Costco is a company that pays its workers well and yet is very successful because its employees are more productive, there is less turnover and less theft. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... costco-way
See also http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart_costco_vs_sams/
Costco's employees are not high-skilled employees but they crush Sam's Club (Wal-Mart)employees in terms of productivity. And if you are a cashier and stay there 4 years you make $20 an hour, a middle-class wage. (the average employee who has been there at least a year stays for 17)
I have no doubt that employers would be able to handle paying higher wages --you just can't get good employees when you are paying an employee less than they need to live on.

Good for Costco and their employees ... an excellent reason to NOT raise the minimum wage. No one is mandating that employers pay the minimum wage.

ray

Good for Costco and their employees ... an excellent reason to NOT raise the minimum wage. No one is mandating that employers pay the minimum wage.

Can you explain your logic.
Costco was provided as evidence that retailers do not need to offer a very low wage to their staff in order to prosper.
The reason given by most businesses is that they must have a very low wage because other wise they would not survive...

The reason most people who propose a minimum wage increase is to ensure that those who cannot find work offering more than minimum wage have at least a "living wage" from their investment in time...
If it is proven by Costco that such a living wage does not seriously impede successful retail businesses then why is it an excellent reason not to raise the minimum wage?
Just because one entrant in the field isn't exploiting his labour force, because he is enlightened enough to understand a better rewarded work force provides beeter results .... is no reason to expect that all entrants can now have the option to exploit their labour.
In the extreme example: Just because one planter voluntarily frees his slaves, doesn't mean that slavery should be allowed to continue.

rickyp wrote:ray

Good for Costco and their employees ... an excellent reason to NOT raise the minimum wage. No one is mandating that employers pay the minimum wage.

Can you explain your logic.
Costco was provided as evidence that retailers do not need to offer a very low wage to their staff in order to prosper.
The reason given by most businesses is that they must have a very low wage because other wise they would not survive...

Costco, without government mandate, is able to thrive and pay its employees well and give them benefits. So, you and freeman2 argue that the government should force other companies to do the same.

Please explain your logic.

The reason most people who propose a minimum wage increase is to ensure that those who cannot find work offering more than minimum wage have at least a "living wage" from their investment in time...

Don't work for a company that won't do this OR bring your skills up to a level that demands it. Forcing companies to do this will result in them doing what they are doing in response to Obamacare: cutting hours and not hiring in order to dodge the mandates.

Do you really just want to force every minimally-skilled worker to have part-time work?

If it is proven by Costco that such a living wage does not seriously impede successful retail businesses then why is it an excellent reason not to raise the minimum wage?

Because not ever business is a warehouse? Because not every business demands a membership? Because McDonald's (for example) does not force you to buy 20 Big Macs at a time?

You can't compare a business model with others and pretend they are all the same.

Having been in both Costco AND Sam's Club, I can categorically say that Costco workers are more helpful and productive. I would pay them more. What makes a Sam's club employee think that they deserve the same wage as a Costco employee when the productivity is not there.

Explain that!

bbauska wrote:Having been in both Costco AND Sam's Club, I can categorically say that Costco workers are more helpful and productive. I would pay them more. What makes a Sam's club employee think that they deserve the same wage as a Costco employee when the productivity is not there.

Explain that!

Why should a guy who uses a leaf blower to clean the parking lot be mandated by law to earn the same as a Costco employee?

There are all kinds of "why" questions regarding a "living wage." They all come back to one answer: "Because it's fair."

I respond, "Well, who says life is fair? Where is that written? Life isn't always fair."

I would also say it is not the employer's fault if someone's skillset is so limited that he/she cannot get paid more elsewhere.

It's not just about fairness. It's about making work pay, so it's a more attractive alternative to benefits. It's so taxpayers are not subsidising companies who underpay. It's so you have more people on an income that makes them consumers with disposable income, which creates demand in the economy.

The way that the right frame the debate and sneer about 'fairness' is reductive and frankly demeaning. Not to the people you sneer at, but yourselves.

danivon wrote:It's not just about fairness. It's about making work pay, so it's a more attractive alternative to benefits.

Interesting point. So, how much does it take?

I'll answer it.

[I]t is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.“

So, in that case, she would need her salary to more than double in order to break even.

It's so taxpayers are not subsidising companies who underpay. It's so you have more people on an income that makes them consumers with disposable income, which creates demand in the economy.

So, either society subsidizes businesses or it subsidizes those who cannot or will not make themselves more valuable?

Seems like we lose either way.

Check out the charts at my link. It seems to me that it's a complex issue, needing some thought, not an experimental "let's raise wages and see" mentality.

The way that the right frame the debate and sneer about 'fairness' is reductive and frankly demeaning. Not to the people you sneer at, but yourselves.

Right, because I'm the one who raises the issue of fairness?

Or, is it because I'm the one who simplistically believes raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" actually solves problems?

I would like to hear from Freeman2 concerning why a Costco employee shouldn't be paid more, since they are more productive (freeman2's words).

fate

not an experimental "let's raise wages and see" mentality.

Really. This would be experimental?
In what way?
We know that US companies that pay more than the current minimum as a base thrive. So we can take as proven that a higehr minimum wage won't kill businesses.

And we know, by looking at the prosperous nations around the world that a minimum wage higehr than in the US has contributed to poverty alleviation , and a better standard of living for the working poor. And attendant benefits to the rest of society in better health standards and lower crime rates...

