because it’s the most important statement, and it’s a proper name, duh.
I’m not opposed to a McDonalds cashier making $10/hr. if they create at least as much value for their employer, but if they simply don’t create that much value they have zero claim to that wage. In high school my first part-time job was at a local supermarket for $7.50/hr, and it was immediately obvious to me that some workers were simply far more valuable than others. They worked harder, obviously made an effort, and were always looking to help out beyond their immediate responsibilities (it’s the difference between the bagger who clearly doesn’t give a sh$t and throws the milk on top of the bread and eggs, making for an angry customer vs. the gentleman who gladly honors your request for paper in plastic who just raced in from the parking lot with a train of 30 empty carriages). The second bagger will be noticed, and if he makes a case for why he deserves a raise a smart management team will recognize his added value and pay him more. If management isn’t smart, the bagger will seek other employment under more equitable terms. Either way, he realizes a wage commensurate with his efforts. I have seen this scenario play out many times since and if the employee creates significant value most of the time management will offer higher compensation, and when they don’t the employee looks for new employment. You might ask what about the employee making $8/hr who is denied the raise to $10 and can’t find a better-paying job elsewhere? In that case, I’d be inclined to question if they are worth a 25% raise. The point is if someone’s really worth $x/hr. they should and will eventually see their wages move towards x in recogniition of their efforts without needing a government decree.
my question is: why shouldn’t the productive, useful and gentlemanly bagger be compensated at least more than the living wage for his above average efforts. instead, he works his ass to the bone, to make what, $10/hr instead of $8/hr? what’s the point? my point is that by raising the minimum, you cut one of the two jobs and the competition for the one remaining bagger job will mean that the gentleman will have that job and the grump will move onto something else OR the grump keeps the job, but is now happy and productive b/c he makes enough to survive and the gentleman gets an education and become a hedge fund guy. productivity enhanced. shooting rampage averted.
As for McDonalds, I honestly don’t know how much labor cost is apart of their total cost, but if I have to guess, its probably pretty low. For reference, Starbux reportly pays >$9/hr and they are still profitable. I’m sure stores with poor location and management will feel the pain more so than more profitable stores. So ultimately, bad planning is probably the major determinate for their margins rather than labor costs.
But i’m against raising the min wage because low wage jobs due to the opportunity inequality is a social issue that society should burden, not employeers. It would be unfair if we impose social burdens on employers just because a cost of their input is unskilled labor.
Here we import workers from foreign lands to work our McD’s and THI’s at $14/hr. Maybe we should just start importing Americans. Problem solved for both countries.
my question is: why shouldn’t the productive, useful and gentlemanly bagger be compensated at least more than the living wage for his above average efforts. instead, he works his ass to the bone, to make what, $10/hr instead of $8/hr? what’s the point? my point is that by raising the minimum, you cut one of the two jobs and the competition for the one remaining bagger job will mean that the gentleman will have that job and the grump will move onto something else OR the grump keeps the job, but is now happy and productive b/c he makes enough to survive and the gentleman gets an education and become a hedge fund guy. productivity enhanced. shooting rampage averted.
[/quote]
The point is the market (how much you’re willing to pay for groceries) will determine what his value is as a bagger rather than saying a worker has a right to $x/hr regardless of the task they are performing, but if this gentleman keeps up his efforts he will not need to worry about making $10/hr. forever. If he chooses to stay with the company he likely would move up to management level, at which point he would make enough to support a family if that’s what he wanted. The problem with your scenario of raising the minimum wage and firing the shitty bagger is that you’re assuming that this is most productive for the company, and it may be, but why not let the company make that decision? They would be the closest to having perfect information to make the best decision, instead of you, me, or the federal government.
“Canada” isn’t a proper noun?
Let’s just assume employment is purely efficient and people are only employed if they generate enough value to justify the wage. Don’t you agree that setting a floor on wage inevitably prices some people out of the market? The point Friedman makes, which I do not think is a relic, is that some people simply aren’t as valuable to an employer. The problem is if you price them out of the market, they never have a chance to become valuable. So while good intentioned at making a livable wage, you actually harm a lot of the people you are trying to help.
