Fast Food workers protest and demand more money.

[99lamb]

$15.00hr for an inexperienced fast food worker.
Where I live, a teacher with a 4yr degree, starting salary $16.55hr.
A police officer with a 2yr degree: $14.86hr, base pay.
A firefighter entry level salary $10.38hr to more experienced $26.00hr. (21k annually up to 37k.)

Good luck convincing the public that someone working at a fast food place is on par with these entry level workers.
The only thing the socialist can achieve is for the government to intervene in the public sector, the court of public opinion where common sense prevails will not abide by such a demand of $15hr.
The Marxist ideology is that all work whether mental or physical should pay the same, the specialist someone with skills, education, and training, if they are paid more is merely a throwback to the Capitalist system.

 

[rexlunae]

Which was my point. The people who imagine that rises in minimum wage raise inflation rates don't know what they're talking about. You can't really be that dense, can you?

Exactly. As I pointed out to Yorzhik, currently minimum wage earners account for less than 0.29% of the economy. We could double their wages, and the cost to the economy overall would barely register as a blip on any of the major indicators.

 

[resurrected]

then why not treble or quadruple their wages?

why not set the minimum wage at $30/hr?


hint: read post 641

 

[Nathon Detroit]

how about the customer in this?


why shouldn't the government mandate what a burger should cost me?

i demand that the government force mcdonalds to sell me a fifty cent quarter pounder

This is an excellent point.

Lets start a movement. :chew:

 

[rexlunae]

hint: read post 641

I think the real question that raises is, why do we pay firefighters and police so little? Sometimes the answer is that the benefits (pension and such) make up for a low base pay. But that's been eroded quite a bit from the stock market shenanigans of late.

 

[whitestone]

Exactly. As I pointed out to Yorzhik, currently minimum wage earners account for less than 0.29% of the economy. We could double their wages, and the cost to the economy overall would barely register as a blip on any of the major indicators.

Exactly. As I pointed out to Yorzhik, currently minimum wage earners account for less than 0.29% of the economy. We could double their wages, and the cost to the economy overall would barely register as a blip on any of the major indicators.

Hey thats good to point that out,,, Mitt Romney did the same thing with the numbers in the 2012 election he said "the 47%" when referring to the number of people below poverty stretching it to sound like "almost half of the U.S. were below poverty. https://www.google.com/search?q=mit...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp

In all actuality the number he was referring to were the 2012 u.s. census on poverty which was 46.5 million people https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ with a total population in the u.s. in 2012 of 313.9 million which is 14.5963% of the population but now under Obama it has risen to about 50 mil. people of our population or 15.7%.

But I do agree with your number "0.29%" being the total number who make minimum wage/7.25,,all the others below poverty make 7.26hr. up to the point of 23,850.00 per/yr. of a family of 4(2014),so 1987.50 per month,496.88 40 hr. week =12.42 an hour but the 2013 figures were 23550.00 per month or 1962.50 a month or 490.63 a week or 12.27 per hour http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines ,,,,so the 50 million who are below poverty in 2013 make between 7.25hr. and 12.42 an hour. This though is for a family of 4, different family sizes work out different depending on sizes.

 

[rexlunae]

Hey thats good to point that out,,, Mitt Romney did the same thing with the numbers in the 2012 election he said "the 47%" when referring to the number of people below poverty stretching it to sound like "almost half of the U.S. were below poverty. https://www.google.com/search?q=mit...fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp

In all actuality the number he was referring to were the 2012 u.s. census on poverty which was 46.5 million people https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ with a total population in the u.s. in 2012 of 313.9 million which is 14.5963% of the population but now under Obama it has risen to about 50 mil. people of our population or 15.7%.

That isn't quite right, but essentially, it is the poor and underemployed, an especially numerous group during the recession, who ended up not paying income taxes...but they did pay plenty of other taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

But I do agree with your number "0.29%" being the total number who make minimum wage/7.25,,all the others below poverty make 7.26hr. up to the point of 23,850.00 per/yr. of a family of 4(2014),so 1987.50 per month,496.88 40 hr. week =12.42 an hour but the 2013 figures were 23550.00 per month or 1962.50 a month or 490.63 a week or 12.27 per hour http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines ,,,,so the 50 million who are below poverty in 2013 make between 7.25hr. and 12.42 an hour. This though is for a family of 4, different family sizes work out different depending on sizes.

