This is why we need a living wage

[alan1]

I guess the people earning a dollar a day in the sweat factories in Asia are not being exploited, because they are better off than they were?

Funny thing... that's exactly how the argument goes. Now make the people in Asia small malnourished children.

In the interest of fairness, Global Labor Arbitrage will eventually improve the situation of those people. It actually will better their lives as their real wages are forced upward by demand for labor. Unfortunately there will be a lot of little girls making Nike shoes and iPhone employees leaping from factory windows before those people have the power needed to organize and collectively bargain.

So if a 5-year old child were willing to work 18 hours a day in a dimly lit coal mine... that's okay because of "liberty of contract"?

Yep, that is exactly how the argument goes.
Liberals pose unrealistic extremes as their argument.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

That part about
"Nobody is forced to work for minimum wage or for a wage they find unacceptable. Wages are a negotiation between an employer (somebody willing to pay for labor) and an employee (somebody willing to offer labor for a wage)." [-alan1]
is not entirely true. Because it is not entirely true, labor unions were born. Because it is not entirely true, we have a minimum wage.

"...the exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power, and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage, is not only detrimental to their health and wellbeing, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met."
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 - 1937

Actually, my above statement (that you put in italics) is absolutely true. Neither you nor anybody else can show me proof that legal slavery or involuntary servitude exists in this country. A judge can make a cute quote all he want's to, you can interpret it however you want to, but the truth is, nobody is forced to work for a wage they are not willing to work for.
In addition, I would never let a union decide for me (or a company) what the value of my labor is worth. I am not defenseless when it comes to bargaining power for my talents and skills, I am realistic about it. I get paid more than my peers because I am worth more to the company. A union would have us all earn the same compensation. Some years I negotiate more vacation time and accept a smaller smaller salary increase, unions don't allow for that flexibility.

You cite a common problem with labor unions. How about strikes and disruptions to basic services and production? There are a number of problems with labor unions.
"§ 202. Congressional finding and declaration of policy
(a) The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in
the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the
maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and
general well-being of workers

(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of goods in commerce; and "

How's that for a "cute quote".

The thing is that the quote is not "cute". It is explicitly and masterfully calculated.

You keep using this word "force", I don't think it means what you think it means. Sure, no one is de jure "owned". But what happens when no one will offer you any employment with a wage that can meet bare necessities? The old argument was "liberty of contract" (aka "freedom of contract") meaning that a worker is free to choose employment with a wage below that which would sustain the employee. That argument was extremely prevalent in the late 19th century and early twentieth, so much so as to lead to disaster like the Great Triangle Fire.
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who, in the end, championed these women burned to death? Who was there to address the crowd at the memorial. A socialist agitator, that's who. And why not? Why shouldn't the workers listen to a socialist agitator after burying one hundred forty six burned corpses in one day?

Codifying certain basic labor provisions into law strips the power out of any socialist rhetoric. And also prevents scores of young women from burning to death, there's that benefit too.

You quote from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I wonder what the Loonies would do if they had to bury over a hundred women in one day.

The fact is that this is not the early twentieth century, this is the twenty-first century; and in general, freedom of contract is almost entirely unprotected under modern constitutional law. That quote you find so cute was the last nail in the coffin of the robber baron.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

So, you can't answer a simple question. OK, fine.

Oh, don't sulk. You asked a rhetorical question and you're now upset that I answered it

Q "Is that a Conservative only concept?"
A "No, not really."

Q "What's wrong with paying your own way in life?"
A "No one suggested that was wrong; but I'm sure you'll claim they did and go on to justify paying a pittance to a 5 year old to mine coal with some anecdote about bootstraps and cowboy spurs."

Q "Why do we need to do either?"
A "Because we don't live under laissez-faire capitalism."

Your answer to question 2 is not an answer. No one is suggesting 5 year olds should be mining coal, but you toss it up there to demonize Conservatives.

Answer the question.


If you find yourself in a dead end, minimum wage job, better yourself. Obtain skills that increase your position in the labor market or get a second job. It is not MY responsibility to feed YOUR kids.

Come down from your high horse. If you speak in hyperbole, then it is fairgame to answer in hyperbole. If you offer only rhetoric, then it is fairgame to respond with opposing rhetoric.

 

[Ernie S.]

But it costs you more to retrain new people more often than it would to raise their pay by such a small percentage as is being suggested. And, especially for those companies that are making record business. Granted, if the company is barely making it, it might not be profitable.


True that if a person shows incentive some managers will recognize it and make it worthwhile, but not all will.

