"The minimum wage doesn't help the worker at the expense of the owner. It helps the more productive workers at the expense of the less productive workers."
No. It hurts the more productive workers by paying them the same as the lazy a**holes. After working at McDonalds I feel very strongly about this. I was getting paid the same as people who were lazy and awful workers.
The second half seems backwards to me. Am I reading it wrong?
The second part is correct.
LIB - the largest employer in the world is Walmart. What do you think they would pay there 1,400,000 if a minimum wage didn't exist?
That minimum wage hurts the less productive? Seems like it'd benefit them more as they are paid higher for the actual work they do, as they do less work overall.
Why should an employer be forced to pay someone more for less work?
Shazam: I don't know. But what I can tell you is that I have friends who work at Walmart and they have gotten raises at least twice.
If Walmart could get away with slave labor they would.
Not if they want to stay in business.
What does the salary structure have to do with staying in business. Their workers need Medicaid foe health insurance...we are paying for that!
I'm with you liberatheist. A less productive worker will be fired or laid off at some point of forced higher pay because it costs the business more to keep them than they earn. The average worker (let alone the exceptional worker) will get raises...
... without a minimum wage.
How can a business stay in business if they don't have a salary structure? If I'm forced to pay my employees more than what they're producing I'll go out of business.