Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (736358)	9/1/2013 12:42:58 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576990

If McDonald's had to pay its employees $15/hour, the cost of a dollar menu item would go up 17 cents.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (736358)	9/2/2013 10:52:55 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576990

>Studies differ on the effects of raising the minimum wage. Sometimes the effects are to cut back hours or even cut wages for the higher-ups, the latter obviously being the ideal outcome for liberals. Sometimes, but rarely. I'd like to see some of the studies you've got. I'm finding almost no evidence that that's the case. >But there is no denying that the impact of higher labor costs is real and significant. The impact of low wages is much more real and much more significant. >And for many small businesses that survive on razor-thin margins, that impact can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Businesses that can't pay a living wage shouldn't exist. They are exploitative, plain and simple. >There are many other variables involved, but the whole point is that wages are ultimately set by the market. You're only paid as much as what someone else is willing to accept for the same work. And that amount is dictated by how much employers can make sure people can be driven to desperation. Which they've gotten quite good at in the U.S.. >The minimum wage is there to prevent overt exploitation and to set a floor on wages, but that's it. It's never meant to provide a "living wage" because that's a rather arbitrary standard that doesn't take into account free market economics. You know who also didn't take into account free market economics? Adam Smith: "Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be ?ourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." The minimum wage is always going to be arbitrary. But people with other people's well-being in mind arbitrarily would like it to be higher, and people that think, "I've got mine, Jack." would like it to be lower -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (736358)	9/2/2013 11:40:52 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576990

>> Sometimes the effects are to cut back hours or even cut wages for the higher-ups, the latter obviously being the ideal outcome for liberals. I really don't know why the Left wants to argue this point; it isn't as though there is any question about it. Z wants a study. Here's a study: A month ago Slate.com came under pressure to pay its interns minimum wage instead of zero. So, they announced they were going to start paying their interns minimum wage. But in the same letter, they announced instead of 12 interns, they would only be hiring 10. This is just basic economics. If you increase the cost of hiring, you get less hiring. Yet, they're always wanting to see "studies". If a person needs a "study" to comprehend that raising the price of labor results in less labor being sold, it is dubious whether a person is going to be able to comprehend the content of a "study" in the first place.