It costs me next to nothing to train a guy to cook French fries. Put a measured amount in the basket. Drop them in the oil. Set the timer. When the bell rings, lift the fries out of the oil. Oh and don't stick your face in the hot oil.
If you quit, I can have someone cooking fries in 10 minutes.

When I got out of HS, I worked as a machinist for a couple years before college. This was 1967 when minimum wage was $1.25.
I started at MW but by the end of the week, I was making $2.00. By the end of the month, I was making $4.00.
I have worked for companies that did not recognize extra effort and incentive. In every case, they were union shops where working hard was discouraged.

Exactly why we need to raise the minimum wage. For decades small businesses, especially fast food restaurants would fire people anytime they got close to getting a raise or benefits. If they could, they'd just make them so miserable they'd quit on their own. So many of them are working two jobs that they'd just change the hours so they'd have to quit on of their jobs. And sadly, today, we have so many immigrants and adults fighting for those low wage jobs our economy is in really bad shape.

Firstly, get rid of illegal immigrants. Secondly, if you stand out to your employer and do your job well, your job should be safe, providing you get along with coworkers and customers. Most people who get canned come raise time are either slackers or obnoxious SOB's.

 

[alan1]

They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.

Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?

Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky. Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.

Everyone is in a position to pick and choose what work they are willing to do for what pay they are willing to accept for said work. The exception being people that are mentally retarded..

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Why would they accept the wage if it did not better their situation? Are they better off making a small amount or no amount at all?

Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky. Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.

You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.

Are we pretending that "to take advantage of [a person]" is not a derogatory description of an action synonymous with "bamboozle"?

I didn't get the memo.



No, you are not taking advantage of anyone when you pick up your paycheck, unless you have lied about hours worked.

No, you are not taking advantage of anyone when the local mechanic fixes your car for a predetermined price.

Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?

I think what you're trying to say is that an employer, as anyone else, wants to find the best service for the lowest price. Right. And we have a price control called the minimum wage which puts an absolute minimum on that price.

 

[alan1]

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.

How is it exploiting someone if they are willing to accept the wage you offer? They aren't any worse off than they were before you created the job are they?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

In this economy, they are forced to take whatever jobs they can, it's slavery almost at it's worst. It means you have to work for starvation wages. Walmart can easily afford living wages. We're not talking a small business here that can barely survive, we are talking about the richest family in the county employing people at such low wages that we taxpayers have to provide them with food.

Nobody is forced to do any job.
The only force I see is the force of the government from do-gooders like you that think I should support somebody else with the fruits of my labor.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I have been in the low wage market for decades. I have never earned more than $20K in a single year, in my whole life.

That's some sort of appeal to poverty... but if true... I'm sorry.

First off, raises are not set in stone to begin with. If they didn't want to give a raise, they simply wouldn't get it.

Why do you build such altars to the glory of your bosses, man? Look, wanna know how to get a big raise? Quit! Withhold your services! Just do it, man!
If you are too difficult to replace, you'll get a bigger share of the pie.
I have found that coming back as a contractor really fattens the wallet.
For those whose services can be too easily replaced, thats where collective bargaining and strikes come into play.

 

[alan1]

Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.

$11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
Dummies probably believe the caption.

I'm sure that's an average, which means some workers are paid more and some are paid less. Even so, they start at far better than what Walmart starts it's employees at and I haven't seen an unhappy Costco employee yet. They are always cheerful and ready to help. You need help in Walmart you have to practically tackle someone, and that's if you can find them. Yes, I buy Velcro fasten shoes at Walmart for my son who is 27 and can't tie his own shoes.

I don't understand why people like you want to use the government as your "enforcer".
If you don't like WalMart (or some other company), stop giving them your business, it's that simple.
WalMart isn't the only place that sells velcro shoes, so quite trying to claim that as a crutch.
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=where can I buy velcro shoes

 

[Andylusion]

Not everyone is in a position of being able to be picky. Still, that's no reason to take advantage of people.

You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.

You are talking advantage of people, when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.

When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.

Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?

I don't think you know the definition of "taking advantage."

1. take advantage of,
a. to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.

I gained from buying my car. I gain from buying food from the store. I gain from having employment. I gain from having a refrigerator, electricity, running water. I gain from having an oil change at walmart for only $16.

That is the whole point of Free-market Capitalism. We all mutually benefit from each other. If we didn't..... we would not do it. If I have a TV for sale for $100, and you want a TV and have $100, we engage in trade.

You trade me the $100, for the TV. If the TV was not a larger gain to you, than the $100, you wouldn't buy the TV. If the $100 was not a gain to me, over the TV, then I wouldn't trade the TV for it.

