A number of the "special snowflakes" from Washington State are beginning to realizing that actions have consequences. Consequences a number of them apparently did not fully think through.
Thanks to Washington voters, folks making minimum wage will soon be getting more money, but will some see that money evaporate as child care costs skyrocket?
Wait, what?
Parents that bring their children to Advent Lutheran Child Center here in Spokane Valley received quite the shock this week when they were told that the pay increase to the workers will be coming out of their pockets.
You mean the wage increase we approved will, like cost me, the consumer, money? How can that be? We thought that approving a mandatory minimum wage increase would mean that businesses (those evil rich folks) would be forced to pay their workers more. We never thought or meant that the money to pay for this would come from us!
Perry spoke with one parent who voted in favor of the initiative not realizing that it would affect child care.
Like really? The costs of the services I use will go up?
The increase is a direct result of the passing of Initiative 1433, increasing statewide minimum wage to $13.50 by 2020.
Ellis continued, "I understand that they need to capture their difference and make that money back, but then so does everybody else.”
Exactly! Maybe the light-bulb is starting to glow. If you artificially increase the costs of running a business by artificially inflating employee costs beyond the market rate (or that actual value of that labor) only one of two things can happen. Either some folks get fired (which has also been happening) to contain employee costs to within the allowable budget or the costs of services increases to account for the additional expenses. A number of businesses have had to shut their doors due to this increase as well as a number of low skill workers losing their jobs.
We reached out to several other daycares in the area, one says they haven't even addressed this yet and another said the tuition increase is inevitable.
Oh, and it is "cute" how some of the staff react.
"I feel the state needs to be helping a little more,” said Larson, “it would be nice if parents didn't have to spend a majority of their paychecks for childcare.”
Right! Other people that don't have children in childcare should be taxed even more to allow these parents to get some relief from reality. OUTSTANDING idea! You must be a Mensa member!
Sorry but you get zero sympathy from me. You voted for this. You got it approved. You now get to live with the consequences. Reality does not care one iota about your "feelz".
Showing posts with label minimum wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minimum wage. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2016
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Fast Food Workers Plan Thursday Strike, Really?
At a convention that was held outside Chicago in July, 1,300 fast-food workers unanimously approved a resolution calling for civil disobedience as a way to step up pressure on the fast-food chains.
“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign. “They’re invoking civil rights history to make the case that these jobs ought to be paid $15 and the companies ought to recognize a union.”
“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign.
Nonviolent "civil disobedience", sure... When unions are involved that is really a euphemism for "breaking stuff" and preventing customers from being serviced.
The unions are all in favor of these kinds of actions as they want to drive up minimum wage as many union contracts tie member pay to the minimum wage. Getting it raised is a back door way to get many union members raises without having to directly negotiate for one. If they can get some of these fast food chains unionized, that would be even better as it gets them a huge pool of new members to offset union losses elsewhere.
Mr. Obama added that if he had a service-sector job, and “wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union.”
The one thing they [unions and apparently the President] don't care about is the actual workers they are instigating. These jobs pay what they are worth and in this economy these folks should be more grateful that they even can get work. If you want a better job, get it / earn it. Forcing a business to pay more than a job is worth causes some combination of the following two actions a) raising prices to offset increased costs - putting the product out of reach of some customers and b) causing the affected businesses to reassess employee requirements and typically reducing staff / hours to compensate for the increased employee expenses. Are the unions going to back fill these people's paychecks if their plan succeeds? Not hardly. More likely this expected and foreseeable result of this plan would only end up with greater calls for unionization, further raising costs and costing jobs and suppressing businesses. When the foreseeable happens, it will be called "bad luck".
“They want to join,” Ms. Henry said. “They think their jobs should be valued at $15.”
Heck, who doesn't think their job should be valued higher than it is? If it actually was though, you would be getting it. What most people forget is "it is NOT your job", it is the business' job and they have chosen you to fill it, for now. It is worth what it is worth. If you get too expensive because you have outgrown the responsibilities of that job or are not productive enough that the business is not getting good value, they find someone else to fill it. If you have been doing a good job, you might get promoted to a better job but even that one (if that happens) is NOT yours! If I owned one of these franchises and some of my employees walked out when they had already agreed to work, I would be replacing them with others that valued the opportunity and the paycheck.
If you feel the need to blame someone, how about blaming the Government that has done everything in it power (and something not in its power) over the last 6 years to raise the costs of running a business. Between the EPA, the NLRB, Obamacare, the IRS and the other government agencies, this administration has declared war on business and then when they get the expected results point the finger at "greedy businesses" instead of at the mirror.
