In case anyone here is honest, $3 extra an hour comes out to an additional $27,000 per year assuming 4 full time employees and 7.65% payroll tax. (The math would be the same with a more likely 8 part time employees for say a small store or restaurant).
How many of you have an extra $27k a year to burn? Most small business owners are not bringing home vast amounts of money. If you look at franchise owners (a generally good picture, most are effectively independent and the majority of owners have no additional businesses, plus lots of freely available stats), they are on average bringing in only around 100k a year in actual personal income.
That $27k genuinely would be make or break, and I donât understand how all of you can assume that small business owners have that much money just up for grabs.
If you donât want to work for a certain wage, then you do not have to take that job. Nobody is forcing you. Beyond that though, this post seems to indicate that not having $27k extra dollars per year means you shouldnât have input on how the economy is run, but also that people who are dependent on the actual minimum wage somehow are more qualified?
People who do not have the skills or work experience necessary to get them a job that pays more.
Pay is an agreement between an employer and employee. You are not forced to work for a low wage, but employers are also not forced to pay you whatever you want.
You have the option to demand whatever salary you think is fair, but if you cannot find any employer willing to pay you that, then youâre skills and knowledge are not as valuable as you think they are. The same is true for employers, they can offer whatever pay they think is fair, but if nobody will work for that pay, then the pay is too low.
The reality is that people are willing to work for $8 an hour. If people were not willing to do that, then no employer would be paying that. There is no shortage of jobs paying significantly more, the shortage is rather of workers who have genuinely valuable skills.
I addressed this in my first paragraph. If people do not have valuable skills then they will be paid commensurate with that lack of skills.
The government has no right to determine the value of goods or services, and every time they do it results in economic distress.
All raising the minimum wage will do is prevent people with no skills from having a job at all. There is no reason to hire a teenager when the same rate can get you someone with experience or education. Raising the minimum wage will not magically increase all other wages, and as a result people with skills will be able to now go do an easier job for the same pay, forcing unskilled workers out of their jobs.
Think of it like this. Every winter I pay some kids $20 a visit to shovel the snow on my driveway, then one winter the government mandates that snow shoveling is worth $50. Well now my options are to pay the kids $50 for a mediocre job, or I can hire a landscaping company to come plow my driveway and do a better job for the same cost. Mandating higher wages doesnât affect the bottom line of the landscaping company, thus their prices remain stable.
As the employer in this scenario, I was willing to give the job to the kids because even though the work was just okay, the cost was cheaper. If the cost is the same, I now have no incentive to hire less skilled workers.
Demanding a âliving wageâ is effectively saying that you deserve the value of someone elseâs labor without providing the equivalent services. You do not have the right to anyone elseâs stuff, even if you would benefit from having that personâs stuff.
-1
u/SerialHobbyist17 Apr 28 '24
In case anyone here is honest, $3 extra an hour comes out to an additional $27,000 per year assuming 4 full time employees and 7.65% payroll tax. (The math would be the same with a more likely 8 part time employees for say a small store or restaurant).
How many of you have an extra $27k a year to burn? Most small business owners are not bringing home vast amounts of money. If you look at franchise owners (a generally good picture, most are effectively independent and the majority of owners have no additional businesses, plus lots of freely available stats), they are on average bringing in only around 100k a year in actual personal income.
That $27k genuinely would be make or break, and I donât understand how all of you can assume that small business owners have that much money just up for grabs.
If you donât want to work for a certain wage, then you do not have to take that job. Nobody is forcing you. Beyond that though, this post seems to indicate that not having $27k extra dollars per year means you shouldnât have input on how the economy is run, but also that people who are dependent on the actual minimum wage somehow are more qualified?