You must not think much of the minimum wage either...
You're not asking a serious question, but here's a serious answer: No, I do not believe business or labor should be constrained and restricted by a Federal minimum wage. First of all, there is no allowance for it in the Constitution.
Secondly, the cost of labor should be what the local market will bear. Some jobs will naturally pay more, even at first-time job status, because some jobs are risky or unpleasant or not "fun" enough.
Third, some jobs simply are not worth paying someone the "minimum" to do and in these times when all one hears about is phony, union-driven "pressure" to increase the minimum wage, it will lead to faster adoption of sutomated solutions and layoffs of low-skill/no-skill employees.
The minimum wage will end up keeping jobseekers on unemployment longer and give people less opportunity to get their feet in the door.
... some jobs simply are not worth paying someone the "minimum" to do and in these times when all one hears about is phony, union-driven "pressure" to increase the minimum wage, it will lead to faster adoption of sutomated solutions and layoffs of low-skill/no-skill employees.
Very well put in the abstract, although you may want to consider getting a doggy bag for that uneaten foie gras at your local bistro, then giving it to the first Walgreen's clerk you see. It only makes sense not to waste resources in an efficient economy. Unless of course you're an ardent Social Darwinist, in which case it would be much better for those low-life bottom-enders to simply starve and die off and quit being such a drag on the rest of us.
Just kidding, of course. You know I'm just playing with you, don't you?
If you're not actually doing anything, you're not being productive, now are you?
Therefore the company can be more productive by allowing workers to be away from work, recuperate and return when they're back to peak efficiency, freeing up space in their absence for other workers to work at peak efficiency.
There is a cost and risk to recruitment too.
It's far more productive for a company to look after workers it knows to be productive and talented than to be endlessly recruiting workers who, as the unknown factor, have the potential to reduce company productivity with their inability, inefficiency or even malicious intent.
Therefore the company can be more productive by allowing workers to be away from work, recuperate and return when they're back to peak efficiency, freeing up space in their absence for other workers to work at peak efficiency.
There is a cost and risk to recruitment too.
It's far more productive for a company to look after workers it knows to be productive and talented than to be endlessly recruiting workers who, as the unknown factor, have the potential to reduce company productivity with their inability, inefficiency or even malicious intent.
Anyone who employs large numbers of people has both my respect and sympathy. Employees can be both the best and worst thing to happen to a business. In my experience, dealing with all of the individual issues that arise PLUS trying to ensure that the business remains compliant with myriad poorly crafted laws, PLUS remain profitable... is enough to make a business owner crazy.
Comments
You're not asking a serious question, but here's a serious answer: No, I do not believe business or labor should be constrained and restricted by a Federal minimum wage. First of all, there is no allowance for it in the Constitution.
Secondly, the cost of labor should be what the local market will bear. Some jobs will naturally pay more, even at first-time job status, because some jobs are risky or unpleasant or not "fun" enough.
Third, some jobs simply are not worth paying someone the "minimum" to do and in these times when all one hears about is phony, union-driven "pressure" to increase the minimum wage, it will lead to faster adoption of sutomated solutions and layoffs of low-skill/no-skill employees.
The minimum wage will end up keeping jobseekers on unemployment longer and give people less opportunity to get their feet in the door.
Very well put in the abstract, although you may want to consider getting a doggy bag for that uneaten foie gras at your local bistro, then giving it to the first Walgreen's clerk you see. It only makes sense not to waste resources in an efficient economy. Unless of course you're an ardent Social Darwinist, in which case it would be much better for those low-life bottom-enders to simply starve and die off and quit being such a drag on the rest of us.
Just kidding, of course. You know I'm just playing with you, don't you?
Therefore the company can be more productive by allowing workers to be away from work, recuperate and return when they're back to peak efficiency, freeing up space in their absence for other workers to work at peak efficiency.
There is a cost and risk to recruitment too.
It's far more productive for a company to look after workers it knows to be productive and talented than to be endlessly recruiting workers who, as the unknown factor, have the potential to reduce company productivity with their inability, inefficiency or even malicious intent.
Anyone who employs large numbers of people has both my respect and sympathy. Employees can be both the best and worst thing to happen to a business. In my experience, dealing with all of the individual issues that arise PLUS trying to ensure that the business remains compliant with myriad poorly crafted laws, PLUS remain profitable... is enough to make a business owner crazy.