“You can lead a horse to water, but it is probably crowded with all those people you taught to fish.”
In NJ, someone who was making $7.25 will soon be making $8.25. That's $40 more pre-tax income per employee/per week (if I'm being generous... there are ~49k people making minimum wage in NJ, and I doubt all are full time employees).
Even if not a single job is eliminated, isn't a delay to hire some people... or the outright decision not to create an addition positions significant? At the job seeker level, I'd imagine it's pretty profound compared to the very minor benefit of 40 extra pre-tax bucks for people already having a job?
There are completely legitimate perspectives from which to agree or disagree with this this poll that has nothing to do with political parties or the assumptions that only one party cares about the little guy.
If you had a poll that asked nationwide if the government should give every citizen $100k when they file their taxes I'm sure allot would say yes.
Allot of people seem to be about "what feels right" despite rational considerations of the pros and cons of such ideas.
Despite being a conservative I am not entirely against the concept of a minimum wage, I do feel like wages have not grown competitively with the cost of goods.
On the other hand we can't keep slamming businesses with higher mandatory wages, mandatory healthcare, higher taxes, fees etc, and expect them not to close their doors/and or move elsewhere.
I hear allot of "we should do this" without any actually reasonable plan to implement it and make it fair for all. I mean having to pay a worker more while getting the same quality of work is hardly fair for a business, particularly a small business.
The decision to hire someone boils down to one question: Will hiring another person add to the bottom line?
If the costs of hiring someone exceeds the revenue their hiring will bring in, then that person is not going to be hired. It's as simple as that. Since this increase amounts to only $40/week, it will only reduce the hiring of people who did not increase the bottom line by $40/week.
IMO, that # is minimal. Employers don't take on the responsibilities and risks of adding an employee just to make another $40/week. Given the costs per employee, $40/week is an extremely low ROI.
I volunteer that I have no way to quantify that line though. None of my employees make minimum wage (and the benefits they receive are very significant), and haven't made minimum wage myself since I was a teenager and needed (wanted) the income for spending money.
I just can't seem to help feeling worse for the person whose otherwise newly-created job was scratched off the list (or again... even postponed so that new due diligence could be done) than I do feeling good for the person who just got another $1 an hour. Unfortunately, I can't even imagine what info I could research to satiate that nag. What I do know though, is that it's that nag that would have made me vote "no" on that poll... and it comes from a place of concern, not a partisan one.
Economic Data - Jobs. | Silexx Financial Systems: Market Preview
If you raise the costs (higher wages for no greater productivity), then you MUST raise the prices to maintain the same level of profit.
Where minimum wage lovers get this idea that you get something for nothing is beyond me.
Last edited by DA60; 11-18-13 at 03:41 AM.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada email@example.com
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
One of you will end up here next!