Rise of Minimum wage?

[Jock McCock]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Nah, it's called "unemployment."

Note the "working" bit... unemployment means not working at all.

Slavery in The UK
People working for a paycheck of less than the 'defined value' for a front company called Oxfam...




No. Obviously the qualifier for slavery is involuntary servitude. Otherwise it's the individual actions of human beings.

[PLAYER57832]

No. Obviously the qualifier for slavery is involuntary servitude. Otherwise it's the individual actions of human beings.

Yes, and as I have said over and over.. someone without another means to provide food and housing is not truly acting freely when they take a job for low wages.

A well fed person volunteering to help others is acting freely.

The statement was made in response to NS's repeated pronouncement that if we just remove subsidies, suddenly there won't be a low wage problem, because people will suddenly be willing to work... as if they were not willing already.

He, maybe you too? f ully believe the stereotype that those making low wages don't work hard and have no desire to really work to get more. Sometimes that is true, sure. Some people are just plain lazy. BUT.. funny thing is you find no more, probably fewer of those folks in the lower ranks than you do up above. None of the women with whom I work go home to just sit on the couch and watch TV. A lot of the married guys with whom I work absolutely do just that. But, the guys make almost twice as much as the women (in different jobs).

[BigBallinStalin]

There are those who'd argue that the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" equate to "protect the bottom."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The whole notion of "inalienable rights" are that you possess these "rights" and they can neither be given to you (because you already have them) nor taken away.

Governments "secure" these rights, but securing a right does not equate to protecting the bottom. Indeed "all men" have these rights and all men are entitled to be secure in these rights. Therefore government must secure these rights for everyone.

Of course, a paycheck isn't a right, muchless a paycheck of a defined minimum value.

It is if you are working. The alternative is called "slavery".

Nah, it's called "unemployment."

Note the "working" bit... unemployment means not working at all.

Just sayin that you should consider one of the unintended consequences of the minimum wage.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, and as I have said over and over.. someone without another means to provide food and housing is not truly acting freely when they take a job for low wages.

A well fed person volunteering to help others is acting freely.

What does "acting freely" mean to you?

In regarding to "acting freely," we need to distinguish between "having a certain range of choices" and "being prohibiting from doing something by an external actor/organization"

For example, Tom Hanks' character in Cast Away had all the freedom in the world (i.e. was not prohibited from doing something by an external actor/organization); however, he had a very limited range of choices (e.g. make a fire, find shelter, go fishing).

I maintain that "acting freely" should not be conflated with "having a certain range of choices" because otherwise we become entangled in unproductive debates which fail to address the actual constraints. In other words, the debate on "range of choices" becomes susceptible to our arbitrariness and cognitive bias, and in that pursuit of defining "range of choices," we would neglect to consider actual constraints.

In light of this, the main issue deals with "which policies best encourage prosperity (higher standard of living, increased quality of life)? Talking about "range of choices" is the wrong approach to address this issue for it deals with proximate causes instead of fundamental causes (e.g. actual constraints on freedom by external actors/organizations--one being the government and minimum wage laws).

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, and as I have said over and over.. someone without another means to provide food and housing is not truly acting freely when they take a job for low wages.

A well fed person volunteering to help others is acting freely.

What does "acting freely" mean to you?

In regarding to "acting freely," we need to distinguish between "having a certain range of choices" and "being prohibiting from doing something by an external actor/organization"

For example, Tom Hanks' character in Cast Away had all the freedom in the world (i.e. was not prohibited from doing something by an external actor/organization); however, he had a very limited range of choices (e.g. make a fire, find shelter, go fishing).

I maintain that "acting freely" should not be conflated with "having a certain range of choices" because otherwise we become entangled in unproductive debates which fail to address the actual constraints. In other words, the debate on "range of choices" becomes susceptible to our arbitrariness and cognitive bias, and in that pursuit of defining "range of choices," we would neglect to consider actual constraints.

In light of this, the main issue deals with "which policies best encourage prosperity (higher standard of living, increased quality of life)? Talking about "range of choices" is the wrong approach to address this issue for it deals with proximate causes instead of fundamental causes (e.g. actual constraints on freedom by external actors/organizations--one being the government and minimum wage laws).

