Once in a while, there is something so dunderheaded that the negative impact will be seen almost immediately. The Chicago City Council has just provided us with such a moment:
The measure requires retailers with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet to pay workers at least $10 an hour in wages plus $3 an hour in fringe benefits by mid-2010. The current minimum wage in Illinois is $6.50 an hour and the federal minimum is $5.15.
So long, Wal-Mart and Target and who knows what else. Goodbye to the entry-level jobs so many people want. Goodbye to reasonable prices for shoppers of modest means. This was done by a bunch of Democratic alderman who I presume make a lot of speeches about "sticking up for the little guy."
But this is just a dramatic example of government thinking it's smarter than the marketplace. Usually, the jobs are lost in small increments, every time a state or the federal government nudges up the minimum wage.
I'm dating myself, but the first job I had in Fort Wayne (other than delivering newspapers) was as an usher at the old Jefferson Theater, for 55 cents an hour. I left there after a few months to make more at McDonald's -- 85 cents an hour and all the French fries I could eat. Even for then, those were appalling wages for people trying to raise families. But, guess what? That wasn't who had those jobs. And it isn't now.
Dunderheads.
Comments
Leo,
Did you know that state's w/ a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum wage have shown better economic growth than the other states. Raising the minimum wage does not decrease employment - the data shows the opposite. How many times can that argument be made before people catch on and realize that increasing wages hasn't destroyed our economy yet? Obviously there's a point where higher wages will hurt the economy but just assuming that ANY raise in the minimum wage hurts employment is and has proven in the past to be untrue.
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_040421.stm
"To provide a thorough empirical basis for assessing the effects of minimum wages on employment, particularly for small business, this report makes comparisons between these two groups of states (higher minimum wage states and all other states) for the period since 1997, in terms of:
total nonfarm employment,
total retail employment,
employment and average payroll per worker for all small businesses (defined as those employing less than 50 workers), and
employment and average payroll per worker for small retail businesses.
The overall conclusion of this analysis is that since 1997, employment growth (all nonfarm employment and retail employment) in states with a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum has performed at least as favorably as in states where the $5.15 federal minimum prevails. That is, state minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wages have not adversely affect employment growth over the past few years. This conclusion holds for both the expansion phase of the economy
Fellas, I think you can skew numbers to favor either side. The most obvious and most common sense answer is to not have any minimum wage laws. The market needs no help from the government.
My 15 year old is making minimum wage this summer washing dishes in a local eatery. The cooks make a lot more as they are older and are more skilled, do more work, maybe have a family...etc...
If you raise my sons wage by 2 bucks an hour, I'll guarantee you he'll end up working less hours. Leo is right, the only ones making minimum wage are kids and students. I know this is particularly hard for my son, the democrats, and of course the french to understand, but you gotta start at the bottom and work your way up.
Leo, you must be a fuzz older than me, I started (after my paper routes) at The Waffle house washing dishes for $1.35 an hour. Man I thought I was in tall cotton then!
Very correct about hours lost as wages go up. I live and work in Washington, where minimum wage has been increased each year since 1999. I worker my way up in the restaurant industry. It is true that work hours available get reduced each year as the wages go up. It is frustrating to see that everyone gets paid more, without necessarily contributing more to their employer. These mandated wage increases actually leave the employer with less available funds to appropriately reward those workers who DO produce more. The competitive and financial realities of the restaurant business make it very hard to "pass on" these costs to consumers, thus jeopardizing the very existence of the jobs in question. I personally believe that it is not practical to require that ALL jobs be sufficient to support a family.I also believe that it is unfair to single-out specific employers or industries with burdensome social policy.
since all the illegal immigrants are all working the jobs that "fat, drunk, lazy, stupid Americans wont/dont want to work at, then whats the problem?
so if you think the minimum wage is too high, then ask your boss to help the american economy, and do your patriotic duty, and work for $5.15 an hour..
or what would happen if they raised the minimum wage to say, 12.oo and hour, but then eliminated all welfare, and the bureaucracy, and taxes that support it?
After all, a minimum wage worker has to take time off from work to go to all the government offices, to collect the benefits they are entitled to, due to poverty...
And isnt a form of socialism when an employer pays higher taxes to support the bureucratic welfare state, and his employees receive government subsidized salary/benefit enhancements".
and further down the road, what does minimum wages do to the social security/ medicare system?
I bet if all our government elected officials and so-called public servants had to work for the same minimum wage as the rest of us, things would change fast..
for instance- if Mark Souder had to work for the same wages as the black single mother in the nearby hood, working for the market wage, for instance...
And the rich love to have their lawns manicured, and their housekeepers wages kept affordable, so they can buy gas for their SUV's
class warfare? you betcha...let them eat cake for minimum wage- a wheelbarrow full of reichmarks to buy a gallon of gas...lets go serfing, now. everybodys learning how. the gilded age is coming your way....again..
You have no idea how it pains me to agree with my brother (this goes wayyyyy back), but yes, I agree, let the market regulate itself as far as wages are concerned. I do agree government should regulate some things, but this isn't one of them, ... and don't even get me started on unions.
Sibling rivalry Larry?
I do not think we should have a Federal minimum wage at all.
It is against The Constitution as far as I am concerned.
Each of the fifty states should create their own minimum wage laws if they feel they need one...
Mike Sylvester
Fort Wayne Libertarian
Yes, Tim, and I think it's been going on for the past 50 years. We should be so lucky to have it continue for the next 50, ...
As a recent former Chicagoan, I won't defend our aldercreatures' recent meddling in such things as the public's right to eat goose liver and restaurants' rights to serve a meal without having to provide health warnings about fat and sodium content.
But I don't disagree with the new Big Box ordinance. Every business owner and every company has to pay an enormous amount of graft for the pleasure of doing business in Chicago, so this shakedown really isn't much different, except the money's going into the pockets of the working poor who could really use it.
It won't be "so long" to any big national chain. Retailers pay exorbitant rents just to be in Chicago and the amount of theft and destruction of merchandise is absolutely staggering compared to what goes on in the suburbs. A living wage won't break them, much less deter them from locating there. In fact, such chains as Border's already voluntarily offer much higher wages and benefits because they can't get good employees who'd be willing to work at the same wages they pay in a place like, say, Fort Wayne.
Right on Leo!