Rise of Minimum wage?

[chang50]

Personally I think the rise to 300 baht per day was a good step..

[Funkyterrance]

He does more than shovel dirt, just sayin'.

More what exactly? Not more work, most likely. More responsibilities, more headaches perhaps but it makes one wonder how big that bridge between the owner and the lowly worker ought to be. I think that's a pretty big problem with the U.S. tbh, everybody wants to run shit but nobody wants to do shit. Make the doing worth more and a lot more will get "done".
I'd just like to make a preemptive suggestion that we not enter free markets into this one because it not about that imho, it's about greed and preying on the ignorance of your workers, AKA dishonesty. Why pay people more than they are willing to work for you ask? Because they deserve to make more.

[PLAYER57832]

Suppose that lawyer had to go to law school and pull thousands in in credit to go there. He has to pay that back not you. There is a cost to run a business. I know I own my own company and if I paid my employees the same wage as me I would ne broke. But there has to be a fair wage paid no doubt . I also do 10 times the work be it paying for insurance,fuel,material,marketing and so on. Not everyone can make the same if there are hidden costs or if the work load is not the same. Should a burger flipper get the same wage as a manager who went to collage?

Lawyers are not exactly in danger of losing their high incomes. Law students ARE sometimes in a trap of thinking they could spend whatever they wished for college becuase they would just naturally make it later... even though there are far more people trying for the bar in many states than there are open positions for attorneys.

But, look at BK's example. Or, I can point to an interview with a New Yord provider of in home care services -- the people who take care of elderly and disabled individuals. They actually don't even have to be paid the minimum wage because they are classed, legally, the same as your teenage babysitters. But... go ask any agency to have someone come in and you will be hard pressed to find someone in a city for less than $20 an hour.. sometimes more. The company owner, though was claiming he could not possibly afford to pay more than $9.00 an hour (actually a very good wage for home service providers!). If the company really needs $11.00 for overhead, then there is something wrong with how they are running their company!
Even around here, agencies get that much or more -- but pay $7.50 an hour. (minimum is $7.35)

OR, look at any temp agency. I worked for Kelly temps for a few months when between biology jobs, first doing inventory work for $7.50 in Buffalo NY. That was OK, enough to get me rent, etc. The company paid just over $10 for me., not an unreasonable profit. I, of course got no real benefits, not even sick time, but they did cover workman's comp and such. Then I wound up doing some computer work. The temp agency then charged the company over $30 an hour.. but I did not get a dime more, even though the company literature (not contract, just their advertisements and such) claimed I would.

Teh fact is that minimum wage is $9.00 and more in some places. Businesses seem to do just fine. The truth is that when minimum wage is raised, there is a short term layoff impact. A few companies that were close to folding will close a tad earlier, but the majority keep on. Within 2 years everything is back as it was before, except with more money flowing from the bottom.

[warmonger1981]

Never paid minimum wage nor will I. My job is too tough on the body. My guys start at 15 for not knowing shit. Temp agency in my opinion are crap and a scam. By the way I pay workmans comp and unemployment insurance but I cant collect it myself.

[AAFitz]

I dont know. The least amount Ive worked for since I was 19 was $10 an hour, and that was almost 25 years ago. I cant fathom living off of less.

The take-home on that is what $80....eat lunch $5, pay for gas $10...youre at $65 day. Those who argue against this are typically those who benefited most when their grandfathers benefited from such deals, and no doubt they are sickened by the fact that those that benefited so greatly, spit on what they used to not need it anymore.

Further, by not boosting the lowest of the lower class, they drag them and everyone around them down, and only those at the very top, could ever benefit.

The main problem of course, besides ignorance, is that we are directly competing with China, who has no problem exploiting their children, and essentially creating a slave society and labeling it capitalism. We all empower it to some degree, but posters like NS, albeit unwittingly, condones this with every post he ever makes, mostly, because he is too young, and has been coddled by a system he has come to forsake.

Its disgusting.

I hate agreeing with BK.