OK, here is the thing. Technically, you are correct. BUT.. you can also argue that technically, there is really no such thing as actually "forcing" people to do anything. They can generally "choose" to die, "choose" to endure a lot of pain, etc. Nietzche (sp?) talked about the last freedom being the freedom inside (or some such) one's own thoughts being essentially the ONLY thing that cannot be taken away (though with lack of food, water, or drugs...even that is debatable).

HOWEVER, in practical terms, which is what I am discussing, saying "you have the 'choice' to eat some or not at all.. to put a roof over your kids' heads or to eat", in the real world, making someone make that kind of choice, when they have done nothing wrong except to be born without the right genes or ability to make utterly infallible choices.. is just wrong.

The point is that in a civilized, wealthy country, allowing that its OK to pay citizens less than it takes them to live is just not OK. We can do better, and what makes our country strong is that mostly, in the past, we HAVE done better.. only now that has changed to we have to support the top 1%...and there just isn't supposed to be enough to go around for everyone else to have a decent life.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, let's get some mutual understanding here. When it comes to "forcing people to do something," we have to distinguish among (1) being externally forced by conscious individuals/organizations, (2) being internally 'forced' by one's conscience or whatever (Nietzsche, perhaps?), and (3) being forced by holistic blobs of alleged decision-making entities (e.g. "Society" or "Capitalism").

#1 is my main concern. #2 is something else which requires further inquiry but may not be relevant to justifying public policies like minimum wage, and #3 is a wrongheaded approach--which so far no one seems to be explicitly supporting.

Regarding your 2nd and 3rd paragraph, unfortunately minimum wage laws won't attain your desired outcomes.

[stahrgazer]

The real problem is not that the minimum wage keeps rising, it is truly that the percentage that folks who earn money from means other than work, who want money from investment (including some workers, but that actually just makes it worse) is increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living.

Okay, Player, I agree with you here.

But this is PRECISELY why I don't support a raise to the minimum wage.

Because raising the minimum wage will not change the "percentage that folks who earn money from means othe than work...increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living."

As Bison wrote, all that will happen is the cost for "the people who actually work for a living," will raise, frequently higher than the percentage of salary increase.

Further, those who already made slightly above the "new minimum wage" will not typically get a commensurate salary increase. Say they make $9.00 now when the minimum is $7.25 or whatever it is. The $7.25 worker will get a $1.75 increase (just over 24%) but the currently-$9/hour-worker won't get either a $1.75 increase OR a 24% increase.

So, while costs for both these people will rise, you will now have two, instead of 1, at "just-barely-existing" standard.

It's partly (not all, but partly) WHY those at the top have gotten to be even more at the top (and the top of the pyramid has narrowed) while the bottom of the pyramid has widened in the past few decades.

[Symmetry]

As Bison wrote, all that will happen is the cost for "the people who actually work for a living," will raise, frequently higher than the percentage of salary increase.

A interesting take, can you show the evidence for that?

[PLAYER57832]

The real problem is not that the minimum wage keeps rising, it is truly that the percentage that folks who earn money from means other than work, who want money from investment (including some workers, but that actually just makes it worse) is increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living.

Okay, Player, I agree with you here.

But this is PRECISELY why I don't support a raise to the minimum wage.

Because raising the minimum wage will not change the "percentage that folks who earn money from means othe than work...increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living."

As Bison wrote, all that will happen is the cost for "the people who actually work for a living," will raise, frequently higher than the percentage of salary increase.

Further, those who already made slightly above the "new minimum wage" will not typically get a commensurate salary increase. Say they make $9.00 now when the minimum is $7.25 or whatever it is. The $7.25 worker will get a $1.75 increase (just over 24%) but the currently-$9/hour-worker won't get either a $1.75 increase OR a 24% increase.

So, while costs for both these people will rise, you will now have two, instead of 1, at "just-barely-existing" standard.

It's partly (not all, but partly) WHY those at the top have gotten to be even more at the top (and the top of the pyramid has narrowed) while the bottom of the pyramid has widened in the past few decades.

My point is that these are just 2 different problems. Approaching them as one or as if one impacts the other is wrong.

The minimum wage has little or nothing to do with the top. I was refuting the claim that the middle, essentially would pay for the increase. To the extent that that is true, its irrelevant to the minimum wage level. It has to do with how we allow those at the top to collect their wealth, and the resurgeant idea that the top get to take what they want, by right, first and then the rest gets divided up after.

I am saying that you set the bottom first. Dealing with the upper levels is another issue and requires entirely different changes.