It's actually not 0.29% of the people. It's 0.29% of the economy, meaning it's that percent of how much money is spent in the US. It's a little more than 1% of the total US population.

 

[whitestone]

That isn't quite right, but essentially, it is the poor and underemployed, an especially numerous group during the recession, who ended up not paying income taxes...but they did pay plenty of other taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/



It's actually not 0.29% of the people. It's 0.29% of the economy, meaning it's that percent of how much money is spent in the US. It's a little more than 1% of the total US population.

yes I agree and I may have made a mathematical mistake(I was using the govt.charts in the link to do the math),,I also noticed that to follow the charts provided by the govt. could be a type of fuzzy math. Why I say this is if a family of 4 makes 23,885.00 a year no one is bearing in mind that since the hourly wage comes to 12.42 an hour (and both parents are required to work.get a job) if we divide 12.42 x 2= 6.41 that each worker in a house of 4 is making which is below min. wage at 7.25. So if the husband made 7.25x40=290.00wk. he makes 1160.00 per month and his wife then at 7.25 the difference from the chart 1990.42 is 830.42 divided by 4 is 207.61 a week and if she also makes min. wage of 7.25 then she will go above the poverty level at 28.64 hrs. a week and this would disqualify this family of 4 from both welfare and eliminate them from the below-poverty census schedule taken by the govt.

 

[whitestone]

I do have a question that just "BEGS TO BE ASK",,,, it is to all those who are screaming for a minimum wage increase to 15.00 an hour,,,,,,here it goes if you take the same charts http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines ,,,,and then take 15.00 an hour and do the math 15.00x40=600.00x4=2400.00 per.mth.,,,,,,,,,,"did you notice you no longer qualify for food stamps.tanif,earned income tax credit ect.,,,and are begging to have the government remove you from all government assistance?",,,

That is if you win and you get 15.00 an hour,,then you will have to buy all your own food,,you wont get to use the earned income tax credit when you file your income tax so you'll loose that big 5-7,000.00 dollar a year check,medicare ect. . because you will no longer be below poverty. Just thought I would point out that "hidden within the governments fuzzy math is ect.ect.",,,,and so do you really want 15.00 an hour,(better known as take my benefits)?????lol,

 

[quip]

I do have a question that just "BEGS TO BE ASK",,,, it is to all those who are screaming for a minimum wage increase to 15.00 an hour,,,,,,here it goes if you take the same charts http://familiesusa.org/product/federal-poverty-guidelines ,,,,and then take 15.00 an hour and do the math 15.00x40=600.00x4=2400.00 per.mth.,,,,,,,,,,"did you notice you no longer qualify for food stamps.tanif,earned income tax credit ect.,,,and are begging to have the government remove you from all government assistance?",,,

That is if you win and you get 15.00 an hour,,then you will have to buy all your own food,,you wont get to use the earned income tax credit when you file your income tax so you'll loose that big 5-7,000.00 dollar a year check,medicare ect. . because you will no longer be below poverty. Just thought I would point out that "hidden within the governments fuzzy math is ect.ect.",,,,and so do you really want 15.00 an hour,(better known as take my benefits)?????lol,

That exactly why Big Business doesn't want to raise it....they now have to fund welfare not the government.

 

[whitestone]

I agree, I thought I would switch from the rich mans argument for a while and to the poor mans(my pet peeve),seeing they will go unsupported if no one helps. The magic number is actually 12.42 an hour based on 40hrs,that is if they make less than this(at 4 family members) then they will still qualify for welfare. They do not see this I can see so I thought I would supply the magic # for them that is if they ask for 15.00 they will loose all bennafits but if less than this 12.41 or less they will then still qualify for welfare(approx.15,000.00) per year and still qualify. The just being if they ever protest again then they should surly hire a c.p.a. and organize a below poverty union and have them arbitrate the contract,,that is they ask for too much and will stand the risk of loosing their benefits if they win,,,,

and actually some big fast food corporations (burger King) moved their headquarters to Canada to avoid the taxes involved in welfare,so some few still do but not all,,,

 

[Yorzhik]

I never said it would reduce costs.