[BigBallinStalin]

He does more than shovel dirt, just sayin'.

More what exactly? Not more work, most likely. More responsibilities, more headaches perhaps but it makes one wonder how big that bridge between the owner and the lowly worker ought to be. I think that's a pretty big problem with the U.S. tbh, everybody wants to run shit but nobody wants to do shit. Make the doing worth more and a lot more will get "done".
I'd just like to make a preemptive suggestion that we not enter free markets into this one because it not about that imho, it's about greed and preying on the ignorance of your workers, AKA dishonesty. Why pay people more than they are willing to work for you ask? Because they deserve to make more.

You're talking outta your ass.

[BigBallinStalin]

I dont know. The least amount Ive worked for since I was 19 was $10 an hour, and that was almost 25 years ago. I cant fathom living off of less.

The take-home on that is what $80....eat lunch $5, pay for gas $10...youre at $65 day. Those who argue against this are typically those who benefited most when their grandfathers benefited from such deals, and no doubt they are sickened by the fact that those that benefited so greatly, spit on what they used to not need it anymore.

Further, by not boosting the lowest of the lower class, they drag them and everyone around them down, and only those at the very top, could ever benefit.

The main problem of course, besides ignorance, is that we are directly competing with China, who has no problem exploiting their children, and essentially creating a slave society and labeling it capitalism. We all empower it to some degree, but posters like NS, albeit unwittingly, condones this with every post he ever makes, mostly, because he is too young, and has been coddled by a system he has come to forsake.

Its disgusting.

I hate agreeing with BK.

Don't you have a business? You should quadruple the pay of all your workers and see what happens. Why not give them all $100 per hour? See how that works out!

[AAFitz]

I dont know. The least amount Ive worked for since I was 19 was $10 an hour, and that was almost 25 years ago. I cant fathom living off of less.

The take-home on that is what $80....eat lunch $5, pay for gas $10...youre at $65 day. Those who argue against this are typically those who benefited most when their grandfathers benefited from such deals, and no doubt they are sickened by the fact that those that benefited so greatly, spit on what they used to not need it anymore.

Further, by not boosting the lowest of the lower class, they drag them and everyone around them down, and only those at the very top, could ever benefit.

The main problem of course, besides ignorance, is that we are directly competing with China, who has no problem exploiting their children, and essentially creating a slave society and labeling it capitalism. We all empower it to some degree, but posters like NS, albeit unwittingly, condones this with every post he ever makes, mostly, because he is too young, and has been coddled by a system he has come to forsake.

Its disgusting.

I hate agreeing with BK.

Don't you have a business? You should quadruple the pay of all your workers and see what happens. Why not give them all $100 per hour? See how that works out!

Actually, if I hire them to do some jobs for the state, $100 is the required amount. I know quite a few multi-millionaires that do this all the time. I wish I had the means to do just that, because they make a fortune doing it.

And I believe your information is bad once again. They are raising it to $10, not $100. You are off by a factor of ten. An improvement.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, why not pay them all $100 per hour? What price makes sense? Should marginal costs exceed marginal benefit?

[AAFitz]

Wait, why not pay them all $100 per hour? What price makes sense? Should marginal costs exceed marginal benefit?

Well, again, exxagerating to the factor of ten, may be fun, and all you are capable on the subject, as it seems, but its equally pointless and childish.

In any case, I would never stoop to paying them less than $10 an hour, and have never paid less than that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, why not pay them all $100 per hour? What price makes sense? Should marginal costs exceed marginal benefit?

Well, again, exxagerating to the factor of ten, may be fun, and all you are capable on the subject, as it seems, but its equally pointless and childish.

In any case, I would never stoop to paying them less than $10 an hour, and have never paid less than that.

There's no need to be an asshole. Aren't you an adult?

The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults because of reasons only you know why, amirite?

[Funkyterrance]

There's no need to be an asshole. Aren't you an adult?

You're talking outta your ass.

