Showing posts with label minimum wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minimum wage. Show all posts

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Where's The Empathy?

Consider this quote from Book Four, Chapter 2, of Adam Smith's, 'An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations':
"I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
Smith's comment is certainly as valid today as it was when he wrote it back in 1776.  Indeed, the popular media publish articles and quotes every day from those with the affectation of trading for the public good.

September 4, 2014, was just another day in that regard.

Take this article by Adam Chandler, at thewire.com, profiling Ron Piazza.  Ron owns nine McDonald's franchises in Southern California, including the world's oldest operating McDonald's on the corner of Lakewood Blvd. and Florence Ave. in Downey, California.  Here's a Google street view image of that McDonald's from January 2012 --
This McDonald's in Downey, California, was established in 1953.

Adam Chandler's article is fascinating in that it gives details about how long and hard Piazza had to work in order to reach the point where he could successfully operate nine McDonald's franchises (Piazza started at a McDonald's fryer making $1 an hour when he was 15 years old), but Chandler leaves the impression that unionization will help workers avoid exploitation by fast food franchises, even after he points out that the McDonald's in Downey that Piazza owns does not make money.

So how much do the workers in that location deserve to be paid, given that customers already refuse to spend enough there to make that business profitable?  Adam Chandler doesn't attempt to answer that question --

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/09/owner-oldest-operating-mcdonalds-on-minimum-wage/379624/

SEP 4, 2014 1:23PM ET

Sixty-one years ago last month, the third-ever McDonald's opened in Downey, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles and home to Apollo, the third-ever NASA manned spaceflight program. McDonald's went to 119 countries from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Apollo went to the moon.

A man who witnessed much of this history is Ron Piazza, who owns the landmark McDonald's in Downey —the world's oldest-operating McDonald's— along with nine other golden-arched franchises in the area.

Piazza is something of a throwback. Plainspoken and serious, he is the type of business owner whose name and phone number are printed at the bottom of all the customer receipts.

He started on the McDonald's fryers in 1967 when he was fifteen-years-old and worked his way up through the crew to management to ownership. Piazza remembers the introduction of breakfast, the Big Mac, the Beanie Baby Happy Meal craze, the veggie burger flop, and everything in between. He is also a steadfast advocate of not only (the perhaps bygone convention of) the American Dream, but of the American Dream actionably realized through a career at McDonald's.

As fast-food workers and their champions protest in 150 cities today in pursuit of a $15 minimum wage (with some arrests reported already), a wide gulf remains between the company line and the aspirations of the protestors.  You'll no doubt be hearing about the demonstrations, which unions have encouraged two million home-care workers to participate in, as well as the calls for civil disobedience by organizers.

What you probably won't be hearing is the case against the minimum wage campaign. Enter Ron Piazza. The Wire caught up with him last month to talk about the business of fast food as well as his take on the ongoing efforts by fast-food workers and activists to push for a large minimum wage increase.

History of the Oldest-Operating McDonald's


The McDonald's in Downey is somewhere between a vanity project and a millstone. It is the only remaining McDonald's store that was founded by the McDonald brothers themselves before Ray Kroc assumed ownership and set the empire sailing toward its 35,000 stores. It is also the only McDonald's store without both indoor seating and a coveted drive-thru window, which Piazza says accounts for "60-to-70 percent" of business for a typical McDonald's store.

Following an earthquake in 1994, the company planned to knock down the landmark, whose massive neon signed is topped by Speedee, the predecessor to Ronald McDonald. A public outcry ensued. The National Trust for Historical Preservation listed the oldest-surviving McDonald's on its 1994 list of 11 most endangered places along with Cape Cod, the Old Mint in San Francisco, the U.S.S. Constellation, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin estate in Wisconsin.

Today, the store hosts a McDonald's museum and "comes close to breaking even."

The Politics of Nostalgia


What fueled a public outrage about the possible destruction of a fundamentally inefficient McDonald's outpost (despite the fact that the fast-food enterprise's historical raison d'être was efficiency) is one lens through which the ongoing debate about the minimum wage can be viewed.

The American Dream embodied by long tenures at the same company, a gold watch, a retirement egg, and a living wage all sound like the rhetorical hokum of an erstwhile era. The argument posited by protestors, pundits, politicians, and others is that this model no longer applies as education has become more expensive and income inequality has grown.

As the Times noted, President Obama gave a verbal nod to the campaign unfolding across the country today in a speech he delivered on Labor Day: “All across the country right now there’s a national movement going on made up of fast-food workers organizing to lift wages so they can provide for their families with pride and dignity.”

