More sensible for employers to pay their workers than for the government to

[finehoe]

Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire, rose to fame by promoting a ballot initiative that essentially eliminated bilingual education in California. He went on to become publisher of The American Conservative, a libertarian-leaning magazine.
But after decades in the conservative movement, Mr. Unz is pursuing a goal that has stymied liberals: raising the minimum wage. He plans to pour his own money into a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage in California to $10 an hour in 2015 and $12 in 2016, which would make it by far the highest in the nation. Currently, it is $8 — 75 cents higher than the federal minimum.
Using what he sees as conservative principles to advocate a policy long championed by the left, Mr. Unz argues that significantly raising the minimum wage would help curb government spending on social services, strengthen the economy and make more jobs attractive to American-born workers.
"There are so many very low-wage workers, and we pay for huge social welfare programs for them," he said in an interview. "This would save something on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Doesn't it make more sense for employers to pay their workers than the government?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/us/conservative-leads-effort-to-raise-minimum-wage-in-california.html

[ChriswUfGator]

100% agree.

[urbanlibertarian]

This should accelerate the progress of automation.

[Traveller]

This should accelerate the progress of automation.

Those are my thoughts as well.  Where you now see 16 manned checkout lanes and 4 self-checkout scanners, you will soon see 4 manned checkout lanes and 16 self-checkout scanners.  Great for the four cashiers that get to keep their jobs, not so great for the twelve that are let go.

[BridgeTroll]

This should accelerate the progress of automation.

Agreed.  However a better way to accelerate the progress toward automation... is to quit churning out woefully educated and motivated students at the high school level.  Why automate when we have such an abundance of cheap labor.  Apparently we do not have enough cheap labor as we import a couple million extra evry year.

At this pace we may never see the level of automation we all want...

[JayBird]

With all the good, well researched, highly thought out properly planned proposals of raising minimum wage, I have yet to see one say how they can solve the bottom line issue of cost of living. Raising the minimum wage in the past is good for the first two or three months but then the costs rise as well so they're back in the same boat.

So far, all of the wage increases have just quieted the masses for a few years until the complaints get loud again. And, in reality, nothing really improved, it just gave the impression of improvement.

[finehoe]

Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.

[BridgeTroll]

Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.

Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...

[ChriswUfGator]

Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.

Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...

A supply that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government subsidies we're all paying for, let's not forget that part.

[BridgeTroll]

Low-wage employers have merely followed the classic strategy of using their political influence to privatize their gains while socializing their expenses, retaining the full output-value of their workers but foisting a huge share of the costs unto ordinary taxpayers.

Or... they are simply utilizing an over supply of very cheap laborors...

A supply that wouldn't exist if it weren't for government subsidies we're all paying for, let's not forget that part.

Not sure what government subsidies have to do with 30% of high school aged children incapable of even finishing high school... but I am thankful there are companies willing to pay people a wage who are unqualified to do much else.  Importing more will just add to the surplus of cheap labor.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.

Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry Stephen... but even blue collar manufacturing jobs require the ability to graduate High school.  I have to commend you though for admitting the labor unions played a large part in forcing some manufacturing overseas...

But hey... if 30% (50% in some demographics) virtually unemployable is good for you...  Blaming me and NAFTA is certainly easier...

[ChriswUfGator]

By the way, I read the part you added about deregulation of trade and 100% agree with you, we need the reinstitution of tariffs, and the unwinding of nafta, etc. It's been disastrous for this country. Won't happen though, until you get the money out of the political system. Which the Supreme Court says you can't do. So I guess we're kind of fucked, from a long-term perspective. We're Rome, watching the weakening of an empire due to corruption, which for whatever reason we've mislabeled as capitalism. I like capitalism pretty damn well. I don't like the "everything's for sale" government we've developed since the 1980s. The finale won't happen in our lifetimes, but it's definitely starting.

[BridgeTroll]

Well it's a dodge, Stephen. This is the most mind-boggling issue, to me anyway, upon which conservatives always wind up falling on their sword. They don't like welfare queens, unless its walmart. I've never figured it out myself, and this is easy to solve, either raise the minimum wage to the point where you don't have people who are employed but still on food stamps because their wages can't sustain them, or pass a law that denies benefits to workers at companies with more than X number of employees. That will let the rest of us quit subsidizing these Fortune 500 companies with tax dollars that were intended as a safety net for the needy. The issue is starkly simple.

Without the subsidies their underpaid workers mostly wouldn't have the ability to take the job at the wage offered, this is just an artificially deflated market because these private companies are intentionally banking on public assistance programs to increase already-healthy profits.

Chris... they are paid the going rate!  You mentioned you employees are fairly compensated... I am sure they are.  But... you probably do not pay substantially more that other lawyers in the area or income of respective firms.  You pay the going rate... no more... no less.

Suppose the government told you you must now pay 1/3 more than you are currently paying them.  How would this affect your business?

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry Stephen... but even blue collar manufacturing jobs require the ability to graduate High school.  I have to commend you though for admitting the labor unions played a large part in forcing some manufacturing overseas...

But hey... if 30% (50% in some demographics) virtually unemployable is good for you...  Blaming me and NAFTA is certainly easier...

Well in fairness NAFTA's a disaster, it needs to go. Globalization only works as promised if the trade partners are already at relative wealth parity. Which isn't what happens in the real world, companies run around exploiting underdeveloped economies at the expense of the wealthier nation's domestic economy. It's really global wealth redistribution, with us on the losing end. I don't care what happens in Indonesia, China, or Mexico, why are we allowing our manufacturing base to be wholesaled off to developing countries? There are public policy considerations in all of this, it's not just about a dollar, the cost is enormous to us as a society.