House and Senate Democrats introduce legeslation to increase federal min. wage to $15/hr by 2025

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

22 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

They do a good job of not actually mentioning the specifics of what they are referring to as "negative impacts", which are primarily that many low-wage workers reduced their hours worked as a result of increased wages, which is one of the goals of increased wages rather than a "negative impact". The studies / analyses / commentaries they are referring to described these voluntary reduction in hours worked as employees having had their hours cut or having lost hours. When really, one of the reasons for requiring wages to reflect the true costs of employees (raising the minimum wage) is that a concerning proportion of those needing government assistance are working not only full-time, but more than full-time, if a better wage means someone trying to raise kids and also working two jobs can cut back to one job, that's not a bad thing.

If one has to work no more then one full-time job to make enough, then I would agree with you that is a benefit.

However, we both know that's not what we're talking about. Just in this thread we have one person who knows several people who've involuntarily had their hours cut, and there is a story of two grocery stores closing when forced by the city to increase wages.

It's easy to find stories in the news of businesses closing when the city forced them to pay a certain wage.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make this argument, other then you like to relive your high school debate team days. You've said several times over the years and in this thread now that it's a cost of doing business to pay the "living wage", and if a business cant then they shouldn't be in business. You're pretty much saying some businesses will go under if forced to pay higher wages.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You can characterize my comments as you prefer. That's not really the topic at hand. The source offered is known for bias and inaccuracies.

Are you specifically wanting to argue certain points? I'm open. Where do you want to start?

I say let's start with employee value to the employer versus value to the society.

So, you're ready to move on to a different argument, now?

toomuchbaloney · Feb 4, 2021

22 minutes ago, Beerman said:

So, you're ready to move on to a different argument, now?

Same argument...a full time job should allow the wage earner to live in their community about the poverty level. Our current minimum wage does not accomplish that which represents a failure of our federal government to protect the interests and wellbeing of we the people.

MunoRN, RN · Feb 4, 2021

43 minutes ago, Beerman said:

If one has to work no more then one full-time job to make enough, then I would agree with you that is a benefit.

However, we both know that's not what we're talking about. Just in this thread we have one person who knows several people who've involuntarily had their hours cut, and there is a story of two grocery stores closing when forced by the city to increase wages.

It's easy to find stories in the news of businesses closing when the city forced them to pay a certain wage.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make this argument, other then you like to relive your high school debate team days. You've said several times over the years and in this thread now that it's a cost of doing business to pay the "living wage", and if a business cant then they shouldn't be in business. You're pretty much saying some businesses will go under if forced to pay higher wages.

Businesses that have been propped up by having others, including their competitors, subsidize their costs will lose that crutch, I would disagree that's a bad thing.

The suggestion seems to be that by increasing the minimum wage, the overall market for groceries shrinks, which doesn't appear to be the case. What happens is that poorly managed and run businesses will lose their share of the market, and the jobs that go along with that, to other better run businesses. The number of employees used to sell the total amount of groceries that the market requires doesn't change, who they work for does.

The two grocery stores in Long Beach you referenced are good examples. As their labor prices go up, the obvious solution would be to reflect that in their prices, but since they wouldn't be able to compete with other stores in the area, despite those stores also being subject to the temporary $4/hr increase, their only option to close the stores. They're closing because they can't compete with other stores who do a far better job of providing a good product at a good price, their business and the need for employees that goes along with it will migrate to other better runs stores, that's not a bad thing.

Generally though I find the claim of businesses closing at significant rates due to increased wages to be a bit of a unicorn. A commonly covered restaurant closing due to Seattle's increase in minimum is a restaurant called Sitka and Spruce, which multiple media stories claim closed because of the increase in minimum wage. The odd thing is none of these seem to get this information from the actual owner. While the owner's actual take on the minimum wage was "“The $15, you can stomach that,” Dillon said last week. “The minimum wage should be $25".

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

25 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Same argument...a full time job should allow the wage earner to live in their community about the poverty level. Our current minimum wage does not accomplish that which represents a failure of our federal government to protect the interests and wellbeing of we the people.

Great. So, how did Sleepy Joe and friends come with with $15 per hour? And how do they figure that number works the same for the owner and employees of Jim's Burger Hut in rural Arkansas as it does for the employees of McDonald's in San Francisco?

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

12 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Businesses that have been propped up by having others, including their competitors, subsidize their costs will lose that crutch, I would disagree that's a bad thing.

The suggestion seems to be that by increasing the minimum wage, the overall market for groceries shrinks, which doesn't appear to be the case. What happens is that poorly managed and run businesses will lose their share of the market, and the jobs that go along with that, to other better run businesses. The number of employees used to sell the total amount of groceries that the market requires doesn't change, who they work for does.

The two grocery stores in Long Beach you referenced are good examples. As their labor prices go up, the obvious solution would be to reflect that in their prices, but since they wouldn't be able to compete with other stores in the area, despite those stores also being subject to the temporary $4/hr increase, their only option to close the stores. They're closing because they can't compete with other stores who do a far better job of providing a good product at a good price, their business and the need for employees that goes along with it will migrate to other better runs stores, that's not a bad thing.