In his speech on Monday, President Obama also added that he would join a union if he were a fast-food worker.

But Piazza pushes back against the idea that the minimum wage and poverty are inextricably linked.
"I started at a dollar an hour. Poverty is as severe as it was when I was making a dollar an hour. The minimum wage increase, frankly, hasn't reduced our poverty problem. Do I think it’s fair that people live in poverty? Of course not. But I don’t know how you can say that business is responsible for that."
As we noted, McDonald's was dealt a serious blow in late July after the National Labor Relations Board ruled that both the McDonald's Corporation and its franchisees were jointly responsible for the treatment of its workers. This precedent set workers at McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants on a course toward unionization, a long elusive goal and means by which employees could more effectively file unfair practice complaints.

It was in the wake of that decision that we sat down with Piazza at the Downey McDonald's. He not only pointed to the company's humble roots, but traced a different trajectory for its workers than the characterizations made in the minimum wage debate.
"We're an all-American company and we are one of the few countries that was built by its bootstraps. Every one of my managers started as a crew person on french fries, my supervisors, my son, myself. I have four people who worked for me who went on to own their own McDonald's restaurants. I would say that we're a company where more people have come up through the ranks and become successful than maybe any other company in maybe the world."
Piazza told me the story of a man he had just promoted from manager to supervisor who had escaped the killing fields of Cambodia with his mother and made it to America. 
"They went to New York and first thing off the boat, they went to McDonald's for food. He said 'Mom, I'm going to work there someday.' He came to work and I hired him when he was 15-and-a-half. He worked his way up to crew and then management, became a U.S. citizen, a store manager, and now a supervisor. We have those kinds of examples all the time."

The Minimum Wage


If that story sounds a bit old school, it's because Piazza (and many other business owners like him) still believe that hard work is the pathway to both advancement and wages.
"When you raise the minimum wage you’re asking everybody to weigh in on the poverty situation. What you’re not saying is that the job is worth any more.
As he recently told a junior high school: "There is so much opportunity in America for those who want to work hard."

Piazza says his managers make roughly $55,000 per year, which he notes is more than a teacher ("a noble profession"), and that his employees can flourish no matter "what schooling you have."

"People think we're a dead-end job. Well, I'm not a dead-ender. I've got 585 employees and 55 managers, they're not dead-enders."

As for the minimum wage, Piazza sees it as a disincentive for hard work. For an example, he went through the hypothetical hiring of someone who makes an $8 an hour minimum wage and, at the end of two years, makes $10 an hour after learning more of the job and moving up.
"When the minimum wage is $10 an hour, you lose all that because I’m going to bring someone in at $10 an hour. What incentive did you have to learn your job?"
He added:
"The way we have tried to bring our employees together is to motivate them, since the fact is, they do need motivation. The way you motivate them is with wage and perks and things that you give them. You take all that away when the government forces people to increase the wages."
I asked what the perks were and he offered several examples. Beyond free food and free uniforms, he spoke of flexible schedules for people in school or with other commitments. He also seemed particularly prideful of the professional training that the company provides for the employees for whom McDonald's is their first job and that this training involves teaching employees how to cash their checks.
"I think that’s something that’s really important and I believe that McDonald’s started all that. I believe that we had a large part to play in the American Dream for an awful lot of people. I have a lot of people who still call us for references for people who worked for us 10 or 12 years ago because they honor the fact that somebody came through a McDonald’s, learned the job, taught themselves the skills, and then moved onto something else."
With that, he wished me well, hopped into his Maserati, and drove off down a California highway.


The closing mention of a Maserati was a nice touch, if you're one with 'the affectation of trading for the public good', as Adam Smith called it.  The comment that Piazza owns a Maserati adds nothing to anyone's understanding of any of the issues raised in the article, but because Maserati is known as an expensive luxury automobile, it helps to provoke a disgruntled emotional reaction from soft headed readers -- regardless of how hard Piazza may have worked, over how many years, to be able to afford such a purchase.

But notice that Maserati has models ranging in price from roughly $70,000 to $180,000 U.S. dollars (in 2014) --
   http://www.maserati.us/maserati/us/en/index/shopping-tools/build-price.html

So if Piazza purchased a used Maserati Ghibli, for example, he may have spent less than $50,000 on the purchse --
   http://www.maserati.us/maserati/us/en/index/shopping-tools/build-price/Ghibli

That's hardly a purchase that would classify anyone as 'rich'.  Piazza may have spent a good deal more, but Chandler doesn't give an amount in his article -- why would he, if his goal is to get an emotional reaction from readers that won't ask any critical questions?