[keiths31]

The real problem is not that the minimum wage keeps rising, it is truly that the percentage that folks who earn money from means other than work, who want money from investment (including some workers, but that actually just makes it worse) is increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living.

Okay, Player, I agree with you here.

But this is PRECISELY why I don't support a raise to the minimum wage.

Because raising the minimum wage will not change the "percentage that folks who earn money from means othe than work...increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living."

As Bison wrote, all that will happen is the cost for "the people who actually work for a living," will raise, frequently higher than the percentage of salary increase.

Further, those who already made slightly above the "new minimum wage" will not typically get a commensurate salary increase. Say they make $9.00 now when the minimum is $7.25 or whatever it is. The $7.25 worker will get a $1.75 increase (just over 24%) but the currently-$9/hour-worker won't get either a $1.75 increase OR a 24% increase.

So, while costs for both these people will rise, you will now have two, instead of 1, at "just-barely-existing" standard.

It's partly (not all, but partly) WHY those at the top have gotten to be even more at the top (and the top of the pyramid has narrowed) while the bottom of the pyramid has widened in the past few decades.

I'm a small business owner, with two locations. I employ currently around 65 full and part time employees. When Ontario raised minimum wage from $8.00/hour to $10.25/hour over a three year period, I had to figure out how to deal with this exact issue. Many of my long term staff who were making several dollars more than minimum were angry that minimum was going up, because their raises over the years were being pretty much eroded. I had to deal with this the best way I could, so as to keep my long term employees happy, but still ensure my costs remained in line. When minimum wage went up every year, I also increased my long term staff's wage by the same amount, so they kept that "cushion" they had earned. They still got their regular wage increases every six months as well. The $0.75/hour increase for all my staff cost both my locations around $85,000 for the first year.About $77,000 the second year and $65,000 the third year. Why did it go down? It went down because I had to cut hours and hold back on hiring new staff when some left.
So minimum wage went up, my staffing levels went down and so did the available hours for them. Not to mention that my supplies went up because my supplier utilized minimum wage workers as well and they compensated by increasing the cost of my supplies. So I had to raise my prices for the consumer to cover the increase from my supplier. It has a larger trickle effect than most people realize...

[stahrgazer]

I'm a small business owner, with two locations. I employ currently around 65 full and part time employees. When Ontario raised minimum wage from $8.00/hour to $10.25/hour over a three year period, I had to figure out how to deal with this exact issue. Many of my long term staff who were making several dollars more than minimum were angry that minimum was going up, because their raises over the years were being pretty much eroded. I had to deal with this the best way I could, so as to keep my long term employees happy, but still ensure my costs remained in line. When minimum wage went up every year, I also increased my long term staff's wage by the same amount, so they kept that "cushion" they had earned. They still got their regular wage increases every six months as well. The $0.75/hour increase for all my staff cost both my locations around $85,000 for the first year.About $77,000 the second year and $65,000 the third year. Why did it go down? It went down because I had to cut hours and hold back on hiring new staff when some left.
So minimum wage went up, my staffing levels went down and so did the available hours for them. Not to mention that my supplies went up because my supplier utilized minimum wage workers as well and they compensated by increasing the cost of my supplies. So I had to raise my prices for the consumer to cover the increase from my supplier. It has a larger trickle effect than most people realize...

Thanks, keith, this is a specific example of my points AGAINST raising minimum wage.

The minimum is supposed to be a starter (aka untrained person) salary. So, in addition to whatever wage you have to pay a new hire, would you concur that the cost for that new hire is substantially more than the wages because of the time required from yourself and other employees to train that individual for your company?

[keiths31]

Thanks, keith, this is a specific example of my points AGAINST raising minimum wage.

The minimum is supposed to be a starter (aka untrained person) salary. So, in addition to whatever wage you have to pay a new hire, would you concur that the cost for that new hire is substantially more than the wages because of the time required from yourself and other employees to train that individual for your company?

Oh for sure. On average it costs extra about $2500-$3000 to train a new employee. That takes into consideration the time I spend with them, the staff training them, having to have extra staff on so they can be trained.

[PLAYER57832]

The real problem is not that the minimum wage keeps rising, it is truly that the percentage that folks who earn money from means other than work, who want money from investment (including some workers, but that actually just makes it worse) is increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living.

Okay, Player, I agree with you here.

But this is PRECISELY why I don't support a raise to the minimum wage.

