If minimum wage were raised ...

[Papawx3]

Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.

Catch 22 in my opinion.

Yep. Corporate downsizing is sometimes necessary in order to remain in business. You put a freeze on hiring; reduce your current labor force; consolidate job responsibility (make one worker perform the job of two thus eliminating the need for new hires); transfer jobs otherwise performed by 'minimum wage' workers to those further up the pay scale, but still are active employees.

IMO raising the minimum wage yet again might get good reviews by the low information voter, but it does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the rolls of the unemployed. To the contrary, it vastly increases the chances that even more workers will be laid off and further increases the chances that more former workers will now have to rely on government assistance or other programs in order to provide for their families.

 

[Mathbud1]

Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.

Catch 22 in my opinion.

It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.

 

[candycorn]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

 

[Foxfyre]

But if Sally realizes that since the minimum wage had been raised she can go out and get a less demanding job for the same wage you are offering her, what is to keep her around unless you do bump her wage?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Uh...okay???

If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?

Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.

Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's it exactly. I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it. All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do. So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons. Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all. A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics. Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do. And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on. And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases. The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor. The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have. The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder. And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force. And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.

 

[BillyZane]

Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.

Catch 22 in my opinion.

It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

 

[Mathbud1]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

What about Company C who also sells Widgets. They have 100 employees. Being a bigger company they have more options to adjust to the rise in minimum wage and are able to maintain their prices.

Company C does have an advantage.

No two businesses are exactly the same.

 

[Mathbud1]

Tough call here. I guess the amount of people who may get their hours cut needs to be weighed against the benefit of raising everyone's wages.

Catch 22 in my opinion.

It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

 

[Foxfyre]

It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor. If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers. In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer. And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.

But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice. So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.

The key is not to artificially raise wages. The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment. And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.

 

[Mathbud1]

What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."

Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.

 

[Mathbud1]

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor. If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers. In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer. And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.

But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice. So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.

The key is not to artificially raise wages. The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment. And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.

My point was that wages are not arbitrarily set by companies. If companies could arbitrarily set wages wherever they wanted they would simply set ALL wages to $0 and have $0 cost for labor. That would be fantastic for their profit margin. Of course that is an imaginary world that doesn't exist since no worker values their effort at $0.

 

[BillyZane]

It really isn't a catch 22 though. What you are doing when you raise the minimum wage is artificially trying to make people's work worth more. The problem is it isn't actually worth more. It isn't benefiting the company more so they can't afford to pay more for it. It it hurts business, which hurts the economy.

Even if there was more money out there right away for people to spend, how many companies are in industries that will see an increase in profits quickly? You can't assume that everyone will just buy more of everything. The people who ARE already meeting their minimum needs probably won't buy more at all. They'll stick it in savings.

So now you've got all these businesses who HAVE to pay their employees more but since they are in a non-necessity segment of the market they probably won't see any boost to profits to offset the added cost. Then, these businesses' buying power is decreased because their profits are cut, so they can't buy as much from other businesses.

The small businesses that somehow managed to survive this economy aren't ready to take another hit like this.

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

Simple

Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.

The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.

That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.

 

[Foxfyre]

The minimum wage itself is already an artificial value, so your argument is a non starter unless of course you can prove that those making minimum wage are paid so becuase that is what their job is worth. And of course you can not do that because there is no one here who believes that different jobs across different industries across different states just so happen to be worth the same amount per hour.

The minimum wage was NEVER meant to reflect what a job is worth to employers. Instead it intended to do exactly the opposite. The minimum wage law recognizes that companies will if given the chance take advantage of lower skilled employees and that the federal government will set a floor level of how much they can take advantage of them.

I'm sorry, but if you're paying a guy who sweeps and does dishes $7.25 an hour, you're taking advantage of that guy, and you better believe that if the minimum wage were $5 an hour, those who are now paying $7.25 an hour would suddenly decide "their jobs were only worth $5 an hour"

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

Simple

Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.

The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.

That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.

How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way? Why not allow those 'weak' an opportunity to develop a work ethic, learn and develop marketable skills, and acquire references so they will no longer be 'weak' but rather have qualified themselves to merit a living wage?

 

[BillyZane]

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

What is missing from the equation is the supply and demand factor. If you have thousands or milllions of people out of work, the employer 1) has fewer customers for his/her product or service and 2) has many more people to choose from who are willing to work for less which helps offset the loss of income due to fewer customers. In times of high unemployment, wages will suffer. And also it is a cinch to hire more temp workers and utilize part timers more.

But when the economy is strong and there is full employment, you may not be able to hire a part timer or temp employee with the skill sets or temperament or work ethic you need on short notice. So the trend will be to hire the best people you can get on a full time basis and you pay them what you have to pay them to keep them.

The key is not to artificially raise wages. The key is to promote and implement policy that encourages full employment. And that takes care of the problem quite nicely.

My point was that wages are not arbitrarily set by companies. If companies could arbitrarily set wages wherever they wanted they would simply set ALL wages to $0 and have $0 cost for labor. That would be fantastic for their profit margin. Of course that is an imaginary world that doesn't exist since no worker values their effort at $0.

Of course not at zero, but the line that lower level employees could be taken advantage of sans government intervention is a LOT lower than it is with government intervention.

Meaning if there were no minimum wage or say over time laws, there would be people working for $5 an hour working 70 or more hours a week for cheap ass employers and they wouldn't have a choice, because $5 an hour is certainly better than zero an hour and if they refused to work the unpaid overtime they would be fired.

Or perhaps we could return to the days of company towns where a person was paid in script and at the end of the week they were actually in debt to their employer.

The notion that a min wage law isn't needed is just stupid.

 

[BillyZane]

So why don't ALL jobs pay minimum wage then? If a company can simply arbitrarily decide what to pay their employees then all jobs should be minimum wage right? I mean that makes the most sense for the company doesn't it? Why ever pay people more than the minimum if a company is only out to "take advantage" of it's employees?

Simple

Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.

The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.

That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.

How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?

who's shut out of the job market?

You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.

They wouldn't They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.

I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.

If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.

 

[Spoonman]

About 3% of all workers make minimum wage. Raising it a few bucks over four years will do nothing to injure anyone. Come off of it.

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

 

[Spoonman]

Simple

Because not all workers are lower level workers, nor are all jobs lower level jobs.

The minimum wage recognizes this and ONLY mandates a minimum. Notice there is no law protecting CEO wages, because CEOs don't get taken advantage of.

That is after all the purpose of the law, to protect the weak. Nothing more.

How does shutting the 'weak' out of the job market altogether help them in any way?

who's shut out of the job market?

You live in fantasy land if you actually believe that the local mcdonalds would hire more people if the min wage were just removed.

They wouldn't They staff at a certain level and if their labor costs went down due to lower wages then they would love that , it would mean more profit for them.

I actually own 2 businesses and guess what, I hire exactly as many people as I need to get the job done, and none of my employees make near the minimum wage.

If I need 5 people to run a shift, I hire 5 people I don't say hey I could afford a 6th person here and likewise if I NEED that 6th person, I need him and I don't put off hiring him or her because of the wages. Either I need him or I don't.

so you are trying to tell us if wages go up you don't raise your prices?

 

[BillyZane]

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

 

[Mathbud1]

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

 

[BillyZane]

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

 

[Spoonman]

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

and any company worth a crap maintains their profit margine. When SGA or materials rise, so will the selling cost of the goods. if its a publicly held company, the street will damand it. even if costs only rose by 2% that 2% hits the majority of the people who did not just get a wage increase with the increase in minimum wage