Starbucks raises minimum wage. Guess what happened???

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

The best argument I have seen in support of a minimum wage increase is that when workers make less than a living wage, there are societal costs. Welfare, potential for crime, etc. are correlated with low incomes. These costs are borne by everyone - and they should be borne by the company and its customers. When it is not, we (meaning the government) is effectively subsidizing the firm in question.

So, for example, if a full timer at McD's makes $20k a year, but costs society an additional $10K in welfare benefits, how is that fair? McD's should take on that costs and either accept lower profits or increase prices to its customers.

I never eat at McD's. So, in this example, why should my taxes support their workers? Those of thus who stay away from McD's are subsidizing those who eat there.

1) Crime is the choice of the individual and it is an inverted morality to hold the company responsible.

2) The welfare system is broken and enables people to mooch off the gov't. Many can work more if they choose, but they take the minimum wage job at minimal hours and subsidize the rest from welfare. It is an inverted morality to blame the company for a broken system and lazy individuals.

3) The only thing you are subsidizing is the welfare system, and the abuse or inefficiency of that system is not McDonald's fault nor the fault of those who eat there. You are paying extra for the inefficiencies of a system designed to take care of those who are truly in need. It is a moral goal to feed the hungry. The immorality in the system lies with those who abuse it.

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

What the Heck? wrote:

If that is the best argument that you have seen then you have seen exactly zero valid arguments. The company is actually subsidizing the government and not the other way around. Let the company fold, lay off 100% of its workers and then see how much government assistance is required for those former employees.

Let the company fold or innovate. That just means the market doesn't want what they sell at the prices they are charging.

Wow, so you doubled down on dumb, huh?

It is incredibly ironic that you turn to notions of "the market" and talk about what "the market doesn't want". You're probably so dense that this will need to be spelled out for you.

1) Potential employer tells potential employee that employer is willing to employ them at $X/hr.

2) Potential employee says, "OK".

3) Government steps in and say, "Whoah, hold on there. I don't like you working for $X/hr. STOP right there!

4) Potential employee does not get hired. (Thanks, government!)

Turns out that the market unquestionably DID want potential employer to employ potential employee. But Big Brother decided to not let the market work.

Seriously, next time try thinking first.

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

. . .

I never eat at McD's. So, in this example, why should my taxes support their workers? Those of thus who stay away from McD's are subsidizing those who eat there.

That's another real gem!

Here you are talking about morality and advocating for a strong (some might way over-reaching) role for the government in intervening in the marketplace. At the same time you are suggesting that those "who stay away from McD's" should not have to "subsidize those who eat there."

So, you're undoubtedly in favor of me not paying my property taxes since I have no kids in school, right? Also, I don't visit any parks so I should probably get a refund on my taxes for that, right? . . .

Seriously, you really, REALLY need to try to think before you post. If it is too much trouble, just don't post. Thanks!

By employing low-skill workers, McDonalds and WalMart subsidize the welfare system. Not the other way around.

Econ tough for the irrational wrote:

By employing low-skill workers, McDonalds and WalMart subsidize the welfare system. Not the other way around.

Actually, they don't. Since low-skilled workers take more in benefits from the gov't than they pay in taxes, it is a debit from the government to the workers (a subsidy).

Personally, I don't really blame the companies for this since it is not their fault that workers haven't developed skills valued beyond $8/hr.

Stagger Lee wrote:

Econ tough for the irrational wrote:

By employing low-skill workers, McDonalds and WalMart subsidize the welfare system. Not the other way around.

Actually, they don't. Since low-skilled workers take more in benefits from the gov't than they pay in taxes, it is a debit from the government to the workers (a subsidy).

Personally, I don't really blame the companies for this since it is not their fault that workers haven't developed skills valued beyond $8/hr.

Of course these people receive way more in benefits than they pay out in taxes. What I'm saying is that if companies like Walmart and McDonalds didn't exist to employ them, the government would have to pay out even MORE in benefits.

If a low skill person can get a job that pays 8 dollars an hour, that's 320 dollars per week less that the rest of us have to spend subsiding this person.

Stagger Lee wrote:

Econ tough for the irrational wrote:

By employing low-skill workers, McDonalds and WalMart subsidize the welfare system. Not the other way around.

Actually, they don't. Since low-skilled workers take more in benefits from the gov't than they pay in taxes, it is a debit from the government to the workers (a subsidy).

Personally, I don't really blame the companies for this since it is not their fault that workers haven't developed skills valued beyond $8/hr.

Think of how much the government will save in welfare payments when Elizabeth Warren puts Walmart out of business for good! Once Walmart closes its doors, there will no longer be any poor, underpaid Walmart workers who need their salaries to be subsidized!

Econ tough for the irrational wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

Actually, they don't. Since low-skilled workers take more in benefits from the gov't than they pay in taxes, it is a debit from the government to the workers (a subsidy).

Personally, I don't really blame the companies for this since it is not their fault that workers haven't developed skills valued beyond $8/hr.

Of course these people receive way more in benefits than they pay out in taxes. What I'm saying is that if companies like Walmart and McDonalds didn't exist to employ them, the government would have to pay out even MORE in benefits.

If a low skill person can get a job that pays 8 dollars an hour, that's 320 dollars per week less that the rest of us have to spend subsiding this person.