Because raising the minimum wage will not change the "percentage that folks who earn money from means othe than work...increasing at the expense of people who actually work for a living."

As Bison wrote, all that will happen is the cost for "the people who actually work for a living," will raise, frequently higher than the percentage of salary increase.

Further, those who already made slightly above the "new minimum wage" will not typically get a commensurate salary increase. Say they make $9.00 now when the minimum is $7.25 or whatever it is. The $7.25 worker will get a $1.75 increase (just over 24%) but the currently-$9/hour-worker won't get either a $1.75 increase OR a 24% increase.

So, while costs for both these people will rise, you will now have two, instead of 1, at "just-barely-existing" standard.

It's partly (not all, but partly) WHY those at the top have gotten to be even more at the top (and the top of the pyramid has narrowed) while the bottom of the pyramid has widened in the past few decades.

I'm a small business owner, with two locations. I employ currently around 65 full and part time employees. When Ontario raised minimum wage from $8.00/hour to $10.25/hour over a three year period, I had to figure out how to deal with this exact issue. Many of my long term staff who were making several dollars more than minimum were angry that minimum was going up, because their raises over the years were being pretty much eroded. I had to deal with this the best way I could, so as to keep my long term employees happy, but still ensure my costs remained in line. When minimum wage went up every year, I also increased my long term staff's wage by the same amount, so they kept that "cushion" they had earned. They still got their regular wage increases every six months as well. The $0.75/hour increase for all my staff cost both my locations around $85,000 for the first year.About $77,000 the second year and $65,000 the third year. Why did it go down? It went down because I had to cut hours and hold back on hiring new staff when some left.
So minimum wage went up, my staffing levels went down and so did the available hours for them. Not to mention that my supplies went up because my supplier utilized minimum wage workers as well and they compensated by increasing the cost of my supplies. So I had to raise my prices for the consumer to cover the increase from my supplier. It has a larger trickle effect than most people realize...

No one is disputing this.

But, first of all, you live in Canada, and the minimum you mention, adjusted is more than the minimum proposed here in the US.

Also, from the worker perspective, you HAVE universal healthcare... not a system we in the US would like, but a system that provides coverage most low wage people don't enjoy.

[Juan_Bottom]

How did raising the minimum wage effect the business' profits or ability to function? Some of that sounded like an expose on greed.

[PLAYER57832]

I would not go so far as to say "greed", but yeah.. you are able to stay in business.

I think his point was that he hired fewer and some worked fewer hours. Research shows that this does happen, but in the short term only. AFter a couple of years businesses need to hire, and do... regardless of the wage. Also, by that time, the impact of the higher wage equalling more purchases evens out.

[Juan_Bottom]

Plus on the side of his employees, they were complaining that their "gains" had been erased. To me, it seems that if the fair minimum wage is that close to what money you were making, then maybe you should be more upset with your employer than with your government. And also, in Illinois our minimum wage went up several times in the past few years, which did hammer away at the "gains" that I had made. But I didn't care at all, because I'm not a selfish jerk.
When I worked in booking/accounting at an Escrow company the last time the minimum wage jumped $.25, the only thing that changed was that 4 teenage employees got a $.25 raise. Otherwise, the cost just came out of the company's profits. Though I do respect that every business is different.

[BigBallinStalin]

How did raising the minimum wage effect the business' profits or ability to function? Some of that sounded like an expose on greed.

I would not go so far as to say "greed", but yeah.. you are able to stay in business.

I think his point was that he hired fewer and some worked fewer hours. Research shows that this does happen, but in the short term only. AFter a couple of years businesses need to hire, and do... regardless of the wage. Also, by that time, the impact of the higher wage equalling more purchases evens out.

Well, it depends, fellas. One example: Substitution Effects

Minimum wage laws raise the price of (a) low-skilled workers.* This in turn lowers the relative price between (a) and (b) hiring high-skilled workers (e.g. union members) and between (a) and (c) purchasing physical capital. This substitution effect results in businesses hiring less low-skilled workers while hiring more high-skilled workers and/or purchasing physical capital to replace those workers.

Depending on how each business perceives the relative tradeoff among the above decisions, then they will respond accordingly. Some businesses opt for more physical labor and hire/maintain less low-skilled workers. Some businesses opt for more high-skilled lowers and less low-skilled workers. Usually, it's a mix involving all three.

