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: TimF who wrote (760722)	1/1/2014 4:31:37 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 1574267

Many other minimum wage employers can not afford to pay more, or at least not significantly more. If they can't afford the cost of doing business they shouldn't be in business...

To: TimF who wrote (760722)	1/1/2014 4:57:32 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574267

No they are not being subsidized, the money goes to the employees. Back to playing word games, I see... The aid allows Walmart and others to pay so little. If not, the workers would have more incentives to unionize and such, even in a lousy job market. The Ikea plant in Danville is an instructive example. Many other minimum wage employers can not afford to pay more, or at least not significantly more. If minimum wages go up, then they can afford to pay more. Everybody else will have their labor costs go up. For many things, especially for those sectors with a significant number of minimum wage earners, demand is fairly inelastic. Not perfectly, but small price increases are readily absorbed without decreasing demand. Which is why the argument "why stop at $15/hr? Why not raise it to $100?" is a particularly stupid response.