The journey from there to here

There's a lot of discussion revolving around increasing the federal minimum wage. It sounds good  and noble to put more money into the pockets of America's lowest wage earners until you consider the facts. Notwithstanding the devaluation of the dollar, we must consider all of the other implications of just such a move.

First, only about 2.4% of the American workforce are truly making minimum wage. Many of those are teenagers, the handicapped, and individuals working their way out of welfare dependency. Some work for small "mom and pops" who would love to pay more but for the fiscal realities of their business.

Now, using the example of a major fast food chain, 22% of their gross is allocated to labor. That's set in stone, and is the standard used for all franchises. This means, when you purchase a $3.00 sandwich, 66 cents is allocated to labor. If the federal minimum wage were raised to $7.50 as has been proposed, that represents roughly a 50% increase, meaning, at the consumer level, the cost of the sandwich would need to be raised 33 cents in order to maintain the same level of profit. Suddenly your $3 sandwich becomes a $3.33 sandwich. Substantial, but not huge.

But wait, there's more. See, the food to supply the restaurant is brought in by truckers who will need an increase to attract individuals to the trucking industry rather than the $7.50 job (truckers aren't making a mint). They will want an increase commensurate with that of the minimum wage workers. So will the workers who load the trucks, the workers who make the food, the workers for all of the utility companies who will be forced to increase utility costs. Basically everyone at every level will want an increase. A factory worker won't settle for $7.50-8.00 an hour when they could make as much flipping burgers without the responsibility. Suddenly your $3.00 burger becamse more expensive.

With the dollar worth less, the American consumer will spend less. Most businesses will not be able to match the 50% raise that the minimum wage earners are receiving, meaning many middle class wage earners will be making far less indexed against the inevitable inflation. Sadly, the gap between the truly rich in this country (many of whom will be insulated from the effects of this increase) and the poor will only WIDEN. All you will have succeeded in doing is making more poor out of the American MIDDLE class.

With less money being spent at the restaurants, jobs will suffer. Mom and pop businesses will close the doors because they can't afford to hire anyone besides, well, mom and pop, who aren't subject to minimum wage laws.

Many of the more liberally inclined pundits claim this isn't the case. They point to communities where the minimum wage has been raised and the fact that it hasn't hurt their employment levels. But they fail to point out that these communities are often those with above average cost of living and large urban population centers where there's a great deal of business to be had. They fail to notice small town America which is suffering badly enough because the cost of setting up business in these small towns is unnecessarily prohibitive.

The push to raise the minimumg wage on the surface is charming rhetoric, it really is. And it sounds perfectly altruistic. But in the end a minimum wage hike hurts most those it is designed to help and places a greater burden on the middle class. From a realistic perspective, it's a monumentally horrendous idea.


Comments
on Jan 04, 2006
Having worked for a major retailer, in the capacity of controlling labor cost (the largest non-COGS cost), I can tell you that while a few might see a benefit, many dont, since we reduced hiring and increased automation to compensate every time the feds got the itch to raise it. It is like with most feel good programs, you are robbing peter to pay paul, except in this case, Peter is not some fat cat rich guy.
on Jan 04, 2006
Who pays? Innocent millionaires! Thats who. But seriously.

Paying higher wages increases morale and job satisfaction. In Britain, the introduction of the minimum wage in 1999 not only did not damage national productivity, it increased productivity, this is the encouraging paradox.
on Jan 04, 2006
Too bad Britains productivity has been down the tubes for the last 30-40 years huh? Tough to make a dent at the bottom of chart when there isn't much room to go down. Same thing happened here in our steel production facilities.
on Jan 05, 2006

Paying higher wages increases morale and job satisfaction. In Britain, the introduction of the minimum wage in 1999 not only did not damage national productivity, it increased productivity, this is the encouraging paradox.

Putting SSG's rebuttal aside for a minute and assuming the minimum wage increase was the cause of that, I MUST insist that the economies of Britain and the United States are VASTLY different. The cost of living varies so widely accross the scale that a federal minimum wage law is a bad idea. For example: in the Texas Panhandle, you can get a rather nice quality home for well under $50,000 (the MEDIAN home price in our county is about $27,000). You can't touch a shack in San Diego for that, where the median home price is near or over $300,000. To assume that the wage scales in both areas should be the same is utterly and completely ludicrous.