Some may argue that the minimum wage law induces businesses to become more efficient, so they would still hire the same amount of low-skill workers. I don't deny this possibility; however, if the business is already in a competitive environment, then this incentive to become more efficient is already prevalent, so the minimum wage's inducement effects would be negligible--especially if the competitor's also face the effects of the minimum wage law. Besides, since the gap between the prices of (a) and (b) and (a) and (c) is reduced, then the opportunity cost of (b) and (c) becomes higher, thus creating a stronger incentive for businesses to opt for (b) and (c) to the loss of (a).

This is one negative effect of minimum wage law which occurs over time.

If the minimum wage law was increased completely perfectly in line with the rising prices of all goods for particular businesses in particular places over time, then the substitution effect may be mitigated--presuming that no change in relative prices has occurred after controlling for inflation. However, this isn't the case because (1) the federal government pegs the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index (which does not reflect the italicized conditions at all), (2) the government experiences time-lags, (3) the government faces the knowledge problem (what is the right price? dunno lol)., and (4) other influences (e.g. labor unions, well-intended yet uninformed voters, etc.) on politicians divert them from the italicized goal because political process is hardly a perfect substitute for the market process in adjusting prices.

(Substitution effects is only one explanation as to why raising the minimum wage to $20 per hour would result in increased unemployment for low-skilled workers--while high-skilled workers (e.g. union members) and the owners physical capital would significantly profit from it). Hey, does anyone see a connection between politicians funded by labor unions and then their support of a minimum wage?


A decent introduction to minimum wage:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html


Note: studies which show that no or little unemployment occurring from minimum wage fail to control for all relevant variables (e.g. failing to compare places which are similar enough in institutions (rules of the game), internships, other State's minimum wage laws, and more). Then there's problems with the definition of Unemployment (U3). Then, the time-series is also usually superior in illuminating the effects of minimum wage over time too, so without it, then there's more reason to doubt the (good?) intentions of the statistician.

*of course, some low-skilled workers may be exempt from minimum wage laws, e.g. those on government assistance, interns, government employees, etc.

[keiths31]

No one is disputing this.

But, first of all, you live in Canada, and the minimum you mention, adjusted is more than the minimum proposed here in the US.

Also, from the worker perspective, you HAVE universal healthcare... not a system we in the US would like, but a system that provides coverage most low wage people don't enjoy.

We have universal heath care, but as an employer I pay into the Ontario Employer Health Tax. It's at a rate of 1.95%. It works out to be about an extra $10,000 a year per location. May not seem like a lot, but as the person paying this out, it is.

But you argue the health care aspect, I counter with the buying power of the Canadian dollar. Yes it is is roughly at par right now, but prices for products in Canada are around 20% higher than in the US. So every TV is 20% higher for us to buy. Every litre of gas is 20% more to purchase. Every pair of jeans is 20% more for us. So our minimum wage may be higher and we have "free" health care, it doesn't relate into wealthier minimum wage earners. Even with Target coming into Canada, they have publicly stated that Canadians cannot expect US style pricing.

[keiths31]

How did raising the minimum wage effect the business' profits or ability to function? Some of that sounded like an expose on greed.

Trust me, I am anything but greedy. I could go into a long store about how I started working at my business when I got out of college, worked my ass off, got promoted, saved my money, bought it from my boss, and now own two. Well I kinda did just there...but I digress.

I assume (and I apologize beforehand if I am wrong) that you have never operated a business before? Because if you had you would realize that unless you are in the loan shark business, the margins are very small in most businesses. If my labour costs are out of line by even 1% it can cost me my profit for the year. I reiterate that I am a small business owner. I am not vacationing in Barbados half the year or driving a luxury car (my base model Dodge Caravan does me quite well) and I live in a modest four bedroom bungalow.

If I didn't cut hours of staff or raise prices, I wouldn't have been in business long. It's easy to call others greedy when it isn't your house on the line if a business fails.

[Juan_Bottom]

I operated a facebook page and sold it for $800 last year. Now it's worth probably $50,000 and has 4 employees who make a salary. And that's within a year's time. I'm ok admitting it. It took me by surprise as much as anyone that there was going to be a profitable page boom on Facebook of all places. When I ran that crap I made about $200 for the full year, and that was with devoting 1 - 2 hours a day to it.

But anyway, if your business is operating close to overhead + your salary, that's a different situation than saying that you won't let wages cut away at your profits, so you cut workers, like big business does.

