Doesn't a "laborer" set their wage, in effect, when they decide to accept a job at a certain rate or not? Of course they do.
Why bother asking a question if you answer yourself? Seems a little unbalanced to me. The answer is no.
When 3.6 million people are going after 100k jobs, no one has the luxury of "deciding" to take a job or not. If your delusion were actual, you wouldn't have tens of thousands of former middle management and skilled workers taking part-time, low wage jobs.
The contractor has a pool of potential customers to choose from... Job seekers do not have a pool of job offers to choose from. So the profit only motivated companies have every incentive to force labor wages down.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the assistance from some politician. The left always seems to forget the consequences of their actions. That "assistance" will also eliminate jobs for others. Not such great assistance after all.
Christ... political memory in this country is only as long as the convenience of the argument. The minimum wage has been raised many times over the years, and each time, this tired old fear inducing argument is trotted out. The rise in minimum wage has never been a significant factor in unemployment. Either you are ignorant and don't know this, or you assume others are and won't call you on it. The jobs being "proposed" were never there to be lost or eliminated. Yet tens of thousands will gain the ability to earn enough to save so that they can create opportunities for themselves and their children, contribute more to the consumer economy, and save, "conserve" for their future and retirement.
Also, I will bet you a Walmart greeters annual wages that Walmart builds the stores anyway if not immediately, then within five years.
As you can see at the start of the thread, WalMart has gone elsewhere, as they respond to foolish political decisions that influence the market.
I don't call raising the ability for thousands to go from assistance and subsistence towards middle class a foolish decision.
If you're inferring I'm on the left... your talking-head worship has clouded your judgement. I'm a traditional conservative... not this talking point, new fangled BS that passes for conservatism today. The root of conservative is... CONSERVE... to protect the future with values based in morals learned in the past.
Your response is typical of everything that's wrong with today's fraudulent conservatism. They go on and on about how this country was founded on christian principles, and that they are the custodians and champions of those principles. They harp on and on about how human life is the most precious of all things. Does that end with birth? Life... is time. This is NOT a commodity. It is the most valuable (though arguably the most wasted) thing each of us has, regardless of status or social standing.. it's sacred in a sense.
The moral and ethical conservatism that was handed down to me from g.grandfather, g.father and father is that there is a moral sense of pride in paying your employees well, not the least you can get away with under the law... in providing for their retirement, healthcare and families. These ethics produce strong companies and diehard loyal employees.
There is a deep contradiction between modern conservative rhetoric and it's claimed christian morals and ethics. Treating employees a little more than beasts of burden is anathema to values such as strengthening family, creating upward mobility and being a good citizen of the community.
One of the tyrannies we sought to escape in the 800 path to the establishment of rights is freedom from serfdom.