But honestly, I don't think I am. There are a lot of people out there who actually believe what their bosses tell them. For instance: "I can't afford to give you a raise right now". I've seen it with my own eyes man and I've seen the shitty boss drive away in his 75k work truck that he uses basically to commute to work.
So if the employees are ignorant to their own value as an employee, how can they know how much to insist on being payed? The owner continues to pad his pocket until his workers have no choice but to give him an ultimatum: Pay me more or I'm leaving. Why should it have to reach this point before a fair wage is given? I'd wager a lot of times it doesn't even get that far into the conversation. Inefficient.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's no need to be an asshole. Aren't you an adult?

You're talking outta your ass.

But honestly, I don't think I am. There are a lot of people out there who actually believe what their bosses tell them. For instance: "I can't afford to give you a raise right now". I've seen it with my own eyes man and I've seen the shitty boss drive away in his 75k work truck that he uses basically to commute to work.
(1) So if the employees are ignorant to their own value as an employee, (2) how can they know how much to insist on being payed? (3) The owner continues to pad his pocket until his workers have no choice but to give him an ultimatum: Pay me more or I'm leaving. (4) Why should it have to reach this point before a fair wage is given? (5) I'd wager a lot of times it doesn't even get that far into the conversation. (6) Inefficient.

Yeah, you were talking outta your ass. I was responding to barunt's situation, and then you invent a bunch of nonsense about his situation--as if you were pulling things outta your butt. Hence, talking outta your ass. Gotta call it like I see it, and there's not much of a quicker way to say it.

(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.

(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"

(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.

(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.

(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.

(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

[PLAYER57832]

Never paid minimum wage nor will I. My job is too tough on the body. My guys start at 15 for not knowing shit. Temp agency in my opinion are crap and a scam. By the way I pay workmans comp and unemployment insurance but I cant collect it myself.

Well, sounds like you are a reasonable manager or owner. Per the unemployment bit.. I actually agree. I think you can understand why the rule. Basically, you are in charge of your own income and workload. (at least in theory, anyway) It would be all too easy for small business owners to fictitiously put themselves out of work. BUT.. here is the deal. You don't get unemployment, but you get to set the rates (more or less). You get to choose the conditions, etc, etc. Its part of the other side of not having to answer to another boss (except, of course the customer).


But.. the temp agency abuses are part of what drive up your costs. When they hire people for 5 months and 27 days, because if they keep them 6 months they have to pay benefits (not sure if that is the case now, but it was for years)... then whether they wind up re-hiring that person in a month or let them go onto unemployment for a while before rehiring them, we all still pay. We ALSO pay in an even bigger way when they don't pay as much into social security or in taxes -- or in being able to just buy various products that will, in turn, generate more jobs.

[kentington]

The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults because of reasons only you know why, amirite?

This is why minimum wage is kind of ridiculous. There are jobs out there that aren't worth minimum wage. Someone else already said it. There are jobs that are valued lower and when they first started were fulfilled by younger people getting work experience and living at home with parents.

In BK's case. This guy may be taking home some extra cash, but he got the job, scheduled it, had the equipment and the risk. If anything goes wrong he is the guy with responsibility. It may seem rude that he paid you less than the other guys, but by your own admission your work wasn't as productive.

Then for some to say don't start a business if you can't pay the employees. Seriously? Don't take the job if it doesn't provide enough for you. If there are no other jobs and you are stuck with that one, then don't complain because at least you will have a job. It sounds harsh but the person who starts a small business is usually in the hole financially for the first years. They aren't taking a paycheck and it is going to pay off debt incurred by starting a business. They are probably risking their house and cars. If you work for less and stick with a small business then you may be there when it grows and benefit from it. If not then at least you have experience and appear more valuable to the next employer.

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah, you were talking outta your ass. I was responding to barunt's situation, and then you invent a bunch of nonsense about his situation--as if you were pulling things outta your butt. Hence, talking outta your ass. Gotta call it like I see it, and there's not much of a quicker way to say it.

