some jobs would likely be lost, but there are benefits that could rectify those losses through opportunities offered by other established businesses.

It would mean less reliance on public assistance as a higher wage would mean better retention of employees at a givin location, thereby improving overall quality of services and reducing training costs that typically results from revolving door type jobs. I think the pros would outweigh the cons in light of things at present. It's not just Democrats. There are also a number of Republicans who also endorse a higher minimun wage as well. It's high time to do so imo.

 

[Alceste]

Doesn't matter whether you were asking or commenting rhetorically. This is a real life example of an American business, somewhere.

A good business makes decisions that yield profit, return and longevity to all of its constituents and hopefully has the ability to invest in its employees, also constituents and stakeholders. As I've stated before, I absolutely think more of those companies that pay their employees well and invest in the development of employees.



You never answered my question.

Why is it that some Americans are reaching financial and personal goals within this "imbalanced system of wealth" while others are failing miserably?

Your questions? You asked your questions in response to my post, which said only this:

"The economic mobility of individuals can not be used as an argument against a systemic wealth imbalance that leaves some full time employees reliant on government benefits because an individual's choice to change jobs does not affect the number or quality of available jobs, which is dictated only by public demand for goods and services."

Granted, I said it in too many words, which may have led to ambiguity as to the specific thought I was trying to convey. For that I apologize - I was trying to be more clear, not less.

If you will address the sentence in bold in your reply, I promise I will answer all your questions.