And here's an excellent demonstration of how well such useless language works with some readers.  Quoted below is a reader comment to Adam Chandler's story at thewire.com.  You see some version of such comments posted over and over again, in response to articles like this that deal with the pay of workers in the fast food industry --

The opportunity for incentive is simple: raise the workers who are already at $10 to $12. This particular restaurant may not be doing all that well, but I would think that if McDonald's really has an interest in touting this store as their oldest, they could kick in a little more money. Or maybe this jerk could downsize his Maserati to, say, something a little more affordable.

To those who said that this is a starter job, not "meant" to support a family-- well, there are adults who DO support a family on a salary from McDonald's, with the assistance of food stamps, medical assistance, etc. Go into one of those miserable fast food stores and tell me what the percentage is of teens as compared to people over 40, and I do NOT mean the managers. Do any of you recall the website they had for their workers, giving a "budget" for a full-time employee? They actually TOLD their employees to go on food stamps and the like. They "budgeted" something like $100 a month for all utilities, including electricity.

If these wealthy people would at least support taxes being raised for decent public education, then yes, I might understand why the deride their own employees as low skilled. With the sort of education some people get in many large cities, is it really any wonder why they haven't gone to college or can't get better job?

This sort of attitude is why I haven't eaten at a fast food place for close to 20 years. WalMart treats its employees in an equally disgusting manner.

Mr. Piazza is selfish, shortsighted, and incredibly lacking in empathy of other human beings.


Here are some of the problems with that reader's comment --
  1. Regarding incentives -- the point Piazza made in the article is that when a pay raise is automatic, rather than tied to making yourself a more valuable employee, there's no incentive for employees to improve.  Raising workers already at $10 an hour to $12, when a minimum wage increase takes effect has the same problem -- it has nothing to do with the economic value of the job, and how well an employee performs it, so the reader's supposed 'simple' solution to the problem of automatic wage increases eliminating incentives for improvement, does nothing to solve that problem, since he doesn't address the problem -- automatic increases.
  2. Regarding McDonald's 'touting this store as their oldest' -- the article stated that the reason this location wasn't eliminated or modernized in 1994 was because of public outcry over it being a historical landmark, not because it provided some kind of marketing value to McDonald's.  Now it's listed as an endangered place with the 'National Trust for Historic Preservation', so they can't win -- this 'miserable fast food store', as this reader described it, is considered to be a national landmark.
  3. Regarding Piazza 'downsizing' his Maserati to something more affordable -- let's make the most extreme assumption, which is that Piazza's Maserati is worth $180,000 U.S. dollars, and that he sold it, and didn't even buy another car at all, but instead decided to use public transportation.  Piazza stated that he has 585 employees, so if that $180,000 is divided among his employees, each would receive $307.69.  What kind of person is willing to argue such a trivial amount could change anyone's quality of life?
  4. Regarding adults who attempt to support a family on a 'starter job' -- how can a business owner be held responsible for the lifestyle choices of its employees?  Fast food franchise owners certainly don't require employees to have families as a condition of their employment.  The reader attempts to make it sound horrendous that a business would recommend that employees seek public assistance, if they were struggling financially -- but should any business set pay based on the lifestyle choices of its employees, so one employee with children, would make dramatically more than another doing the same work, but with no children?
  5. Regarding raising taxes to support decent public education -- it's fascinating how often this myth is repeated.  The truth is that our government monopolized public education system has achieved a rare thing: negative productivity.  That is, every year an increased amount of tax dollars are spent on education, with no improvement in quality.  See this March, 2014, study by Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute --  http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf.   And a picture is worth 1,000 words.  The only thing that is not increasing in our public education system, is student performance and enrollment -- note that the 'Total Cost' line in this figure is adjusted for inflation --

The reader who made those terribly flawed comments, closes by claiming that Mr. Piazza is 'incredibly lacking in empathy of other human beings.'

But who has more empathy -- an individual who started at the lowest possible position in a corporation, and then after having worked his way up over many years, now successfully provides employment opportunities to over 500 people -- or, individuals that write articles and post comments denigrating the opportunities provided by others?

If you have empathy for low skilled workers with limited opportunities, you know that denigrating those who are providing some opportunity certainly won't help anyone -- least of all a worker who has taken advantage of such an opportunity.