I'll just chalk the rudeness off to my proposal to my suggestion of leaving free markets out of it then.

(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.

I do make assumptions from time to time but this isn't one of those times. I've worked alongside minimum wagers and they really don't have any idea of what they are worth beyond the fact that they know they need to survive. I think an employee needs to know how much profit they are actually producing in order to realize what they are worth. Take into account the varying levels self-esteem of any given employee and you've really got a distorted idea of self-worth. I don't see how knowing what one's work is worth should affect someone receiving what one is worth.

(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"

Take into account the ideas presented in field (1) and you can see how this really doesn't matter. Minimum wagers are not as ambitious as you would like to think BBS, hence their position on the totem pole. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.

(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.

I mean really, if the person doesn't earn their wage it's pretty simple: you fire them. This creates initiative for people to work up to snuff.

(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.
(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

[/quote]
I'm not going to focus on the "fairness" from an earner's standpoint if it's got a stigma attached to it in your mind. How about the matter of efficiency since you seem to respect that? How is having people constantly dropping off and being added to a system really going to be efficient? It may be efficient for a single company regarding the cost of keeping people on but as workforce as a whole this can't be good for business.

[BigBallinStalin]

The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults because of reasons only you know why, amirite?

This is why minimum wage is kind of ridiculous. There are jobs out there that aren't worth minimum wage. Someone else already said it. There are jobs that are valued lower and when they first started were fulfilled by younger people getting work experience and living at home with parents.

In BK's case. This guy may be taking home some extra cash, but he got the job, scheduled it, had the equipment and the risk. If anything goes wrong he is the guy with responsibility. It may seem rude that he paid you less than the other guys, but by your own admission your work wasn't as productive.

Then for some to say don't start a business if you can't pay the employees. Seriously? Don't take the job if it doesn't provide enough for you. If there are no other jobs and you are stuck with that one, then don't complain because at least you will have a job. It sounds harsh but the person who starts a small business is usually in the hole financially for the first years. They aren't taking a paycheck and it is going to pay off debt incurred by starting a business. They are probably risking their house and cars. If you work for less and stick with a small business then you may be there when it grows and benefit from it. If not then at least you have experience and appear more valuable to the next employer.

Yeah, good point. Some miss that point too--about the employer taking those risks. They only look at outcomes where employers' succeeded and then clamor for a "fair" wage, "the boss is making too much"--while ignoring all those other failed outcomes.

Entrepreneurship: The Employee and the Employer
Most employees are entrepreneurs in the same sense as the employer. They are seeking profitable opportunities; however, for most employees, their risks are significantly minor--compared to the employer who borrows to start a business.

With more risk, comes more (expected) reward. If that additional reward was not available (e.g. snatched away by forcing employers to pay more per worker), then the profit signal for entrepreneurial action is removed. Without that profit--that reward for the risk--then entrepreneurship and investment are marginally decreased, and with it, employment, income, consumption, and additional investment.

All of this is connected, but many only see one small aspect of the full picture. They should stop to reflect on the unintended consequences, instead of clamoring for intervention--without even understanding what processes they're disturbing.

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.

I do make assumptions from time to time but this isn't one of those times. I've worked alongside minimum wagers and they really don't have any idea of what they are worth beyond the fact that they know they need to survive. I think an employee needs to know how much profit they are actually producing in order to realize what they are worth. Take into account the varying levels self-esteem of any given employee and you've really got a distorted idea of self-worth. I don't see how knowing what one's work is worth should affect someone receiving what one is worth.

Nevertheless, still making big assumptions here.

RE: underlined. Ask yourself: if you are unaware of more profitable opportunities, would that affect your currently profitable opportunities (job)?
If you answer, "yes," then you've answered your own question.

(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"

Take into account the ideas presented in field (1) and you can see how this really doesn't matter. Minimum wagers are not as ambitious as you would like to think BBS, hence their position on the totem pole. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.