I may just have to get lunch at McDs tomorrow...
“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign. “They’re invoking civil rights history to make the case that these jobs ought to be paid $15 and the companies ought to recognize a union.”
“They’re going to use nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to call attention to what they’re facing,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, which has spent millions of dollars helping to underwrite the campaign.
Nonviolent "civil disobedience", sure... When unions are involved that is really a euphemism for "breaking stuff" and preventing customers from being serviced.
The unions are all in favor of these kinds of actions as they want to drive up minimum wage as many union contracts tie member pay to the minimum wage. Getting it raised is a back door way to get many union members raises without having to directly negotiate for one. If they can get some of these fast food chains unionized, that would be even better as it gets them a huge pool of new members to offset union losses elsewhere.
Mr. Obama added that if he had a service-sector job, and “wanted an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, I’d join a union.”
The one thing they [unions and apparently the President] don't care about is the actual workers they are instigating. These jobs pay what they are worth and in this economy these folks should be more grateful that they even can get work. If you want a better job, get it / earn it. Forcing a business to pay more than a job is worth causes some combination of the following two actions a) raising prices to offset increased costs - putting the product out of reach of some customers and b) causing the affected businesses to reassess employee requirements and typically reducing staff / hours to compensate for the increased employee expenses. Are the unions going to back fill these people's paychecks if their plan succeeds? Not hardly. More likely this expected and foreseeable result of this plan would only end up with greater calls for unionization, further raising costs and costing jobs and suppressing businesses. When the foreseeable happens, it will be called "bad luck".
“They want to join,” Ms. Henry said. “They think their jobs should be valued at $15.”
Heck, who doesn't think their job should be valued higher than it is? If it actually was though, you would be getting it. What most people forget is "it is NOT your job", it is the business' job and they have chosen you to fill it, for now. It is worth what it is worth. If you get too expensive because you have outgrown the responsibilities of that job or are not productive enough that the business is not getting good value, they find someone else to fill it. If you have been doing a good job, you might get promoted to a better job but even that one (if that happens) is NOT yours! If I owned one of these franchises and some of my employees walked out when they had already agreed to work, I would be replacing them with others that valued the opportunity and the paycheck.
If you feel the need to blame someone, how about blaming the Government that has done everything in it power (and something not in its power) over the last 6 years to raise the costs of running a business. Between the EPA, the NLRB, Obamacare, the IRS and the other government agencies, this administration has declared war on business and then when they get the expected results point the finger at "greedy businesses" instead of at the mirror.
I may just have to get lunch at McDs tomorrow...
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Obama wants to raise the minimum wage...
Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would help bring 900,000 people above the poverty level–at a loss of over 500,000 American jobs by 2016.
As a group, workers with increased earnings would pay more in taxes and receive less in federal benefits of certain types than they would have otherwise. However, people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, business owners, and consumers facing higher prices would see a reduction in real income and would collectively pay less in taxes and receive more in federal benefits than they would have otherwise.
But, but, but it FEELS right to raise the minimum wage! Even though economists have stated that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs, raise prices and increase government assistance outlays this NEEDS TO BE DONE because we have to do something!
Never mind that the something to do is never less government or less regulations so that business can create more and better paying jobs.
If raising the minimum wage was as simple as simple passing a law, why stop at raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Why not raise it to $20 or $30 or even $40 an hour? If (as liberals think) there is no cost to raising the minimum wage, that the only reason businesses pay minimum wage is due to greed, then really raise it. Raise it to $50 per hour. They won't do that though because if you say that, even a liberal understands that raising the minimum to $50 is ridiculous. They are just unable, intellectually to apply that same thought process to smaller rate increases. The get the absurdity of it but don't really (nor want to) understand why that is.
A business will pay its workers the minimum it can get away with while ensuring that it gets workers of sufficient quality to maintain the business at the desired level of production / quality. The more skilled the employees need to be and the more rare those skills are, the higher the wages need to be to get and retain that level of employee. Nuclear power plant technicians make more than burger flippers because the skill set needed to be the technician is far greater than the burger flipper and the pool of available employees is greater for the burger flipper. Forcing the employer to artificially pay more for the burger flipper than he or she is worth is a waste of money that would otherwise be allocated more efficiently. This is money that is not spent on hiring additional employees, upgrading equipment, paying more skilled workers more money to retain them or increased profits that go to the business owner or stockholders resulting in those stakeholders being able to increase their own savings or spending.
