No one has a right to make a certain level of money with no specialized
skills.If you aren't that valuable, no one should pay you more
than you are worthAnd if you are worth more than you are making, go
find another employer that will pay you.
To "redshirt007" and "SEY" we are not subsidizing the fast food
restaurants or Walmart. We are subsidizing lazy people. If you are 23+ and
have a child but lack marketable skills that would get you a job earning over
$10/hr, you have some problems.This article is also hiding a lot of
facts. They just look at the fast food industry, but when you look at all
minimum wage jobs, they are typically held by teens and college age kids.Another unintended consequence that the liberals never seem to address
has to do with their complaints with corporate America. You liberals complain
that US employers are sending jobs overseas where labor is cheaper. Now, you
want to make our labor rates more expensive, what do you think is going to
happen to manufacturers that depend on minimum wage workers? Do you think they
will stay here when it becomes cheaper to go overseas because of your minimum
@carman"It is also no coincidence that the states with the worst
economies are almost exclusively governed by liberal governors and
legislatures."The state with the highest median income is
Maryland, second is Massachusetts. Second to last is Alabama, and last is
Mississippi. I take it you're using a different definition of worst economy
than I am.
Hamath wrote, " Big gov't seems to botch whatever they try."You flown lately? All those planes in the air, the safe takeoff and
landings, that all was brought to you by big government.Now say
thank you big government!
Raising minimum wage would do the country good. If it kills fast food, so be it.
We have an obesity problem because of artificially cheap fast food. Stop the
farmers subsidies too.
GZE: yes, SOME people at the margins will stop buying Big Macs when they cost 50
cents more. That's an economic truism. Certainly not all regular buyers
will stop buying them, but some will. That's the problem with legislators:
they assume that their good intentions won't change consumer behavior. Darn
those unintended consequences!
Carman,Do you really think people will stop buying Big Macs because
they cost an extra $0.50?
The reason fast food owners will not pay their workers a "living wage"
is because their workers do not produce a living wage's worth of value.It is the same reason I refuse to pay $10 for a gallon of milk or $20
for a hamburger. It's not that I don't like those things or that I
want to deny dairy farmers or hamburger makers a decent living. It is just that
I don't value those things at that price. I like new cars too, but I
won't pay $100,000 for one when I can buy a new one for about a quarter of
that much money.Instead of "bailing out" the auto industry
with loans and cash, why didn't Obama just issue an executive order that
sets the minimum price anyone could buy a new car at $60,000? That would have
solved the problem, right? Car companies and their workers would be very
profitable at those prices, right? It wouldn't have changed car
buyer's behaviour, would it?How is raising the minimum wage any
@ Carman, I agree that you likely can't force this either. Big
gov't seems to botch whatever they try. But I think we as consumers
probably can and should to whatever extent we can. If the industry
can't support a worker without welfare, should we support it with our
money? I think you are perhaps right though. I think I should stop going to
fastfood and other low wage companies. Why can Costco pay the $20
an hour and Sam's Club only pays $12? Same type company. Same type prices
overall. Just one company gives more back to their shareholders and the other
more to their workers.
To Hamath:Your theory sounds o.k. but will fail. Forcing higher
wages will cause fast food restaurant prices to rise, causing a move up and to
the left on the demand curve. Less food will be sold, and fewer workers will be
needed. The higher fixed cost base will cause prices to rise further, further
killing demand.In the end, the industry will go the way that every
other industry has gone where wages were forced above market rates. The jobs
will be lost, companies will go out of business, profits will not be earned and
reinvested.Liberals always fail to see the the unintended
consequences of their action. It is no coincidence that the states with the
best economies are almost exclusively governed by conservative governors and
legislatures. It is also no coincidence that the states with the worst
economies are almost exclusively governed by liberal governors and legislatures.
redshirt007 makes my point. Government intervention into the market brings
negative unintended consequences that overwhelm any positive effects. Government
subsidies should stop. They won't because crony capitalists have too much
to lose. But the answer is to repeal subsidies, not pile on more "good
I have no objection to workers being paid a "living wage," whatever that
might be (although it will never be enough), but it should be determined by
market forces, not by government edict. If there's one lesson we should
have learned through the years is that good intentions inevitably bring even
more unintended consequences. More often than not, the cure is worse than the
Exactly, it's been shown over and over how we are subsidizing these chain
restaurants and other low wage employers. They get their produce
cheap because we subsidize farmers, they get their meat cheap because subsidized
corn is dirt cheap that is fed to cattle and we subsidize their employees wages
because they still qualify for food stamps after working 50 hours a week.
We are going to pay them through our taxes (Welfare) or through their work.
MIght as well help their self esteem and pay them through the work. Once on a
living wage, they eventually will be able to get off welfare if not immediately.