UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It PassesI don't see "all boats rising in the tide" of $15 minimum wage.
UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It PassesI don't see "all boats rising in the tide" of $15 minimum wage.
5 comments:
The ones pushing it the hardest are the ones least likely to actually benefit from it. They're doing it because they care more than the rest of us do, see? Or because they're bored and want to be up to any kind of mischeif.
The more folks they can get to saw on the branch upon which we all sit, the better. Nihilism loves company.
The law of unintended karmic consequences works its magic once again!
I have a fellow employee who is quite bright (for a Millenial). He was "all in" on the $15.00 minimum wage. So, I asked how he intended to collect that windfall paycheck after he lost his job. He was very nonplussed, to say the least. I explained that his labor as a housekeeper was not worth more than his current $8.00 per hour. Anything above that, and the company was losing money, so he would have to be terminated if that minimum wage increase occurred here. The very idea that he might not have a job (somehow) just never quite entered his mind as he was busy projecting how he would spend that windfall. Suddenly, it was not nearly as attractive as it sounded when The Bern was touting it.
There may be hope yet. . .
Another opinion:
Politically Moderate Christian: Statistical Proof That Minimum Wage Increases don't Kill Jobs
I question the data that PMC posted. First, there is no national minimum wage, except for government employees. Minimum wages are state determined. Second, employment figures are notably unreliable, especially given that unemployed teenagers don't show up in the figures, since they still live with their parents and don't file with the government.
Entry level jobs should apply to entry level people, and not be family support, living wage jobs.
Minimum wage increases drive inflation, since more $ is required in order to afford the increased product prices that are necessary to cover increased production wages.
The wage of rough, unskilled labor should be driven by the ability of businesses to obtain labor at a wage that allows them to compete in the market. In other words, when entry level wages are too low, then labor becomes scarce, so the wage must increase in order to attract the labor. I.e., the market for the product should determine the cost of labor necessary to produce the product. Certainly not the government nannies.
The philosophy of minimum wage is that there is a segment of the population which is too stupid to perform tasks above the entry level; therefore entry level must become "living wage" to accommodate this sector of the population. But this is a self-fulfilling hypothesis which generates inflation and job loss, especially with automation of entry level jobs.
This cannot happen, except for short bursts, because prices go up for the minimum wage employees too as the labor cost permeates the entire market. All labor will have to increase to accommodate the inflation. That leaves the minimum wage worker back where he started as the market rebalances at the new dollar value.
So the nannies have created a perpetual Victimhood Class, always in need of intervention by the messiah Class.
And this: If the data applies only to government employees and contractors, and it might, then the relationship is not market driven - it is artificially supported by taxpayers.
Government employment always increases, regardless of minimum wage. Government doesn't employ minimum wage workers afik, it contracts for them. So the cost of government projects goes up, while government employment also goes up. The numbers are unrelated, at least in market terms.
Post a Comment