If you really want to show your empathy, go out and start a business yourself, and see how successful you are at providing employment that pays a 'living wage' to low skilled workers.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Pounding Nails In Its Coffin

Here's an opinion piece at latimes.com by Eli Broad, co-founder of Kaufman & Broad, supporting the plan of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to raise the city's minimum wage to $13.25 by 2017.  When Eli's piece was first posted, it was titled: 'Hiking L.A.'s minimum wage is a no-brainer', but for some reason, the title was changed to: 'Hiking L.A.'s minimum wage is a win-win'.  Hiking the minimum wage is both of these things, but only if you ignore the consequences to the supposed beneficiary -- the low skilled worker.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-broad-minimum-wage-20140902-story.html
September 1, 2014, 2:33 PM

Of all major cities in the country, Los Angeles has the highest percentage of population living in poverty. After decades of slow job growth and stagnant wages, 28% of Angelenos — 1 million people — today live below the poverty line. Our city's African American and Latino residents face disproportionately higher rates of poverty. The situation is heartbreaking and unconscionable.

That's why I'm supporting the plan that Mayor Eric Garcetti announced Monday to raise the minimum wage to $13.25. The men and women earning minimum wage deserve, at the very least, a paycheck that enables them to support their families. An increase in the minimum wage would not only be good for low-wage workers. It would also be good for the city, good for the economy and, in the long term, good for business. It is, simply put, the right thing to do.

Supporting a family with a minimum-wage salary — or even two such salaries — has become increasingly difficult in recent years. Los Angeles' poverty line is $30,000 for a family of four with at least one full-time and one part-time wage earner. If you are someone who earns more than that, think for a moment about how difficult it would be to find a decent place to live, feed your family and pay for health insurance, child care, transportation and utilities — much less save for retirement, birthday presents for the kids or a rainy-day fund — on $2,500 a month before taxes. The sad truth is, many families in Los Angeles survive on even less.

Across the country over the last several years, wealth and income gaps have widened even as the economy has ticked upward since the recession. Those in the top 1% have seen their bank accounts grow dramatically, while the bottom fifth have either seen incomes decline or remain steady. As someone fortunate enough to have lived the American dream, I'm deeply troubled by that.

Increasing the minimum wage is a start. Garcetti proposes to increase the minimum wage so that it reaches $13.25 by 2017 — and ideally $15 an hour not long after. In the very short term, 600,000 people would be lifted out of poverty, and wages could rise as much as $6 billion.

Those increased wages would be a great boost to our local economy. Workers would spend their higher wages on groceries, clothes and other basics for their families, putting the money right back into local businesses, which would, in turn, create jobs.

That's why I don't agree with some business leaders who say higher wages will cost jobs or hurt business. In fact, this year 600 economists — including Nobel laureates — signed a letter supporting a federal minimum-wage increase and citing as evidence studies that show increasing the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment of minimum-wage workers and could stimulate the economy.
...


Eli Broad repeats the often heard claim that one should be able to support a family on the salary of an entry level job.  But why should that be the case?  An entry level job requires little or no experience, so there's no reason to expect it to pay enough to support more than one person (if that), since, by definition, it's a job that anyone can do, which means it isn't worth very much -- jobs that require even a modest level of skill pay more than the minimum wage.

Another obvious point that is rarely (if ever) made regarding complaints about the difficulty of attempting to support a family on the minimum wage, is that having a family is a lifestyle choice -- certainly no one is required to have a family.  Having a family is an important responsibility that takes planning and commitment.  A couple that can't easily afford to support several other individuals besides themselves has no business having a family.  To claim otherwise is absurd -- how is it reasonable for a couple to attempt to support children, if they can barely afford to support themselves?

Having a family without the ability to provide the proper support -- as Eli describes above -- is an expression of irresponsibility, not some kind of market failure as advocates of a minimum wage often try to imply.  Individuals must choose to start a family, and so they bear the responsibility for all the things that choice entails.

Saying that a couple can't afford to support their family is no different than saying they can't afford any other particular expense -- like a luxury car loan or a home mortgage -- it just means they are spending beyond their means.

And notice that Los Angeles is already dead last among major U.S. cities in job creation --

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2014/apr/07/los-angeles-has-work-do-job-creation/

Los Angeles Has Work to Do on Job Creation

OP-ED
By EDWARD E. LEAMER and JUDY D. OLIAN
Monday, April 7, 2014
Cleveland and Detroit – cities that have become shorthand for widespread urban failure – have nothing on Los Angeles when it comes to long-term decline in payroll jobs. Dead last among major U.S. cities, Los Angeles has lost a painful 3.1 percent of its payroll jobs since 1990, even as the population grew nearly 11 percent. By contrast, payroll jobs in the United States overall grew by 26 percent during the same period.
...