If there was no advantage for you in that situation, you wouldn't do it. If there was no advantage for me in that situation, I wouldn't do it.

Both of us benefit from taking advantage of the offer the other is giving.

The same is true of every company. If I did not benefit from my employment, I would stop being employed there. I would fire my employer.

I had a job a few years back that simply paid too little. Far too little. I talked with my employer, and found that he couldn't charge more to the customer for the deliveries I was making, thus he could pay me more for those deliveries. The deal was beneficial for my employer, but not for me.

What did I do? I fired my employer. I looked for another job. I found another job. I turned in my two weeks notice. I fired him, and hired a new employer to sell my labor to, in an arrangement that was more mutually beneficial.

The problem is, you claim that somehow the arrangement was 'unfair'. There was nothing unfair about it. I agreed to work for an agreed pay. It turned out, that to me, it was not mutually beneficial.

But there were, and are to this day, people that work for that company and LOVE it. They LOVE what they are doing. To them, it is mutually beneficial.

Neither me, nor they, are treated unfairly. That's where you and I have our disagreement. You believe that you know better than the employee, and the employer, what is 'fair'. 'Fair' is a subjective term. You can ask 10 people what fair is, and end up with 11 different answers.

I think it's not your call. Just my opinion. I think what is fair, is what the employee, and the employer agree to, and no one else has a right to determine arbitrarily what is fair for anyone else but themselves.

I have no idea how America got so puking nosy into everyone elses business, but it's always funny when those same nosy busy bodies, have someone butt into their business, and then they freak out. The vast majority, if not all, the people on this forum who think they know what is fair for everyone else, if you start telling them what is 'fair' for them in their life, and they start screaming "who are you to judge!!".... well.... stop being in our business too. Practice what you preach.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wisely was it said: "You can't cheat an honest man".

Wasn't PC to say "man or woman or undecided" at the time but the thought was surely there.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

You are taking advantage of people, when you go to work in expectation of agreed upon payment.

You are talking advantage of people [ sic ], when you have someone fix your car for an agreed upon payment.

When you go to a cheaper store to buy food, when you replace your TV with a bigger better model, when you buy that triple latte from Starbucks, you are taking advantage of people who are offering a service or product you want.

Why is it when the employer takes advantage of people who want jobs, that's bad, when when it's you taking the products and services those jobs provide, that's good?

I don't think you know the definition of "taking advantage."

1. take advantage of,
a. to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.

10.
take advantage of,
a.
to make use of for gain: to take advantage of an opportunity.
b.
to impose upon, especially unfairly, as by exploiting a weakness: to take advantage of someone.

I gained from buying my car. I gain from buying food from the store. I gain from having employment. I gain from having a refrigerator, electricity, running water. I gain from having an oil change at walmart for only $16.

That's not taking advantage of people. You cannot change our common language because you, Androw, decide it sounds better.

That is the whole point of Free-market Capitalism. We all mutually benefit from each other. If we didn't..... we would not do it. If I have a TV for sale for $100, and you want a TV and have $100, we engage in trade.

Well, that's more the point of regulated capitalism, and we must make sure the vast majority have a stake in the system.

If there was no advantage for you in that situation, you wouldn't do it. If there was no advantage for me in that situation, I wouldn't do it.

That's not taking advantage of people. You cannot change our common language because you, Androw, decide it sounds better.

I had a job a few years back that simply paid too little. Far too little. I talked with my employer, and found that he couldn't charge more to the customer for the deliveries I was making, thus he could pay me more for those deliveries. The deal was beneficial for my employer, but not for me.

What did I do? I fired my employer. I looked for another job. I found another job. I turned in my two weeks notice. I fired him, and hired a new employer to sell my labor to, in an arrangement that was more mutually beneficial.

Well, that's a cute way of looking at it but wildly inaccurate. What did you pay for your employer's unemployment benefits? Did you terminate at fault or no fault?

You believe that you know better than the employee, and the employer, what is 'fair'. 'Fair' is a subjective term. You can ask 10 people what fair is, and end up with 11 different answers.

Uhm, that's why the minimum wage is supposed to ride above poverty. That's an objective measure. The only question then is how far above poverty.

I have no idea how America got so puking nosy into everyone elses business,

If you mean by way of the FLSA, things were pretty dire before that piece of legislation.

 

[Andylusion]

Starting pay is 11.50 an hour. And they dont hire dumbfucks and slackers. Which eliminates most low wage workers.
The thing you have to remember is not all workers are willing to make a commitment to a job. Those that are succeed,whether they work at Costco,Micky D's. Or a fortune 500 company.

