1 If you owned a business that had minimum wage workers, and was forced to give them a raise, lowering your profit margin, would you change prices to counter act the raises? And if the price of materials that you purchased were also increased because your supplyer had increased prices due to a forced raise, would you again increase prices to counter act the increase?
2 If you had an employee who was making minimum wage, who was more efficient than any other worker, would you increase his/her pay on your own to keep that employee from quiting and working for a competitor?
2006-07-17 05:52:34 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
g, there you go, avoiding and changing the question around again. Nowhere in my question did i mention job quality. Efficiency has a different meaning.
2006-07-17 06:44:11 · update #1
You are trying to explain that manditory minimum wages contribute to inflation. That point is true.
However, you have to consider that every person has a minimum value of contribution. In a economy where 99.9% of a country's wealth is held by 0.1% (thats 1/10 of a percent) of its citizenry, then there is a serious problem with the distribution of wealth.
When Karl Marx wrote "Religion is the opiate of the masses", the world's wealth was distributed in an 80/20% ratio. In the current economy, the ration is 999/1. At some point, a capitalistic society can make slaves of every person - and it is happening.
When economic trends make it difficult for an employee to leave an employer, endentured survitude is the obvious result for greedy and unscrupulous employers. An increase in the minimum wage for the least empowered classes is the only tool to prevent endentured servitude to continue its spread into the middle classes - and eventually to turn modern economies into medieval serf states.
There are a lot of greedy people in the world - they are the greatest pariah in a civilized society.
2006-07-17 11:28:35 · answer #1 · answered by Blim 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. Unless your competition did the same, increasing prices to counter rising costs would be more detrimental to your business than eating the cost increases. The best way to counter increased costs is through efficiency. That is how the country has been keeping the cost of good and services well below the cost of inflation if indexed over the last few decades.
2. You should always reward superior work with superior pay. If the employee is far and above the best you have, compensate them for it. It does not need to be a hourly increase, but sometimes a nice bonus or other perk they can use could be an acceptable form of an employer showing appreciation and recognizing a job well done.
2006-07-17 06:04:48 · answer #2 · answered by The Krieg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
come on... this is silly...
a company that pays someone minimum wage is only concerned about keeping prices as low as they can, to maximize profits... and "job quality" is usually not a concern of the company...
1. possibly... but most likely I would be paying more than minimum wage to begin with...
2. depends... most people just won't switch jobs... you see this all the time... I mean, it's a pain to quit and find a new job... why pay them more when odds are they won't go anywhere... if they quit you just hire someone else... quality isn't so much a concern in the MAJORITY if minimum wage jobs...
Efficiency doesn't matter if they don't care how efficient you are... if they cared... they would pay more than minimum wage to start with...
have you ever known a McDonalds manager... they care less about quality... as long as it gets done... eventually...
why pay someone more to do a job well...when you can save money by paying someone less to do an "OK" job...
2006-07-17 06:30:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As to question 1, yes, I would have to. I would probably also have to fire my least productive employee, because although he might have been worth the previous wage, he is not worth the new one.
2. Of course. You have to pay your people what they are worth. Too much, and you'll go broke; too little, and they'll leave.
Now I have a question for proponents of a minimum wage. If I have an employee who is worth $5 an hour, is it better for me to pay him that, or for the minimum wage to be raised to $6 an hour so that I have to fire him? Is he better off working for $5 an hour, or staying home watching Oprah re-runs on TV?
2006-07-17 06:03:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would actually eliminate one employee, then calculate the costs of paying that employee, and the costs of maintenence with SSN and other crap.
Taking those savings, I would pay one or two employees the savings from the termination, and promote them so that they are paid more, and give them that employees duties.
Yes, I would pass the costs onto my customers, provided my competitors were doing the same.
2006-07-17 06:09:56 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. I would not pay my workers $5.15/hour in the first place. You get what you pay for.
2. Same answer as above.
2006-07-17 06:12:03 · answer #6 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes to both questions. Thanks for taking the time to point out why increasing minimum wage, though politically popular, is economic folly.
2006-07-17 06:04:22 · answer #7 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes to both questions.
2006-07-17 05:56:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if I would not care about people not buying my products because a washcloth costs $17.99
2006-07-18 13:45:51 · answer #9 · answered by Mac Guru 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes to both
2006-07-17 06:01:13 · answer #10 · answered by brat71825 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