freeman3 wrote:The minimum wage law applies to all businesses...are you saying that one needs to run a business in all sectors of the economy before one can have an opinion on the matter? (I have been a sole practitioner with employees.)
What would happen if you offered minimum wage?
My guess: you could not hire qualified employees.
That’s what the minimum wage is about. It’s not
supposed to support someone. It’s not supposed to be “a living wage.” It is for kids. It is for people with no skills. It is “work” until one is qualified to get something better.
The number of adults trying to sustain themselves and/or others on minimum wage is negligible.
On the other hand, make it $15 an hour and the jobs for the unskilled will become more scarce.
They might wind getting more business because low-wage workers have more money in their pocket. As I said, what happens when the minimum wage is complex with factors going in both directions. I don't think businesses get to have some kind of veto.
Because government knows best?
Anyway, I'm not sure why they would be in a better position to give an opinion on a minimum wage hike. Of course they will oppose a rise in labor costs with the uncertainty of whether they can either pass those costs on to the consumer or will get increased sales. I understand the argument. Do I need to actually run a McDonald's to know that?
No, but you actually have to think about the consequences. If you double labor costs, do you suppose that any business can simply absorb that, especially one as competitive as restaurants?
In any case, their particular self-interest falls to a larger principle: if you work full-time you should be able to minimally support yourself.
Based on what principle is this “should?” Who decides what is “minimal?” Why?
The economy will adjust. The sky will not fall.
Why shouldn’t the government mandate everything? Wages, housing, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of food you can eat? After all, if government is doing what is for the greater good, how can we argue with that? If some people have to make sacrifices, that’s what democracy is all about, right?
It is absurd that Wal-Mart gets subsidized by the rest of us because it's low-wage workers are entitled to governmental assistance because they make so little.
If people didn’t shop there, it wouldn’t work.
On the other hand, we could establish “Government-Mart” to compete with it.
I wonder who would win?