SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Joe NYC who wrote (206438)10/14/2004 1:44:06 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574420
 
Let me give you a simple, hypothetical example. You have a company that provides a service, for which there is some market price. The company hires people to work to provide this service, and they work on commission. Some end up making $15/hr, some make $10/hr, some make $7.50/hr, some make $5,00/hr.

The company has to subsidize the ones who fall under $5.15, and if they don't improve, they get fired. Now raise it to $7.00, and you have destroyed the job of a number of people.

The end result is people who were gainfully employed are not gainfully employed any more, the wealth in form of service they provided is no longer created.

On top of that, these newly fired people become a liability for the state in some form, and you have increased government spending, which results in higher taxes and more job losses.


Your view is very negative.....another alternative to a raise in pay:

The people who are making $5.15 when raised to $7 can cut back on the hours they put in a second job. Yes, Joe, people who make minimum wage usually work two or more jobs. The lessened work load means they are more rested and can produce more and better quality products. The company's productivity improves and they sell more product, raising company revenues and permitting the retention of all employees.

Meanwhile, the people with the lessened work hours are able to spend more time at home with their kids. That means the kids do better in school and aren't making trouble for police. They are able to pay their rent on time and even get health insurance which reduces their dependency on public welfare and city services.



To: Joe NYC who wrote (206438)10/14/2004 6:38:54 AM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 1574420
 
"Let me give you a simple, hypothetical example."

Like I said, it seems logical. But AFAIK, it has never been born out when the numbers are analyzed. Maybe the studies were unsound. Maybe there were biasing factors. I didn't tear them apart to that degree, so I don't know.