In terms of intragenerational movement, life isn’t fair and I don’t think there is an effective way to promote a quick fix to centuries of lack of wealth. Both of my family’s come from laborer backgrounds, where they started doing jobs that would be impacted by this. My father still does a job that doesn’t require a college degree, but makes sufficient money on the river as a captian. His company would like me to come work for them, as I’d skip straight to the captain spot making that same money right after graduation but my father always forbid that. All my siblings and cousins have taken similar paths (and you can tell how their intelligence/work ethic helps in either them moving a step up, staying on the same step, or moving down).
It would be nice to be able to fix the stuff overnight. But someone has to pay for it and it has to be an efficient allocation of resources. I just don’t see how increasing the min wage accomplishes that without hurting those it intends to help.
In the words of the great Philopsoher T.I.:
I sold dope and dropped out of school, seems it’s all they can see They don’t notice none of my family did that since me (nah) I broke that cycle, now my family live a live for Mandatory minimums, but not when the judge sentence us Cousins in college, where you think they get tuition from? (Answer that) Just for standin 'round wishin, huh? Hey while you stand around lookin dumb, I make it happen Takin action over time, got damn good at it
^ it’s a good argument and i can’t refute it entirely. i really can’t say much more for my case and i don’t think you can say much more for your case. the only way to really see how it affects the economy and well-being of society would be to implement it. the NIT to provide a basic income has been tested to some degree in the U.S., which is similar policy to a living wage, and it was more successful than most had assumed. the negative consequences of providing a basic income aren’t as bad most most right wingers (to clarify, U.S. right wingers) think. there are some differences between a higher minimum wage + NIT versus NIT alone but i think if you do an NIT anyway, you might as well make the economy more efficient by increasing productivity and forcing corporations to only provide jobs worth having/keeping.
i see it like this. i think a major problem humans have when analyzing this issue is similar to a problem in trading. there is skill and there is luck. when a trader is right, he thinks it is due to his skill. when he is wrong he thinks is is due to luck. it has to be one or the other. well, in the game of life, your achievements are the result of the same: skill or luck. skill being your education and your capability to learn (which is formed by education, social support and natural intellgence) and luck being natural intelligence or capital resources at birth. those without natural intelligence or a strong education (i.e. you’re poor and not naturally brilliant) have zero chance of acheiving success as we may know it. to not provide these people basic sustinence, despite our knowledge that they cannot acheive it for themselves in the world construct that also allows us to be successful, is just wrong. yes, some poor people with minimal intelligence ($hit luck) and no education ($hit skill) can make it (e.g. TI, Petey Pablo, 50% of NFL players), but you can’t sit there and tell me everyone who has $hit luck and $hit skill actually has a chance to be successful and “make it”. that’s my case for basic income and my case for providing better education as well as jobs worth doing. why take advantage of labour if technology to can easily replace that labour? why not let labour attempt to improve, and down the line, attain employment that is worth having? maybe your pocketwatch won’t be stolen as much if this were the case…
How long would have Mr.Clinton lasted in a debate with Mr. Friedman…
Minimum wage is already being by passed by certain sectors of the economy due to illegal immigration.
Take a look at a foreigners land scaping business.
They charge their customers less than an all USA labor based operation. How is the foreign based company able to charge less?
The menial labors work for say $4 an hour versus $10 an hour that a USA citizen might charge. Why is the non USA worker taking $4?
They live 10 people to a studio and that significantly cuts down on their cost of living. Back in the home country they probably lived 20 to a room, didn’t feel safe like they do here and probably went to bed hungry a few nights a week. USA is a paridise in comaparison, This is what will happen if you remove the minimum wage for US citizens. They will need to significantly reduce their fixed living cost or will need to seek out other ways to feed themselves.(Such as robbing you elitists in this forum. YOU will get pooer due to the personal outlay you will be making to hire personal security so yo ass dont get robbed)
Your assuming that everyone at the minimum wage (which is not a large #) produce no value, and will plummet to the lowest rate available to them? Interesting assumption. Who is really the elitest?
It would be like the Presidential debate in 1960 between JFK and Nixon. Even if Friedman crushed Clinton in a debate, people will have the impression Clinton won due to his charm and high EQ.