Minimum Wage Study - MW Does Not Kill Jobs

[Elixir]

Just saw the Maryland Governor bragging - they raised the MW to $15/hr at a time when they ranked #43 in unemployment (8Th highest in the nation).
Guess what @Loren Pechtel ?
NOW THEY HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NATION.

Of course, it’s not like Maryland is American Samoa or anything …

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just saw the Maryland Governor bragging - they raised the MW to $15/hr at a time when they ranked #43 in unemployment (8Th highest in the nation).
Guess what @Loren Pechtel ?
NOW THEY HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NATION.

Of course, it’s not like Maryland is American Samoa or anything …

The unemployment generally shows up in the next economic downturn.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just saw the Maryland Governor bragging - they raised the MW to $15/hr at a time when they ranked #43 in unemployment (8Th highest in the nation).
Guess what @Loren Pechtel ?
NOW THEY HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NATION.

Of course, it’s not like Maryland is American Samoa or anything …

The unemployment generally shows up in the next economic downturn.

The unemployment always shows up during an economic downturn no matter what pay rates are.

 

[Elixir]

Just saw the Maryland Governor bragging - they raised the MW to $15/hr at a time when they ranked #43 in unemployment (8Th highest in the nation).
Guess what @Loren Pechtel ?
NOW THEY HAVE THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE NATION.

Of course, it’s not like Maryland is American Samoa or anything …

The unemployment generally shows up in the next economic downturn.

SERIOUSLY?
Does your employment ranking go from #43 to #1 every time there's an upturn?
Or is it only if you raise the MW during an upturn?
WUT?
Apparently, one State raising the minimum wage puts every other State's workers out of work.

 

[bilby]

Apparently, one State raising the minimum wage puts every other State's workers out of work.

You should see the impact it's had on American Samoa!

 

[Elixir]

A

The unemployment always shows up during an economic downturn no matter what pay rates are.

Loren has taught me to be cautious. Because: Raising the MW raises economic performance and reduces unemployment during upturns. But it stores up all that benefit so it can fuck you in the ass next time there’s a downturn.
I learn SO much about economics here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A

The unemployment always shows up during an economic downturn no matter what pay rates are.

Loren has taught me to be cautious. Because: Raising the MW raises economic performance and reduces unemployment during upturns. But it stores up all that benefit so it can fuck you in the ass next time there’s a downturn.
I learn SO much about economics here.

The higher the MW the more likely a business is to shrink/go under when conditions aren't good. Businesses have to survive the whole economic cycle, not merely the good parts of it.

 

[Elixir]

The higher the MW the more likely a business is to shrink/go under when conditions aren't good.

And 78.4% of stuff like that is made up on the spot.
Can you cite real world stats to support this or did you retrieve it from the nether regions?

 

[Elixir]

Businesses have to survive the whole economic cycle, not merely the good parts of it.

Oh FFS Loren … have you EVER run a business?
We started our last one in 2007, paying WAY over MW to anyone who would stick it out. Do you remember what was going on then, economically speaking?
I’ll let you in on a little secret, Loren;
if your business doesn’t work when times are tough, your business doesn’t work, period.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Businesses have to survive the whole economic cycle, not merely the good parts of it.

Oh FFS Loren … have you EVER run a business?
We started our last one in 2007, paying WAY over MW to anyone who would stick it out. Do you remember what was going on then, economically speaking?
I’ll let you in on a little secret, Loren;
if your business doesn’t work when times are tough, your business doesn’t work, period.

Reality: Some businesses will fail. As you do things that reduce profit margin more businesses will fail.

 

[Elixir]

Businesses have to survive the whole economic cycle, not merely the good parts of it.

Oh FFS Loren … have you EVER run a business?
We started our last one in 2007, paying WAY over MW to anyone who would stick it out. Do you remember what was going on then, economically speaking?
I’ll let you in on a little secret, Loren;
if your business doesn’t work when times are tough, your business doesn’t work, period.

Reality: Some businesses will fail. As you do things that reduce profit margin more businesses will fail.

No shit?
There is literally no point in trying to “remedy” the fact that some businesses fail. Paying a high wage was our way to stay afloat as a startup during a big recession. Attracting and keeping good managers, providing exceptional customer service and carefully monitoring our processes - all of it meant owner operators working unlimited hours and taking home no more than those managers, and often less. I actually paid more in taxes than I took home, for over ten years. I paid my first Sales Manager more than time and a half my own salary TO START.
People who hire MW workers are, IMHO, more likely to fail at business than those who put employees first, investing themselves in the business. If it’s not viable for your employees, it’s no tragedy IMO if your enterprise turns out to be non-viable.