[keiths31]

I operated a facebook page and sold it for $800 last year. Now it's worth probably $50,000 and has 4 employees who make a salary. And that's within a year's time. I'm ok admitting it. It took me by surprise as much as anyone that there was going to be a profitable page boom on Facebook of all places. When I ran that crap I made about $200 for the full year, and that was with devoting 1 - 2 hours a day to it.

But anyway, if your business is operating close to overhead + your salary, that's a different situation than saying that you won't let wages cut away at your profits, so you cut workers, like big business does.

I am not big business. I am an owner/operator. Just like most businesses that utilize minimum wage. Every dollar coming in and going out counts.

[BigBallinStalin]

I operated a facebook page and sold it for $800 last year. Now it's worth probably $50,000 and has 4 employees who make a salary. And that's within a year's time. I'm ok admitting it. It took me by surprise as much as anyone that there was going to be a profitable page boom on Facebook of all places. When I ran that crap I made about $200 for the full year, and that was with devoting 1 - 2 hours a day to it.

But anyway, if your business is operating close to overhead + your salary, that's a different situation than saying that you won't let wages cut away at your profits, so you cut workers, like big business does.

Again, the possibilities are many, but you narrow them to one so that your imagination can reinforce your ignorance about economics. Thanks for another amazing example of JB at His Finest.

[Juan_Bottom]

I operated a facebook page and sold it for $800 last year. Now it's worth probably $50,000 and has 4 employees who make a salary. And that's within a year's time. I'm ok admitting it. It took me by surprise as much as anyone that there was going to be a profitable page boom on Facebook of all places. When I ran that crap I made about $200 for the full year, and that was with devoting 1 - 2 hours a day to it.

But anyway, if your business is operating close to overhead + your salary, that's a different situation than saying that you won't let wages cut away at your profits, so you cut workers, like big business does.

Again, the possibilities are many, but you narrow them to one so that your imagination can reinforce your ignorance about economics. Thanks for another amazing example of JB at His Finest.

More like another example of your inability to grasp how normal people talk.
Most people speak in generalities, and sometimes they do it to show what specific thing they are talking about on any broad topic. IE we were discussing, like adults, the broad subject of how raising the minimum wage effects any business/thing. While talking about that somewhat broad subject, I used a generality to point the finger at which kind of businesses (Wal*Mart, Tyson) I was being specific about.

Come at me, bro.

[stahrgazer]

Thanks, keith, this is a specific example of my points AGAINST raising minimum wage.

The minimum is supposed to be a starter (aka untrained person) salary. So, in addition to whatever wage you have to pay a new hire, would you concur that the cost for that new hire is substantially more than the wages because of the time required from yourself and other employees to train that individual for your company?

Oh for sure. On average it costs extra about $2500-$3000 to train a new employee. That takes into consideration the time I spend with them, the staff training them, having to have extra staff on so they can be trained.

So, a $7.00/hour new-trainee is equivalent to an already-trained established worker of $9.00/hour. But your business must be very "simple" because many estimates are that it takes 6 months to a year to fully train a new worker at the average job (and I'm sure you pay your workers more than $3k to $6k a year)

[BigBallinStalin]

I operated a facebook page and sold it for $800 last year. Now it's worth probably $50,000 and has 4 employees who make a salary. And that's within a year's time. I'm ok admitting it. It took me by surprise as much as anyone that there was going to be a profitable page boom on Facebook of all places. When I ran that crap I made about $200 for the full year, and that was with devoting 1 - 2 hours a day to it.

But anyway, if your business is operating close to overhead + your salary, that's a different situation than saying that you won't let wages cut away at your profits, so you cut workers, like big business does.

Again, the possibilities are many, but you narrow them to one so that your imagination can reinforce your ignorance about economics. Thanks for another amazing example of JB at His Finest.

More like another example of your inability to grasp how normal people talk.
Most people speak in generalities, and sometimes they do it to show what specific thing they are talking about on any broad topic. IE we were discussing, like adults, the broad subject of how raising the minimum wage effects any business/thing. While talking about that somewhat broad subject, I used a generality to point the finger at which kind of businesses (Wal*Mart, Tyson) I was being specific about.

Come at me, bro.

You may have a case, but based on your general posts, you portray a general ignorance over this issue, so we can dismiss your contention.

We're looking for causal explanations here, which is why I highlighted this particular case. Of the many examples (or generalities) you could muster, you chose the whole "teh big business cutting workers" shtick. Very interesting...