Then according to math, I'm right and you're wrong.


-----------------------------------------------

Beyond this, the following is for general discussion of the topic and I won't be responding to rex on any of it as it is all a subset of the above comment.

The government has, in general, a single job. That being the justice system.

That's so thoroughly unprecedented that it borders on downright delusional. And I simply reject it.

Hardly unprecedented. The "wild west" era is a good example. But the opposite, tyranny, is what you propose. We have a lot of examples of that, too.

What possible reason could I have to wanting to live in a society like that? For the return of rights that no one in their right mind would want?

You don't want freedom. OK. At least you are with the minority on that one.

So, insisting on a living wage is hurting people, but allowing them to be employed at the lowest wage an employer can negotiate is helping.

Forcing employers to pay what you think they should pay them (which is the definition of a "living wage") hurts them. It hurts them because wages aren't decided on how the employee likes to live, but on the production of said employee. Therefore, if the employee doesn't produce more when the employer if forced to pay them more, the employer can't employ them. It's math.

Depends on the contract.

Sure it does. If the contract is to initiate violence then it would be wrong. Employment contracts aren't initiating violence.

It's well established that you can't sell yourself into slavery. You also can't sell your children. But I just gave you those examples, and you ignored them, so I assume that you just aren't prepared to deal with them, and you aren't honest enough to admit it.

They are a tangent, but since you think you are making a mighty point with these examples I'll address them. One should be able to sell themselves into indentured servitude. And just the other day, a man offered to sell a child, or else he (in agreement with the mother) would murder it. Certainly, the child would be better sold.

But what you are saying is that if there are certain contracts you don't, as the government you have the right to control all contracts at your whim. That only results in tyranny.

Then show us the math where increasing costs on a product generally doesn't raise the cost of the product.

We have a $16.8 trillion economy. There are currently 3.3 million people making minimum wage or less. Even if we assume that all of those people are working full time (which they aren't), and promote them all up to the minimum wage, at most they make up $49.7 billion dollars of the economy, or 0.29% of the total economy. Thus, if you average the cost of their wages across the entire economy as you were doing earlier, even if you were to double their wages, it would cost the economy less then a third of a percent.

My position is that for the tiny amount that anyone would be harmed by that minuscule fraction of a percent of price increases, and for the huge benefit that it could make in their lives, that would be well worth it.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

Great. So I'm right and you are wrong, even if raising the cost of a product is only tiny.

The cost increase in any case would be negligible.

Except for the cost of lives of young people that can't get a job, and the cost of the march toward tyranny.

What?!?!

One can differentiate their products, but every change comes at a change in cost. One cannot differentiate their product without controlling costs in exactly the same way as the competition.

Advertising is an expense, it has to be controlled for a company to survive.

But it isn't cost controlling. It's profit raising, and spending money to do it. Face it. Your paradigm is way too simple to describe actual businesses.

One cannot raise labor costs and simply spend MORE on advertising to offset the higher costs. Go ask your boss for a raise, and then tell him he can merely spend more on advertising to pay for it. See what he says.

In other words, raising labor costs will not allow companies to differentiate their product, nor will it improve their advertising.

For a lot of companies, it won't raise their labor costs one cent.

I guess not addressing my point means you agree with it but you can't admit it.

The response will be to mitigate the labor costs by avoiding the labor that causes it.

How many extra employees do these minimum wage employers currently employ?

Your response does not address the point. At any area where employers expect to be forced to raise their costs by government edict, they will avoid those areas. This would be be common sense 101 which you seem to be running away from more and more as time goes by.

I don't make any secret of my position. And what you consider to by tyranny is so thoroughly deranged that I must wonder if you are really serious.

I think the Soviet Union was one of the culminations of tyranny. That you think that's deranged is a testament to your desire to argue for points instead of truth.

Allowing government more control over business employment contracts is another step down the path toward tyranny. There is no cap you can put on what the government is allowed to do if you agree that government should dictate the nebulous "living wage."

You aren't really interested in helping the entry level workers, you are interested in controlling the companies you think should be run differently.

That's just plain stupid, but I can understand why you would want to try to recast my argument.

