Should minimum wage be variable?

[Indy Texas]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

[bballrox4717]

No, it should be raised then attached to inflation. The business community will whine for a bit and then adjust without big impact to unemployment.

[Nichlemn]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

Why not focus on getting rid of the tax breaks, then?

[DC Al Fine]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the people at Wal-Mart either be working a minimum wage job or not working at all if Wal-Mart wasn't there? Wouldn't it make Wal-Mart moving there a positive improvement?

[MaxQue]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the people at Wal-Mart either be working a minimum wage job or not working at all if Wal-Mart wasn't there? Wouldn't it make Wal-Mart moving there a positive improvement?

Sure, as being hit by one car is a improvement over being hit by two cars.

[pbrower2a]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

Devil's advocate: Wouldn't the people at Wal-Mart either be working a minimum wage job or not working at all if Wal-Mart wasn't there? Wouldn't it make Wal-Mart moving there a positive improvement?

No. It is at best a desperate effort to keep from falling behind even faster.

Many businesses fold after Wal*Mart comes in and undercuts them. People working in those retail businesses are out of work, and many go to Wal*Mart. The businesses that remain in business are in activities that Wal*Mart avoids -- like tote-the-note car lots, fast food, rent-to-own rip-off emporia, video rental places, and  lodging. People who work at Wal*Mart sell the goods but cannot afford them. Maybe on their meager wages they can share some house or apartment with co-workers.

Worse, Wal*Mart has led the drive to send manufacturing from America to the Third World -- and the people who used to work in manufacturing are out of work.

Ask yourself -- would you rather have high wages in a union plant and pay full retail, or would you rather be destitute and occasionally get a bargain from Wal*Mart? Where I live, agricultural labor has replaced factory labor as employment. If that is progress, then 78-rpm records are progress from compact disks.

[opebo]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

Need to do both, Lief.

As for WalMart - I say no half-measures - send in the tanks and flatten the place.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

The problem is right there at the start, with government granting Wal-Mart (or any other business) large rebates for doing ordinary business.  That would be a problem regardless of whether there is a minimum wage or not.

[Indy Texas]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

The problem is right there at the start, with government granting Wal-Mart (or any other business) large rebates for doing ordinary business.  That would be a problem regardless of whether there is a minimum wage or not.

It is standard practice. If you're a podunk town on a stretch of Interstate, you are competing against the towns neighboring you for the privilege of having a Wal-Mart/Home Depot/Dick's/etc and getting to tell your constituents you helped create jobs. It creates an arms race where each town has to offer a more generous package. And how savvy do you think the city council in a town with only 2,000 people is? Most of them are going to listen to the company's pitch and be taken in out of a combination of fear, desperation and lack of background in cost-benefit analysis.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And how savvy do you think the city council in a town with only 2,000 people is? Most of them are going to listen to the company's pitch and be taken in out of a combination of fear, desperation and lack of background in cost-benefit analysis.

I guess I come from an atypically savvy small town.  We got our Wal-Mart without offering an incentive package beyond paying for a traffic light and some other road improvements.  Back during the ethanol bubble of a couple years ago, they turned down an offer to host a distillery at the industrial park that would use up most of the town's spare water capacity.

Believe it or not, not all small towns are led by rubes.  Still, if that is something you consider a problem, then simply bar local governments from offering those sorts of breaks.  Indeed, I'd be all in favor of that.

Your argument seems to be that because some businesses screw society, society needs to screw business rather than figure out ways to stop the screwing.

[MODU]

Minimum wage is already variable, that's why it is "minimum".  The Federal rate should be the lowest of low rates, allowing the states and cities to increase it as needed based upon local economies.