The minimum wage as it stands (combined with the payroll tax) has been an incredible disincentive to bringing new businesses to our area. We have a smaller population base to support these businesses, and business owners considering these areas often skip them over in favor of communities like Amarillo and Lubbock.

This is why if there should be ANY minimum wage (and, I've read enough that I'm not convinced there should; but rather that the free market should set wages), such policy should be made at a LOCAL level, and not even at a state level (even the COL difference between here and places like Austin, Houston and Dallas is significant, as lostintexas can attest).

on Jan 05, 2006

Paying higher wages increases morale and job satisfaction.

I sincerely doubt that. Example: penny candy. When I was young (and I ain't even near old yet), you could still buy a penny gumball. Now, even remembering that seems like ancient history to my young children. Why is there no more penny candy? Because the dollar has been devalued.

If you raise the minimum wage to $7.50, then $7.50 will be the new $5.15. Sure, there will be a short adjustment time period while the cost of living adjusts to the new standard, but it catches up quickly. I know. I started out when it was $3.35. This means that wage earners making $10.00 an hour will feel the pinch because it is too cost prohibitive for their employers to raise them to $15.00 an hour to adjust their wages in proportion to the minimum wage hike. It also means, interestingly enough, that employees at big box stores such as WalMart (which pays well above minimum in many markets) would suffer worse as the consumer demand for low prices against the increased minimum wage would make it all but certain WalMart employees wouldn't get a 50% wage adjustment.

on Jan 05, 2006
If as you claim only a few workers earn the current minimum wage, then not too many workers and employers will be impacted. Anyone who objects to this should try and live on that wage for a year. Then tell us what you think.
on Jan 05, 2006
"oo bad Britains productivity has been down the tubes for the last 30-40 years huh? "

That is complete nonsense, since the Thatcherite reforms of the 80s Britain was transformed into the 'sick man of Europe' into one of Europe most economically stable countries. There are some people who are opposed to the minimum wage because they are capitalists, who simply do not want to see undervalued workers earning more.

And then there are those that just oppose it to go along with the crowd.
on Jan 05, 2006
I did live on that wage for a year, and more, in high school.

You know what I think? I think I got paid about as much as my work was worth, and that I was well served by sucking it up, building up my work experience, skillset, and education, and moving on up to better-paying jobs that better supported my expanding lifestyle requirements.

You know what else I think? I think that if the Demolitions company had been required by law to pay me more than taht wage to rake the yard, grease the machinery, and wash the trucks, they'd never have hired me. It'd be a waste of money for them. And that would've meant no job for me.

I also think that if McDonald's had been required to pay me more, they wouldn't have hired me, or any of my co-workers, either. And that would've sucked, too.

Gene, do you customarily pay people more than their goods and services are worth to you? Do you tip your waitress and pizza boy 20%, or 200%? Do you charge people less for your goods and services than those goods and services cost you to provide?

Minimum wage laws require you to do all these things, to waste money by paying more that things are worth, by paying workers for work they aren't actually doing.

The Demolition company I worked for in high school paid its truck drivers and machinery operators a lot more than they paid me, the janitor. Should they have paid me the same as the drivers, even though I wasn't qualified to drive their trucks? Would you pay a driver who didn't do any driving for you, but instead came in once a week to clean the bathroom?

Minimum wage laws say that you have to. Which means that in the end, you don't hire that extra "driver" at all. You make your regular drivers clean their own damn bathroom, probably without a wage increase. And you screw some poor unskilled laborer out of a job entirely.

That's what minimum wage laws do: they increase unemployment, and they force employers to waste money on "work" that isn't getting done, instead of letting them use it to buy things they actually need or want to buy.

And those extra costs get passed on to the rest of us, who must pay more for goods and services, without actually getting more value from them.

In summary, minimum wage laws increase unemployment, increase inflation, and increase wasteful spending at all levels of the economy.

Not only that, but for the lucky few workers who do get hired anyway, and paid more than their work is actually worth, it reinforces the misconception that they're entitled to wealth they have not actually earned.

How, exactly, does any of this help your precious economy, Gene?
on Jan 05, 2006
Anyone who objects to this should try and live on that wage for a year. Then tell us what you think.


COL,

Umm, I've already detailed how I lived on LESS...with a FAMILY to support. You really ARE clueless, aren't you?