That's a catchy slogan, but again it doesn't mean anything. The same can be said of the employer/owner. Even if people are not explicitly asking those questions, they still understand the difference between $7/hour and $3/hour. And eventually, they're able to evaluate the various costs and benefits to see if the nominal wages are equal or unequal. If not them, then others will do it for them--hence, market prices set through competition.

(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.

I mean really, if the person doesn't earn their wage it's pretty simple: you fire them. This creates initiative for people to work up to snuff.

No, that's not the only solution--which you've created--because it's not that simple. For example, consumers may give the producer another chance, and so on and so forth. We should note that you're limiting the range of possibilities into one choice in order to fit everything into your desired conclusion. That's not good.

(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.
(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

I'm not going to focus on the "fairness" from an earner's standpoint if it's got a stigma attached to it in your mind. How about the matter of efficiency since you seem to respect that? How is having people constantly dropping off and being added to a system really going to be efficient? It may be efficient for a single company regarding the cost of keeping people on but as workforce as a whole this can't be good for business.

I have no stigma about fairness. I'm just applying your position consistently, and showing how it leads yourself to silly conclusions. If you're not comfortable with that reductio ad absurdum, then I'd recommend you reflect on your argument by yourself.

Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

[Funkyterrance]

Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

I'm not going to respond to each response because it will soon get out of hand(this sort of posting expands exponentially lol) but I'll try to clarify.
For one thing, I don't understand the argument that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage... If it's worth less than minimum wage you either do it yourself or you delve two less than minimum wage earning jobs to one employee. If you can't do this, then it's worth minimum wage. Just seems like a bs notion.
Minimum wage being low is inefficient because its existence lets many people take on a job only to find its not worth it. Lets face it, minimum wage exists so it ought to reflect the minimum amount that someone is willing to work for long term right?
In my defense as far as the clarity of my stance, I don't always have a nice clear room with a computer without many distractions(not TV, etc. lol) Lame excuse I know but its maybe relevant?

[kentington]

Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

I'm not going to respond to each response because it will soon get out of hand(this sort of posting expands exponentially lol) but I'll try to clarify.
For one thing, I don't understand the argument that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage... 1. If it's worth less than minimum wage you either do it yourself or you delve two less than minimum wage earning jobs to one employee. If you can't do this, then it's worth minimum wage. Just seems like a bs notion.
2. Minimum wage being low is inefficient because its existence lets many people take on a job only to find its not worth it. 3.Lets face it, minimum wage exists so it ought to reflect the minimum amount that someone is willing to work for long term right?
In my defense as far as the clarity of my stance, I don't always have a nice clear room with a computer without many distractions(not TV, etc. lol) Lame excuse I know but its maybe relevant?

1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.
2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.
3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

[Funkyterrance]

1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.

2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.

3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.

[keiths31]

As a business owner, minimum wage increasing due to government legislation makes my blood boil. I employ over 70 people. Many students. For me to make a profit, my wages can't exceed more than 20% of my revenue. The margins are small, so every little bit makes a huge difference. In Ontario, minimum wage over the last few years has gone from $8.60/hour to $10.25/hour. This was huge. But because my margins are so low, I had to raise my prices. Customers weren't happy, but it was the only way to stay profitable. People don't realize that when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of products/items. So people who make more than minimum wage actually have less buying power. (When I started in the workforce 20 years ago I was making $3.25/hour. Minimum wage has tripled since then...but inflation hasn't tripled in that time. So minimum wage earners now have more buying power than they ever did)

When minimum wage was going up $0.75/year, I increased my long term staff's wages by the same amount to keep them that much above minimum. It cost me a lot in the short term, but saved me a lot in the long term as they were happy.

That being said I am hoping the province is done with the minimum wage increases for a while.

[Funkyterrance]

As a business owner, minimum wage increasing due to government legislation makes my blood boil. I employ over 70 people. Many students. For me to make a profit, my wages can't exceed more than 20% of my revenue. The margins are small, so every little bit makes a huge difference. In Ontario, minimum wage over the last few years has gone from $8.60/hour to $10.25/hour. This was huge. But because my margins are so low, I had to raise my prices. Customers weren't happy, but it was the only way to stay profitable. People don't realize that when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of products/items. So people who make more than minimum wage actually have less buying power.