This is basic economics. That this reality is ignored by our elected representatives demonstrates a critical ignorance of economics and business reality in our political class or a crass moral outlook that places political expedience ahead of the actual welfare of the citizens of this country. I am afraid that these possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
As a group, workers with increased earnings would pay more in taxes and receive less in federal benefits of certain types than they would have otherwise. However, people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, business owners, and consumers facing higher prices would see a reduction in real income and would collectively pay less in taxes and receive more in federal benefits than they would have otherwise.
But, but, but it FEELS right to raise the minimum wage! Even though economists have stated that increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs, raise prices and increase government assistance outlays this NEEDS TO BE DONE because we have to do something!
Never mind that the something to do is never less government or less regulations so that business can create more and better paying jobs.
If raising the minimum wage was as simple as simple passing a law, why stop at raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Why not raise it to $20 or $30 or even $40 an hour? If (as liberals think) there is no cost to raising the minimum wage, that the only reason businesses pay minimum wage is due to greed, then really raise it. Raise it to $50 per hour. They won't do that though because if you say that, even a liberal understands that raising the minimum to $50 is ridiculous. They are just unable, intellectually to apply that same thought process to smaller rate increases. The get the absurdity of it but don't really (nor want to) understand why that is.
A business will pay its workers the minimum it can get away with while ensuring that it gets workers of sufficient quality to maintain the business at the desired level of production / quality. The more skilled the employees need to be and the more rare those skills are, the higher the wages need to be to get and retain that level of employee. Nuclear power plant technicians make more than burger flippers because the skill set needed to be the technician is far greater than the burger flipper and the pool of available employees is greater for the burger flipper. Forcing the employer to artificially pay more for the burger flipper than he or she is worth is a waste of money that would otherwise be allocated more efficiently. This is money that is not spent on hiring additional employees, upgrading equipment, paying more skilled workers more money to retain them or increased profits that go to the business owner or stockholders resulting in those stakeholders being able to increase their own savings or spending.
This is basic economics. That this reality is ignored by our elected representatives demonstrates a critical ignorance of economics and business reality in our political class or a crass moral outlook that places political expedience ahead of the actual welfare of the citizens of this country. I am afraid that these possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Friday, July 31, 2009
John Stossel on the Minimum Wage
One of the most obvious ways that politicians demonstrate their economic ignorance is with minimum wage laws. No politician that supports minimum wage laws should ever be re-elected. Minimum wage laws are worst than doing nothing because they actively hurt the very people that they are designed to help.
Minimum wage laws artificially raise the costs of labor for low skill and entry level jobs. They reduce business profits (affecting all other employees and shareholders), raise prices and/or reduce employment opportunities to those that most need starter jobs.
This fits right in with the fallacy of a "living wage". A living wage is whatever you can live on. If you are single and living with mom and dad, what you can live on is much less than if you have a wife, three kids and a mortgage. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER meant to support a family. They are meant as starter jobs / supplemental income jobs. If you are unable to get more than a minimum wage job, (listen carefully here) WHAT ARE YOU DOING HAVING A FAMILY THAT YOU CAN NOT AFFORD? You have the life you can afford not the money you want to support your life. Too many people now think it works the other way around. "I have a big life/family so I deserve a lot of money." Sorry but no, you get the money you deserve and structure your life to match. Feel free to have 1 child IF you can affort to take care of a child. Feel free to have 8 kids IF you can affort to take care of 8 kids. See how simple it really is if you only use some (not so) common sense?
Minimum wage laws artificially raise the costs of labor for low skill and entry level jobs. They reduce business profits (affecting all other employees and shareholders), raise prices and/or reduce employment opportunities to those that most need starter jobs.
This fits right in with the fallacy of a "living wage". A living wage is whatever you can live on. If you are single and living with mom and dad, what you can live on is much less than if you have a wife, three kids and a mortgage. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER meant to support a family. They are meant as starter jobs / supplemental income jobs. If you are unable to get more than a minimum wage job, (listen carefully here) WHAT ARE YOU DOING HAVING A FAMILY THAT YOU CAN NOT AFFORD? You have the life you can afford not the money you want to support your life. Too many people now think it works the other way around. "I have a big life/family so I deserve a lot of money." Sorry but no, you get the money you deserve and structure your life to match. Feel free to have 1 child IF you can affort to take care of a child. Feel free to have 8 kids IF you can affort to take care of 8 kids. See how simple it really is if you only use some (not so) common sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