No. These people would just be magically vaporized if Walmart shut its doors. No need for any more government benefits!

Flagpole wrote:

Thejeff wrote:http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/starbucks-employees-minimum-wage-increase-causing-extreme-labor-cuts

No surprise here. Education, not Legislation!!! Vote Thejeff 2020!

Umm...the COMPANY Starbucks decided to raise the pay for its workers. It can then structure its workforce any way they want to. That's actually a very REPUBLICAN view.

You're contradicting something stated in the CNN article. Newly hired employees are getting paid similar wages (due to minimum wage requirements) as their more experienced, and supposedly, more valuable peers. Seems Starbucks didn't voluntarily raise wages of everyone ... just the ones making minimum. Why?

I have no problem with Starbucks doing whatever they can to make their business viable, the Federal government should not be telling anyone what wages to pay. If anyone should do that it should be local governments only. Abolish the Federal minimum wage.

forthekeeuds wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Umm...the COMPANY Starbucks decided to raise the pay for its workers. It can then structure its workforce any way they want to. That's actually a very REPUBLICAN view.

You're contradicting something stated in the CNN article. Newly hired employees are getting paid similar wages (due to minimum wage requirements) as their more experienced, and supposedly, more valuable peers. Seems Starbucks didn't voluntarily raise wages of everyone ... just the ones making minimum. Why?

I have no problem with Starbucks doing whatever they can to make their business viable, the Federal government should not be telling anyone what wages to pay. If anyone should do that it should be local governments only. Abolish the Federal minimum wage.

This is one of the problems I have with the minimum wage. Let's say you workforce with little no skills, and are paid minimum wage. After a time, management recognizes that you are a worker who is willing to work hard, and you develop more skills along the way. You are given a $1/hr raise, and now make $8.25.

The next month, the federal government, in its infinite and loving wisdom, raises the federal minimum wage to $9/hr. Sure you got a $.75/hr raise, but did you effectively gain anything? Not really. The 16 year old kid who just walked in the door now makes exactly what you worked a year to get. On top of that, the price of good and services will have a corresponding increase since the cost of business has now gone up for a lot of industries. It's interesting to note the correlation between cost of living in most states and the minimum wage standard.

Stagger Lee wrote:

You're contradicting something stated in the CNN article. Newly hired employees are getting paid similar wages (due to minimum wage requirements) as their more experienced, and supposedly, more valuable peers. Seems Starbucks didn't voluntarily raise wages of everyone ... just the ones making minimum. Why?

I have no problem with Starbucks doing whatever they can to make their business viable, the Federal government should not be telling anyone what wages to pay. If anyone should do that it should be local governments only. Abolish the Federal minimum wage.

This is one of the problems I have with the minimum wage. Let's say you workforce with little no skills, and are paid minimum wage. After a time, management recognizes that you are a worker who is willing to work hard, and you develop more skills along the way. You are given a $1/hr raise, and now make $8.25.

The next month, the federal government, in its infinite and loving wisdom, raises the federal minimum wage to $9/hr. Sure you got a $.75/hr raise, but did you effectively gain anything? Not really. The 16 year old kid who just walked in the door now makes exactly what you worked a year to get. On top of that, the price of good and services will have a corresponding increase since the cost of business has now gone up for a lot of industries. It's interesting to note the correlation between cost of living in most states and the minimum wage standard.[/quote]

Any company with any kind of brains would make it crystal clear that those who had been there longer have some sort of valuable seniority...title, parking spot, salary, something. Then, this is all moot if the company makes it a fireable offense to discuss how much everyone makes. When I worked at McDonald's way back when, I attained the lofty position of "Trainer". Minimum wage then was $3.35 per hour, but we trainers made $3.50 per hour. Everyone knew the pay scale there, and they all bowed to me as I walked by...as they should have.

We have real experiments going on still in this area and there's no evidence of job losses due to higher minimum wages. The first year reports had job gains after raises and the next article reports no more job losses than gains in different states. Some gained, some lost (WVa in particular but that was hardly a clear case because they are taking a huge hit in coal from the shift to natural gas).

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says%20

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-21/this-is-what-raising-the-minimum-wage-did-to-jobs-in-11-states

jjjjjjj wrote:

We have real experiments going on still in this area and there's no evidence of job losses due to higher minimum wages. The first year reports had job gains after raises and the next article reports no more job losses than gains in different states. Some gained, some lost (WVa in particular but that was hardly a clear case because they are taking a huge hit in coal from the shift to natural gas).

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says%20http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-21/this-is-what-raising-the-minimum-wage-did-to-jobs-in-11-states

Yeah because the difference in minimum wage is the only significant difference between states compared. Lol.

jjjjjjj wrote:

We have real experiments going on still in this area and there's no evidence of job losses due to higher minimum wages. The first year reports had job gains after raises and the next article reports no more job losses than gains in different states. Some gained, some lost (WVa in particular but that was hardly a clear case because they are taking a huge hit in coal from the shift to natural gas).

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/19/332879409/states-that-raised-minimum-wage-see-faster-job-growth-report-says%20http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-21/this-is-what-raising-the-minimum-wage-did-to-jobs-in-11-states

Apples to oranges. There are many factors that affect the overall economy other than minimum wage.