$11.50 an hour is slightly less than $24k a year.
Cute picture, but way less in salary than the caption in it.
Dummies probably believe the caption.

I'm sure that's an average, which means some workers are paid more and some are paid less. Even so, they start at far better than what Walmart starts it's employees at and I haven't seen an unhappy Costco employee yet. They are always cheerful and ready to help. You need help in Walmart you have to practically tackle someone, and that's if you can find them. Yes, I buy Velcro fasten shoes at Walmart for my son who is 27 and can't tie his own shoes.

No, not so much. I have had friends that work there, and the truth is, they pay far more than the average pay for the same job.

The problem with this Costco thing, is that Costco is a completely different type of business.

I apologize for not finding a better picture. The internet is hit and miss, and I don't intend to go to Costco and stand around all day just to take a photo.

This is a photo from costco. Notice the wide isles? Wonder why? Because if you look at far end of this picture, what do you see? A gas powered fork lift. The isles at Costco are wide to accommodate a fork lift moving around.

Whats my point?

Walmart has a team of people stocking shelves by hand. They come out with a small cart, or a single hand truck and skid of stuff, and they manually put them on the shelves.

Costco has a few guys, running gas powered fork lifts, moving tens of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise every hour.

So they hire fewer people, to move multiple times as much product to the shelves.

Just the reduction in the number of low-wage employees needed, would make the average wage, higher.

But since their productivity is higher too, they can pay them more because they are moving more goods.

This is why Costco has less than half the number of employees per sqare foot of retail space.

Costco pays more ... because it can

Do you see Costco greeters? Not really. They have help staff, that are there to help you get your massive carts.....

But not really a person just sitting there saying hi as you walk in, and offering you a weekly special flyer.

Do you see people wax and buffing out the tiled floor at Costco? Of course not. It's not tiled.

Additionally, you don't see people walking into Costco, to buy a $3 deli sandwich, bottle of coke, and a snickers, like you do at Walmart. You see people loading up with several thousand dollars worth of bulk food.

Well of course if you are moving more goods, you can pay employees more, because the value generated from the labor (thousands per cashier per customer), is much greater.

Fewer total employees, higher value productivity, equals higher pay.

BY THE WAY..........

For those of you who continuously talk about how without the holy grail of minimum wage, companies will always pay everyone 1¢ an hour..... The fact Costco does pay more than Walmart when they have absolutely no requirement at all do to do so....... proves your BS wrong. Shut up.

Lastly, notice how Costco has jumped on the pro-minimum wage wagon lately? Do you think Costco is supporting raising the minimum wage for altruistic reasons?

Of course not. There are two specific reasons Costco is supporting the minimum wage. Reason number one, it won't affect them fiscally, but it will give them positive media and government benefits. Reason number two, it will affect their competition who can't pay as much, and will be hindered by the legislation.

In short, Costco will love to have regulations that harm competition, thus increasing their own profit, while at the same time having morons think they are being so benevolent.

Which goes back to what I've said a million times. The left is the biggest pro-wealthy, pro-corporate, pro-super rich group in government. Everything they do, harms the consumers, harms employees, and benefits the super rich. Everything. Consistently.

 

[beagle9]

They are naively accepting a low wage because they have nothing else. But they should be paid more.

They should make themselves worth more to their employer.
Sorry, Noomi. Flipping burgers isn't worth much because if you quit, I can have someone trained to replace you as quick as you can say, "Do you want fries with that?"
Make yourself valuable. Ask your manager if you can help close the store or inventory supplies. Learn to do something that your co-workers can't do. Learn something that the next guy through the door doesn't know.

Quite frankly, the average McDonald's could be a totally automated system run by 2 teenagers trained to push the start button. When it's cheaper to replace burger flippers with robots, they will be replaced. Basically, they're complaining their way out of a job.

No not yet, because it's just as you say "if Mcdonalds were ready then they'd do it without pause", so undoubtedly they are not ready, and therefore they need the labor right now in which they have. Nothing wrong with wanting what is worth your time and skill for now, and if they change up later then so be it, but the threats of changing up in order to keep people down should never be a concern of a worker wanting what they deserve right NOW, especially if it is not right what is going on or has been going on for far to long now.

 

[beagle9]

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.

You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.

You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.

You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.

How does one start a McDee's Franchise?
How to Open a McDonald's Franchise: 5 Steps (with Pictures)
Step 1)

Secure at least $500,000 of non-borrowed personal resources, which will cover the down payment and initial franchising fees.
There's more money needed after this... the steps cannot specify an exact amount because that will depend on many factors. The steps do specify that you need to purchase and build the actual restaurant. That initial $500K just just for McCorp.