Generally though I find the claim of businesses closing at significant rates due to increased wages to be a bit of a unicorn. A commonly covered restaurant closing due to Seattle's increase in minimum is a restaurant called Sitka and Spruce, which multiple media stories claim closed because of the increase in minimum wage. The odd thing is none of these seem to get this information from the actual owner. While the owner's actual take on the minimum wage was "“The $15, you can stomach that,” Dillon said last week. “The minimum wage should be $25".

Your argument for grocery stores sorta works, only because they do have a relatively stable market . Although I once worked at a grocery store with other high school kids that made up about 75% of the employees. I doubt many of us were on public assistance. grocery stores are a very low margin business. It wouldnt have made sense to pay us a inflated pay scale for such low skilled work.

Most businesses arent as necessary as a grocery store (and that's debatable these days if they are necessary). If there are three restaurants in a small rural town, employing mostly high school kids, it doesnt mean the business is badly run if they cant afford to pay that high of a wage. They'll have to raise prices. Maybe the market will support it. Maybe not. Suppose it supports one restaurant. It's unlikely that one will employ anywhere close to the same number of employees as all three did.

toomuchbaloney · Feb 4, 2021

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Great. So, how did Sleepy Joe and friends come with with $15 per hour? And how do they figure that number works the same for the owner and employees of Jim's Burger Hut in rural Arkansas as it does for the employees of McDonald's in San Francisco?

Is this admission that you didn't bother to peruse any of the information provided to you after you asked essentially the same question in somewhat less inflammatory terms? Reading the information might help you to understand better and better understanding might reduce how agitated you feel about the topic.

MunoRN, RN · Feb 4, 2021

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Great. So, how did Sleepy Joe and friends come with with $15 per hour? And how do they figure that number works the same for the owner and employees of Jim's Burger Hut in rural Arkansas as it does for the employees of McDonald's in San Francisco?

The purpose of a $15 minimum wage isn't actually to meet the median living wage of either Arkansas or San Francisco, and falls far short of the median living wage even in rural Arkansas.

$15 is intended to be a better starting point for people to move up from to reduce the number of full or near full time workers that depend on government assistance for basic costs of living.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

41 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Is this admission that you didn't bother to peruse any of the information provided to you after you asked essentially the same question in somewhat less inflammatory terms? Reading the information might help you to understand better and better understanding might reduce how agitated you feel about the topic.

The information I believe you are referring to is how a employer does a market analysis to set wages.

You don't care about that. You want the govt to set the wages. Which is what my question refers to.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 4, 2021

41 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

The purpose of a $15 minimum wage isn't actually to meet the median living wage of either Arkansas or San Francisco, and falls far short of the median living wage even in rural Arkansas.

$15 is intended to be a better starting point for people to move up from to reduce the number of full or near full time workers that depend on government assistance for basic costs of living.

Hmm. I havent heard that explanation from sleepy joe and company. That must be your take on it, which I'll admit makes more sense then what the Democrats are trying to tell us.

MunoRN, RN · Feb 4, 2021

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Your argument for grocery stores sorta works, only because they do have a relatively stable market . Although I once worked at a grocery store with other high school kids that made up about 75% of the employees. I doubt many of us were on public assistance. grocery stores are a very low margin business. It wouldnt have made sense to pay us a inflated pay scale for such low skilled work.

Most businesses arent as necessary as a grocery store (and that's debatable these days if they are necessary). If there are three restaurants in a small rural town, employing mostly high school kids, it doesnt mean the business is badly run if they cant afford to pay that high of a wage. They'll have to raise prices. Maybe the market will support it. Maybe not. Suppose it supports one restaurant. It's unlikely that one will employ anywhere close to the same number of employees as all three did.

The proportion of grocery store or restaurant workers that are under 20 years of age appears to be just over 10% based on the workforce demographics I can find, although workers under 20 already don't immediately qualify for the full federal minimum wage and changing that doesn't seem to be part of the $15/hr proposal.

By definition, the bare minimum cost of an employee (the basic costs to live) is not an 'inflated' wage, bare minimum and inflated are two different things.

There doesn't appear to be much basis for the idea that if people make more, that they will be less likely to eat out at restaurants, and therefore the market demand for restaurant meals will decline. Particularly given that in your example of Arkansas well over a quarter million people rely on food stamps, which can't be used at restaurants. Less people relying on food stamps = more people that can go to restaurants to eat.

toomuchbaloney · Feb 5, 2021

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

The information I believe you are referring to is how a employer does a market analysis to set wages.

You don't care about that. You want the govt to set the wages. Which is what my question refers to.

Should I assume from the tenor of your remarks that you don't believe that the government has a role in protecting American workers from unfair labor practices of unscrupulous employers? Maybe that's how you might make our country great again...repealing fair labor laws?