Less buying power for stuff they don't want you mean? If a business is producing something that people stop buying because the prices rise, that means it's not that attractive an option? Or did they just bitch and keep buying at the new price, which if is the case, what's the problem? The buying power is still there, it's just being spent somewhere where people would rather spend it.

[kentington]

1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.

No, just because a job is worth paying doesn't mean it is worth paying minimum wage. That is not a valid argument.
If there is a job, then it is worth paying.
There is a job.
Thus it is worth paying minimum wage.

2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.

That is inaccurate. You assume that there will be a lot of people in between jobs. If there are a lot of people in between jobs in a certain field, then there is a large supply of those employees. When my wife got out of college she worked at a laboratory. She was paid a small amount and it was considered a starter job. Other labs paid more, but they only hired those with experience. Guess what? That difference in income is experience. Your employer takes a higher risk by hiring new to the field employees.

3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.

Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay. I would make a career of watching TV if it paid enough, but it isn't worth anything. The only reason those dead end jobs are secure is because they pay low. If the employer had to pay more money they would be less secure. You act like every business man has a ton of money and is looking to screw all of their employees.
The revolving door scenario works like this: A guy is hired to do a job that requires high school diploma and no experience. That is a dead end job. It isn't worth more. Yes, they may be a hard worker and they may be smart and they may even have a family with a ton of bills. That doesn't make the job worth more.
Workers work well below their potential even in well paying jobs. Workers work well below their potential when they have no fear of losing their job.

It seems like you have made up your mind on this topic and screw logic.

[Funkyterrance]

1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.

No, just because a job is worth paying doesn't mean it is worth paying minimum wage. That is not a valid argument.
If there is a job, then it is worth paying.
There is a job.
Thus it is worth paying minimum wage.

2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.

That is inaccurate. You assume that there will be a lot of people in between jobs. If there are a lot of people in between jobs in a certain field, then there is a large supply of those employees. When my wife got out of college she worked at a laboratory. She was paid a small amount and it was considered a starter job. Other labs paid more, but they only hired those with experience. Guess what? That difference in income is experience. Your employer takes a higher risk by hiring new to the field employees.

3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.

Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay. I would make a career of watching TV if it paid enough, but it isn't worth anything. The only reason those dead end jobs are secure is because they pay low. If the employer had to pay more money they would be less secure. You act like every business man has a ton of money and is looking to screw all of their employees.
The revolving door scenario works like this: A guy is hired to do a job that requires high school diploma and no experience. That is a dead end job. It isn't worth more. Yes, they may be a hard worker and they may be smart and they may even have a family with a ton of bills. That doesn't make the job worth more.
Workers work well below their potential even in well paying jobs. Workers work well below their potential when they have no fear of losing their job.

It seems like you have made up your mind on this topic and screw logic.

Nah, just your scenarios tend to be seeing the picture strictly from an upper-middle class standpoint. You seem to be undermining the ramifications of keeping it ridiculously low to the point where no one can reasonably live sustainably on it. You're acting like minimum wage jobs are reserved for teenagers and college students/fresh graduates. I've seen the nuts and bolts of several successful small businesses and the employees are at the mercy of the honesty of their employers, which tends to be in short supply. Money is being made by any small business that is large enough to have to hire employees and is running things smartly and adapting properly. If you are taking a loss by hiring out then the few dollars an hour you lose from paying your employees isn't going to make a wit of difference. You are doing something wrong.
I'm not saying force companies to hire people, I'm saying encourage companies to run things efficiently enough so that their workers are paid a reasonable living for their sweat. Sweat, somewhere, somehow, is what makes the money, contrary to popular belief. The management is just there to keep the machine oiled. Just hope that minimum wagers never learn the royal stiffing they are being served because if enough of them do it's going to be a rude awakening for the paper pushers.