But what I claim you meant was exactly what you said. You agreed that raising costs will raise prices (your quote - "it would cost the economy"), and you agree that the government can raise the costs of companies for nebulous reasons (like "living wage").

If you wanted to help those not making enough money to have a "living wage" then you should seek them out and give them the money you think they need, not place controls on companies which they will, by necessity, act against; thus giving you more reason to control them more, and not helping those you said you were trying to help in the meantime.

This is also proven in your next quote:

And beyond that, since a couple examples are irrelevant, can you insure that there aren't companies that will be driven out of business (not McDonalds or Burger King) because of your vendetta against McDonalds?

I never claimed that no company would be driven out of business. But any company that is isn't making anyone any money. No worker should be exploited in order to save an already-failing business.

It doesn't matter if you think a business isn't doing well, while someone is employed they are getting paid. You should admit your statement "isn't making anyone any money" is just plain wrong.

Beyond that, what right do you have to push businesses out of business just because they aren't doing well at the moment?

This shows again that you aren't interested in helping those people that aren't earning a "living wage" but controlling people so you can eventually obtain a forced utopia.

Pretty much all of it.

Great. Then you aren't making any actual distinction.

It means there isn't a magic source of money available to raise costs on businesses without affecting them

And what would they do? Raise prices? That's a great way to boost sales.

Only in the business-illiterate world you live in. Even all the different schools of economics will agree that raising prices will almost always reduce sales unless a corresponding increase in value is introduced at the same time. Raising labor costs is never an increase in the value of a product.

And beyond that, businesses will avoid entry level workers.

And don't forget one more long term effect of not starting businesses because the costs are too high.

It's interesting, but there's something that I don't understand about it. The links to their supposed sources are dead, and the unemployment rate in 2013 was dropping, but they show it as rising, which makes me wonder where they're really getting that.

Have a look.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/srgune.nr0.htm

Here's some more stats - http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/03/06/washington_state_and_the_minimum_wage_866.html

And a couple good discussions on minimum wage - http://mises.org/media/8739/A-Lesson-in-Economic-Analysis-from-the-Minimum-Wage-Debate

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...age-is-too-high-youth-unemployment-proves-it/

And a good measure when minimum wage will hurt the most - http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/11/when_the_minimu.html

It's called "an example".

Examples are supposed to fit the scope of your point. McDonald's doesn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

For Yorzhik, reality doesn't fit the scope of his worldview.

 

[whitestone]

also I thought I would add this portion for those who are considering asking/demanding 15.00 an hour,,,,,,

If you get 15.00 an hour in the end then,,15.00x40hrs.per week=600.00,,x 52 weeks per year= 31,200.00 and you no longer are below poverty(so you no longer qualify for welfare),,,hence have to buy food,insurance,housing ect. out of the 31,200.00,,,,,

Compared to,,,,,,(family of 4),@,,,23,850.00 a year,,and you qualify for welfare,,so

(a)food stamps/about 500.00 a month(average)=6000.00 per year
(b)free insurance(Obama care),a family of 4 (average)about 500.00 a month=6000.00 a year.
(c)earned income tax credit when you file income tax 5-7000.00 tax return per year(lets say 5,000.00)
(d)t.a.n.i.f.,,1000.00 cap
(e)housing, well rent could be between 500.00 a month and 2500.00 a month(well leave it off,it's popcorn anyhow),,,

So,

(A)6000.00
(B)6000.00
(C)5000.00
(D)1000.00
(F)23.850.00 you made because you are,"below poverty",,
(=),,,,,,,,41,850.00 per year,,,,verses,,31,200.00 per year if you win the battle and get 15.00 an hour,,,but even then you will have to buy food,insurance ect. out of that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"ARE YOU ALL SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS?",,,,I mean if you think about it you are asking them to "take away from you",,,,,"10,650.00 a year",,,

And to the others who might bring a resume to me and,,show me all your work history,credit line,ect.ect.,,,,,,"I will always consider the very poor as a prospect,,,why, because they are smarter than the average bear",,,,,,,

 

[rexlunae]

For Yorzhik, reality doesn't fit the scope of his worldview.

I amused that in his last, he accused me of tyranny a couple dozen times, and also advocated slavery.

