Higher minimum wage may not be good thing

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2012 9:42 p.m.

    With no minimum wage, you would be willing to work for $5/hr. But what about the guy that would be willing to do it for $4.50? Or $3? or $2?

    We have a minimum wage because people who need jobs are willing to sell themselves short if it means the job goes to them instead of someone else.

    As for why movie theaters no longer have ushers - it is because they found that people will go to the movies even if there are not ushers.

    No company - no matter how little they can get away with paying them - is going to hire someone they don't need.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    You've been hanging out with Professor Kearl too much. You better quit it, or you'll start making too much sense.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    $15,080 before taxes, but $23,598 after earned income credits, etc. since they pay NO taxes. not much to live on, but not as abused as some would have you think

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    To "Dauly" why is it that only unskilled labor needs minimum wage laws to protect them? Do politicians assume that they are not capable of refusing jobs that don't pay them enough?

    Think of it this way. If eliminating minimum wage laws is "a great way to keep costs down is to never give those low skilled workers wages or benefits that can lift them to a level where they can buy the products and services they are providing", why does that not apply to skilled labor? Wouldn't a company save more money by hiring a person for $25,000/yr instead of $50,000/yr, than they do by paying 5 people $5.25/yr instead of $7.25/yr. So, knowing that skilled labor costs more, why is it that only the most unskilled have to be protected this way?

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    Last I heard, only 5% of the workforce is being paid a minimum wage. Everyone else is being paid more.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Also, every time minimum wage goes up, employers look to automation or just eliminating that position. You don't see ushers in movie theaters or gas station attendants that pump your gas, wash the windows and check the tires, anymore.

  • Dauly Provo, UT
    Aug. 21, 2012 6:07 a.m.

    No minimum wage assumes beneficent employers. Yes, it would be ideal for allowing workers to begin a career starting in a low skill and moving up but, as seen with many large companies, a great way to keep costs down is to never give those low skilled workers wages or benefits that can lift them to a level where they can buy the products and services they are providing.

  • weathered siding San Antonio, TX
    Aug. 20, 2012 10:04 p.m.

    A minimum wage is just that ... a minimum starting point - not intended for a skilled worker. MOST minimum wage workers are under 21 and single (I know many aren't, but they generally have no skills that command more than a starting wage).
    I employ about a dozen people ... about half (the unskilled entry-level jobs) started at minimum wage, but after they master their job positions and showed their reliability, I will raise their pay by about $2 an hour. When they develop additional skills and can cover other job slots (for vacationing or sick employees) they get another raise. They generally move up to more skilled jobs in my company as openings occur ... and I eventually look for another person to start the entry level job that's again available.
    THIS IS the common-sense answer, not more government meddling ... a simple reward for unskilled workers ...i.e. welfare.