 

[marc]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

 

[Elixir]

How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap?

Henry Ford asked that question, and answered it by paying his employees such an exorbitant amount that they could afford to buy the product they were building. That was a transformational approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

You fail to understand that most minimum wage jobs are not held by primary breadwinners.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap?

Henry Ford asked that question, and answered it by paying his employees such an exorbitant amount that they could afford to buy the product they were building. That was a transformational approach.

No. That's a retcon. He had to pay more because assembly line working conditions were harder than the old ways.

 

[Elixir]

How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap?

Henry Ford asked that question, and answered it by paying his employees such an exorbitant amount that they could afford to buy the product they were building. That was a transformational approach.

No. That's a retcon. He had to pay more because assembly line working conditions were harder than the old ways.

The effect was as (retroactively or not) described.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

You fail to understand that most minimum wage jobs are not held by primary breadwinners.

Who the fuck cares if most are not (and I don't really believe you anyway). If it helps one person who is the primary bread winner, and just happens to help a bunch of people who aren't? Oh well, guess we'll just have to live with helping all those other undeserving people too.

Because that's what it comes down to. You (and a bunch of other socially irresponsible, at best, people) think that people working 'those jobs' don't deserve a living wage because...what? It might hurt some business owners?

Maybe those business owners should just get a job that pays a real wage.

 

[Elixir]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

You fail to understand that most minimum wage jobs are not held by primary breadwinners.

Who the fuck cares if most are not (and I don't really believe you anyway). If it helps one person who is the primary bread winner, and just happens to help a bunch of people who aren't? Oh well, guess we'll just have to live with helping all those other undeserving people too.

Because that's what it comes down to. You (and a bunch of other socially irresponsible, at best, people) think that people working 'those jobs' don't deserve a living wage because...what? It might hurt some business owners?

Maybe those business owners should just get a job that pays a real wage.

A thousand times that!
On several occasions my partners and I agreed to intervene (financially) in an employee’s problem. NOT because we thought of them as “family” but because we thought of them as PEOPLE who had helped us, and through no fault of their own, had run into troubles that we could help remedy. And of course the cost of that help was weighed against the cost of losing that employee. Not that losing them would have been much more costly, but rather that helping them didn’t cost a lot more than losing them, and it was the right thing to do. I wonder how the current employees would fare …

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

You fail to understand that most minimum wage jobs are not held by primary breadwinners.

So? It's then okay to exploit the worker because they aren't "Primary breadwinners"?

 

[TV and credit cards]

The problem I've always seen with minimum wage not being a living wage is this. If people can't make enough to live on, then what little money they do have will only be spent on necessities, and the cheapest ones at that. How can any business survive if people can't actually afford to buy your crap? Now if everyone makes at least enough to live on, and still have a little money left over, then they will spend that, your business will have more customers, more income which offset the slight increase in salaries.

I put a lot of blame for the wage gap on the Regan tax cuts. Before income over a certain point were heavily taxes, so if the company owners wanted to avoid paying those taxes they would reinvest a good portion of the money back into the business, for expansion, upgrades, employing more people, paying them better. When those tax cuts went through and the owners could pocket a bigger portion of the profits, well then increasing profits became priority. And the biggest expense was labor, so fire people, make those left take on the extra work, and make sure no one is paid what they are worth.

You fail to understand that most minimum wage jobs are not held by primary breadwinners.

Who the fuck cares if most are not (and I don't really believe you anyway). If it helps one person who is the primary bread winner, and just happens to help a bunch of people who aren't? Oh well, guess we'll just have to live with helping all those other undeserving people too.

Because that's what it comes down to. You (and a bunch of other socially irresponsible, at best, people) think that people working 'those jobs' don't deserve a living wage because...what? It might hurt some business owners?

Maybe those business owners should just get a job that pays a real wage.

A thousand times that!
On several occasions my partners and I agreed to intervene (financially) in an employee’s problem. NOT because we thought of them as “family” but because we thought of them as PEOPLE who had helped us, and through no fault of their own, had run into troubles that we could help remedy. And of course the cost of that help was weighed against the cost of losing that employee. Not that losing them would have been much more costly, but rather that helping them didn’t cost a lot more than losing them, and it was the right thing to do. I wonder how the current employees would fare …

And it probably paid for itself to have employees focusing on their job rather than some financial issue at home. It may be hard to value such a thing but it's a bet I'd make.