 

[Yorzhik]

I amused that in his last, he accused me of tyranny a couple dozen times, and also advocated slavery.

Only rex can't see the difference between indentured servitude and the government forcing people to do as the government sees fit.

 

[rexlunae]

Then according to math, I'm right and you're wrong.

If I tell you you are misrepresenting my argument, you take that as an admission that I was wrong? Wow. That's a special kind of argument there.

I never said that raising the minimum wage would reduce costs. I have argued that it wouldn't raise costs much, in comparison to the benefits.

And yes, you are still quite wrong.

Forcing employers to pay what you think they should pay them (which is the definition of a "living wage") hurts them.

Sure, I would agree with that. It does cut into their profit margins somewhat.

It hurts them because wages aren't decided on how the employee likes to live, but on the production of said employee. Therefore, if the employee doesn't produce more when the employer if forced to pay them more, the employer can't employ them. It's math.

That could be true if I were arguing that employees ought to set their own wages. But what I am proposing is that there are some wage levels that are fundamentally unfair and exploitative, and thus should be forbidden, for the same reason that we don't allow slavery, or child labor, or any number of other things.

Sure it does. If the contract is to initiate violence then it would be wrong. Employment contracts aren't initiating violence.

All contracts are ultimately rooted in force, else they would be meaningless. Usually it doesn't come to that because the parties involve tend to live up to the terms on their own.

They are a tangent, but since you think you are making a mighty point with these examples I'll address them. One should be able to sell themselves into indentured servitude. And just the other day, a man offered to sell a child, or else he (in agreement with the mother) would murder it. Certainly, the child would be better sold.

Nothing to do here but highlight what you're arguing for. Thanks.

But what you are saying is that if there are certain contracts you don't, as the government you have the right to control all contracts at your whim. That only results in tyranny.

I'm not the government. The power to decide what contracts will be honored lies with the People, through their will expressed in the law.

Great. So I'm right and you are wrong, even if raising the cost of a product is only tiny.

You have argued that the minimum wage law is a zero sum game. That any increase to the wage is more than cancelled out by the inflation it creates. But as I have noted, even a large hike in the minimum wage can only produce a fairly small increase in costs, if any at all. Simply put, any increase in cost is borne across the entire economy, while the benefit is concentrated in the people making low wages.

Except for the cost of lives of young people that can't get a job, and the cost of the march toward tyranny.

Because there are a ton of kids out there who are forced to work for a living, yet who are also well-served by low wages?

One can differentiate their products, but every change comes at a change in cost. One cannot differentiate their product without controlling costs in exactly the same way as the competition.

One cannot raise labor costs and simply spend MORE on advertising to offset the higher costs.
...
I guess not addressing my point means you agree with it but you can't admit it.

The whole point of this tangent was to show that your notion that controlling costs was the only way that a business can compete is wrong, and I believe that has been sufficiently demonstrated.

Go ask your boss for a raise, and then tell him he can merely spend more on advertising to pay for it. See what he says.

We don't advertise. We have a single customer.

Your response does not address the point. At any area where employers expect to be forced to raise their costs by government edict, they will avoid those areas. This would be be common sense 101 which you seem to be running away from more and more as time goes by.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you really don't understand. Businesses that pay the minimum wage do not hire extra employees. For that reason, their ability to cut their labor costs by hiring fewer people is limited. They would generally have to forego some amount of profit in order to do it.

I think the Soviet Union was one of the culminations of tyranny. That you think that's deranged is a testament to your desire to argue for points instead of truth.

You really are good at imagining me saying whatever suits you.

Allowing government more control over business employment contracts is another step down the path toward tyranny.

Of course, it isn't more control. The government already regulated the minimum wage, at the federal level, and often at state and municipal levels too.

There is no cap you can put on what the government is allowed to do if you agree that government should dictate the nebulous "living wage."

Why? Because anything that can't be stated in eight words is too complex for you? Children must go to school instead of the shoe factory? Well, I guess the Soviet Union is taking over!

But what I claim you meant was exactly what you said. You agreed that raising costs will raise prices (your quote - "it would cost the economy"), and you agree that the government can raise the costs of companies for nebulous reasons (like "living wage").