 

[Andylusion]

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.

You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.

You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?

You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?

You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?

The African blacks, who had poor education, and little if any skills, were able to get jobs because they were willing to work for less money than White South Africans.

Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.

The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.

Now business had no reason to hire less educated, less skilled people (again typically blacks), because they couldn't hire them for less money than whites.

That solved the low-wage problem at the minimum wage level, but it didn't stop black from under cutting jobs slightly above the minimum wage level.

That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.

A low wage is your foot-in-the-door entrance into the job market, for those who are unskilled, slow, or less educated.

If you raise the minimum wage, you are simply going to get those people laid off, and unemployed, just like what happened in South Africa, just like what happened in Greece, just like what happened in the US during the 2007 to 2009 minimum wage hike.

I just read that in 2007 and before, Walmart had 338 employees per store. By 2010, after the minimum wage went from $5.25 to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, dropped to 270.

A loss of roughly 70 employees per walmart store, were lost. I believe because of the minimum wage. There is no example that I am aware of, where a hike in the minimum wage didn't result in lost jobs, and increased prices.

I was actually working at Wendy's back when the minimum wage went up in the 1990s. The very first thing they did, was fire 3 people from the store. The second thing was they started raising prices bit by bit over the next few years.

So tons of people lose their jobs, and are now earning zero, while those that are still working, find their wages are not worth as much because everything costs more.

This is the long term effects of minimum wage. It never works. It always harms.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wrong. If you start a business and want to hire someone to help you out, you either pay them a decent wage, or do the work yourself. If you can't afford to pay someone to help you out, your business sucks. If you can't do the extra work yourself, your business sucks and you need to go back to the drawing board.

No way do you have the right to exploit people just because you are too stupid to work out how to make your business flourish.

You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.

I find it comical that people get "trapped in dead end jobs". Geeeze people! You were looking for a job when you found that one. You know how to fill out an application. Either make yourself worth more to your present employer or find a better paying job.
There are 2 gas stations across the street from each other about 2 miles from my house. One charges $3.439 for a gallon of Shell and the other charges $3.499 for a gallon of Texaco. Where would you, Sheila and Noomi, buy your gasoline? I know where I stop.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

You work at McDonalds.
Are you being exploited?
Or are you to stupid to find a better job/own a McDonalds franchise.

You got something against stupid people as you call them ? There are many people who are less educated or maybe a bit slower than others, but does that mean they should be taken advantage of ?

You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?

You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?

...

Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.

The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.

...

That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.

STOP

Did you seriously just blame apartheid in South Africa on minimum wage laws?

Apartheid was codified in 1948.
South Africa had no Minimum Wage until 1997.
Check your facts!

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

You would rather have them unemployed, unable to find any work?

You realize this is exactly how Apartheid started in South Africa?

The African blacks, who had poor education, and little if any skills, were able to get jobs because they were willing to work for less money than White South Africans.

Well the Unions hated this, because it was under cutting their labor rates.

The Unions pushed for, and got, a government minimum wage.

Now business had no reason to hire less educated, less skilled people (again typically blacks), because they couldn't hire them for less money than whites.

That solved the low-wage problem at the minimum wage level, but it didn't stop black from under cutting jobs slightly above the minimum wage level.

That's when the Unions pushed for the government to ban blacks from jobs completely.

A low wage is your foot-in-the-door entrance into the job market, for those who are unskilled, slow, or less educated.

If you raise the minimum wage, you are simply going to get those people laid off, and unemployed, just like what happened in South Africa, just like what happened in Greece, just like what happened in the US during the 2007 to 2009 minimum wage hike.

I just read that in 2007 and before, Walmart had 338 employees per store. By 2010, after the minimum wage went from $5.25 to $7.25, the average number of employees per store, dropped to 270.

A loss of roughly 70 employees per walmart store, were lost. I believe because of the minimum wage. There is no example that I am aware of, where a hike in the minimum wage didn't result in lost jobs, and increased prices.

I was actually working at Wendy's back when the minimum wage went up in the 1990s. The very first thing they did, was fire 3 people from the store. The second thing was they started raising prices bit by bit over the next few years.

So tons of people lose their jobs, and are now earning zero, while those that are still working, find their wages are not worth as much because everything costs more.

This is the long term effects of minimum wage. It never works. It always harms.

You are badly misquoting your radical rightwing masters.

not even they are this... what's the "clean" word I'm looking for?

On The Historically Racist Motivations Behind Minimum Wage - Forbes

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs... ​

The above link is absolute bunk, BTW. But at least it has its dates right.