So, when you say experimental....whats unknown?

Another thing we know. For many employers, if they aren't forced to pay a minimum level, they'll go lower. These kinds of employers are already using part time work to avoid paying benefits...
If there was no current minimum wage ....how low woiuld their offers go?
Would they become Chinese like in their drive to the bottom?

rickyp wrote:fate

not an experimental "let's raise wages and see" mentality.

Really. This would be experimental?
In what way?
We know that US companies that pay more than the current minimum as a base thrive. So we can take as proven that a higehr minimum wage won't kill businesses.

Wow, so one company PROVES that ALL can do it?

It PROVES there will be no decrease in employment--if a "living wage" is imposed by government?

It PROVES there will be NO unintended consequences?

Um, I don't think you understand the word "experimental."

And we know, by looking at the prosperous nations around the world that a minimum wage higehr than in the US has contributed to poverty alleviation , and a better standard of living for the working poor. And attendant benefits to the rest of society in better health standards and lower crime rates...

So, when you say experimental....whats unknown?

Uh-huh. It's just a bit more complex than that, but I should know better than to expect that.

Greece? Spain? France? Italy? Ireland?

You want to compare theoretical socialist outcomes with the US--then dig into the numbers and NOT just about "poverty alleviation." You also need to take into account military responsibilities, Social Security, Medicare, and a myriad of other factors.

So, yes, it's "experimental." You have no idea what will happen because no country in our exact position with our precise obligations has ever done it.

Another thing we know. For many employers, if they aren't forced to pay a minimum level, they'll go lower.

There is a minimum wage.

Companies that pay only minimum can expect to lose their best workers.

These kinds of employers are already using part time work to avoid paying benefits...
If there was no current minimum wage ....how low woiuld their offers go?
Would they become Chinese like in their drive to the bottom?

That is an ignorant statement.

You think you got me trapped there don't you Brad? First, I never said the minimum wage should be raised to $20, so Sam's Club workers would not be entitled to make as much as Costo workers (I would favor raising it to $12). The point is when you reward workers who are so-called low - skilled you get more productive workers. The reason Sam's Club's workers are not good is because they are not treated very well.
In Communist countries workers did not work very hard because they would get paid the same as a slacker. What happens with a minimum wage worker who no
matter how hard he works he get the same wage as another less productive worker gets? He stops working hard. That is the difference between Costco and Sams Club.Wal-Martmade 16 billion dollars last year. They would still make huge profits if the paid their workers decently. I have posted the decline of labor's share of income from 65 to 57 percent--at the very least we can lessen the exploitation of workers at the very bottom ( if that word bothers you I don't what to call it when an employer pays the same thing no matter how much wealth the worker makes for the employer)

DF, I agree that the social safety net should not be so generous that people are incentivized not to work. But part of that equation is making work more attractive and the trends towards workers getting less of the pie means that there more people who can't make it by working and they will adapt by going on some type of governmental assistance.

No, I don't want to trap you. I wanted to know what you thought.

Thank you.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, either society subsidizes businesses or it subsidizes those who cannot or will not make themselves more valuable?

Umm, I'm saying you are currently doing both. it's not an either/or. If work pays more, then not only will you be spending less subsidising people out of work (because work will have a greater incentive), but it will also spend less subsidising people in work, which is effectlively allowing employers to pay below-subsistence wages.

Check out the charts at my link. It seems to me that it's a complex issue, needing some thought, not an experimental "let's raise wages and see" mentality.

It does need some thought, and more than just "but it's all about 'fairness' and Marxism by the back door"...

The way that the right frame the debate and sneer about 'fairness' is reductive and frankly demeaning. Not to the people you sneer at, but yourselves.

Right, because I'm the one who raises the issue of fairness?

No, because you are mischaracterising the argument as being only about fairness. I have mentioned the other aspects - economic and fiscal - before.

Or, is it because I'm the one who simplistically believes raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" actually solves problems?

I've given reasons why it solves some problems. I'm not saying it solves all problems, and I don't believe it won't create any other problems, but the net effect should be positive.

Also, on a slightly earlier post from you, DF:

I would also say it is not the employer's fault if someone's skillset is so limited that he/she cannot get paid more elsewhere.

Hmmm. In the olden days, employers used to train people up, with internal programmes and apprenticeships etc. Now they expect them to be fully formed and ready to work, and complain that academic study does not do this (it never used to, and education systems are better than before, but just not as good as what has been lost). They stopped, in large part, because cheap employers realised they could save money on training etc by simply offering trained up employees a slightly better rate. People get stuck in a viscious circle wherein no employer wants someone untrained or inexperienced (or with a period out of employment), but as such, potential employees who require that can't get it from work for the same reason.

I don't think that a minimum wage increase would solve that problem either, but it's part of the reason for people lacking skills, that doesn't come from your prejudice that it's all their fault, or that employers have no part in the situation.

In fact, the whole of your words in that post are a crock:

Why should a guy who uses a leaf blower to clean the parking lot be mandated by law to earn the same as a Costco employee?

As freeman2 has pointed out, that's not what he is calling for. It's also not what I am calling for.

freeman2 wrote:DF, I agree that the social safety net should not be so generous that people are incentivized not to work. But part of that equation is making work more attractive and the trends towards workers getting less of the pie means that there more people who can't make it by working and they will adapt by going on some type of governmental assistance.

Well put.