If you wanted to help those not making enough money to have a "living wage" then you should seek them out and give them the money you think they need, not place controls on companies which they will, by necessity, act against; thus giving you more reason to control them more, and not helping those you said you were trying to help in the meantime.

Yeah, because the personal and uncoordinated efforts of one person are clearly a substitute for sensible, rational government policy.

It doesn't matter if you think a business isn't doing well, while someone is employed they are getting paid. You should admit your statement "isn't making anyone any money" is just plain wrong.

Beyond that, what right do you have to push businesses out of business just because they aren't doing well at the moment?

Well, that certainly isn't the goal. But the big picture is that if we did raise the wage, millions of individuals will get a much-needed raise and a very few if any will actually lose their jobs. It is a net win. Your position does far more harm than mine ever could.

Only in the business-illiterate world you live in. Even all the different schools of economics will agree that raising prices will almost always reduce sales unless a corresponding increase in value is introduced at the same time.

I should remember that sarcasm doesn't translate well to text conversations. Of course! That was the point! Businesses that find their profits dropping can't just raise prices because that may drive away customers.

And beyond that, businesses will avoid entry level workers.

Why?

And don't forget one more long term effect of not starting businesses because the costs are too high.

Ok. Prove it.

url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/23/the-minimum-wage-is-too-high-youth-unemployment-proves-it/[/url]

He makes some really good points, but I disagree with his overall conclusion. Still, I think he's actually closer to me than he is to you, because he doesn't seem to be opposed to the minimum wage in general. He merely thinks that it is too high.

The first thing I notice is that he is staking his claim on a very small amount of data. And while he talks about how considering the minimum wage during a recession could be difficult, he doesn't actually get around to figuring out how to separate the two issues. He instead waves off the problem on the logic that we were in a recession, so it doesn't matter how it would work at other times. But then, is he really generalizing about the minimum wage? Or just during a recession, which we are no longer in?

He correctly observes that any bite from the minimum wage will be most strongly felt by the unskilled, i.e. teenagers. He correctly points out that the hardest point will be during the recession. However, what he doesn't mention, for some reason, is the simple and obvious fact that the economy does not rise and fall on the backs of teenagers. If we ran every single teenager out of work...so what? Most of them are under their parents support. Those that aren't should qualify for government support. For the three years that people live in this demographic, it isn't worth holding up the wages of those making the minimum, who in most cases are well into their adulthood or even their middle ages.

Another interesting point to note is that since this article was written, Germans has passed, and will begin to follow a minimum wage equivalent to $11.61/hr that will start next year. Obviously, it is too early to find out how that will work, but it is at least popular policy right now.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/german-parliament-approves-minimum-wage-from-2015-1404386860

Examples are supposed to fit the scope of your point. McDonald's doesn't.

Ok. In what way, then?

 

[Yorzhik]

I never said that raising the minimum wage would reduce costs.

OK then. According to math, I'm right and you're wrong.

I have argued that it wouldn't raise costs much, in comparison to the benefits.

You've swerved into a moral argument. The only benefit could be what you consider getting closer to a "living wage." It's a nebulous term designed as an excuse to do anything.

And yes, you are still quite wrong.

I'm the one that knows raising costs in a particular segment will have businesses avoiding those costs. I'm right.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your response does not address the point. At any area where employers expect to be forced to raise their costs by government edict, they will avoid those areas. This would be be common sense 101 which you seem to be running away from more and more as time goes by.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, or if you really don't understand. Businesses that pay the minimum wage do not hire extra employees. For that reason, their ability to cut their labor costs by hiring fewer people is limited. They would generally have to forego some amount of profit in order to do it.

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The presumption is that businesses are, for the most part, stuck with the minimum wage workers they have so they'll be stuck paying them a higher wage. In the short term, this is true. But that's only if one is interested in helping those lower payed workers in the short term. As time goes by, the options of businesses increase, and they respond by not doing business (cut services/products, don't expand when they would otherwise be able to, don't start a business to begin with), or paying a more capable higher paid worker even more to do both the important parts of their job and the important parts of the job of a minimum wage worker, and ultimately they can also design their own golden parachute and leave other less capable people to run the business.

If you think businesses are merely stuck paying the higher minimum wage because they have limited options, you don't know much about business.

 

[musterion]

Uncommon common sense