Do people really believe that increasing the price of labor in Los Angeles will prevent further job losses in the city and help low skilled workers support families they already can't afford?

The widespread support for minimum wage laws is based on a number of fallacies, and one of the more interesting is the assumption that wages can be controlled at all with law.  But with a little reflection it's easy to see why this assumption is absurd.

Wages are not set by law, or by employers -- wages are set by customers.  Every person that has money and makes purchases (expresses demand), plays a role in determining prices, and, therefore, wages.  Wages are set by what individuals are willing to pay for what a person attempting to earn a wage has produced.

The only way to eliminate the problems faced by the working poor, as described by Eli Broad, is to somehow make customers willing to pay significantly more for the products the working poor are producing -- but the law cannot change human desires.  Raising the price of labor won't magically make others willing to pay more for the affected products -- as the price moves higher customers start to fall away, and beyond a certain price point a business will fail completely.

How much would you pay for a hamburger from one of the major fast food chains, for example?  10$, 20$?  Would it make a difference to you if they told you they were trying to pay a 'living wage' after they tripled their price, to try to eliminate the problems described by Broad?

Maybe McDonald's or Burger King, etc. could stay in business, if their cheapest burger cost $20, but anyone who claimed that they would have anywhere near the current level of customers is either a fool or a liar.  Customers (not the employer) would eliminate a huge number of those jobs by their refusal to pay more for something than they thought it was worth, regardless of how noble some claim doing so to be.

And if you think that simply cutting CEO salaries can raise worker's salaries dramatically, you need to do the math to prove to yourself that that won't help either -- eliminating the management entirely and distributing their annual compensation to workers wouldn't give a worker enough to get one person into Disneyland -- never mind an entire family.

'Hiking' the minimum wage is an especially bizarre recommendation from a successful businessman like Broad.  He should now better.

But in one sense Eli's right -- it is a 'win-win' and a 'no-brainer' for pandering politicians and the dull ignorant electorate that they appeal to -- Garcetti will increase his popularity while doing only harm, and the electorate can smile in smug satisfaction under the deluded pretense that they've helped everyone.

But if you're one of the poor workers whose skills are not worth the higher minimum wage, and you lose your job as a result, well too bad -- sacrifices must be made to maintain the moral pretenses of the hoi polloi.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Pretending the Rules of Arithmetic Don't Work (or The Perfect Issue for a Demagogue)

The widespread support for minimum wage laws is an interesting phenomenon, especially given the simple nature of the economics of this issue.

Almost everyone has heard of the 'Law of Demand', and anyone who has taken an introductory class in economics is taught this law: other things being equal, the quantity demanded of something is inversely related to its price.

But more than that, we all experience it directly, since it expresses an external constraint on human behavior, that everyone is unable to buy more of something as its price rises.

Here is the classic graph that shows the basic relationship between supply and demand.  The demand curve slopes down from left to right, indicating the inverse relationship between demand and price — everyone demands less as price rises.  The supply curve slopes up from left to right, indicating the direct relationship between supply and price — rising prices cause more of something to be produced, since the increasing price increases the reward for producing that something.


But why do we know the Law of Demand is true, and that the demand curve above must slope down to the right, indicating that price and quantity demanded are inversely related?  It certainly is not because some academics believe it (many do not — at least not consistently).  It is because it is impossible for it not to be true.

Why? Because the Law of Demand is restating an obvious fact of simple arithmetic, that when you perform a division, the result (or quotient) must get smaller as the divisor (or denominator) gets larger.  Even school age children learn fairly early that when you take larger pieces of something, there will not be as many pieces to go around.

In determining how much you can buy of anything, you divide the amount of money you have available to spend (what you have produced), by the unit price of whatever you would like to buy, like this:
                My Money / Unit Price = Quantity I Can Afford.

So when prices rise, the effect is to divide the money available for spending (the available production) into smaller quantities.  For example, it is pretty obvious that if your favorite hamburger cost $10, and you have $100 available from your pay each month to spend on hamburgers (after all other expenses), that the maximum quantity you can demand of those hamburgers is $100/$10 = 10 hamburgers.  If the price of those hamburgers doubles to $20, but your income does not change, then you can only buy $100/$20 = 5 hamburgers.

Obviously, there is nothing new here.  But it is important to point out that nothing is altered about this basic relationship by the complications of the modern day economy.  In essence, simple division explains why the Law of Demand must be true and universal, since if it were not, it would mean that the behavior of division must be inconsistent, behaving differently in different cases.

And note that quantities of money have nothing to do with it — using money as the measure of cost and productivity is just a convenience that everyone is familiar with.  Money, in this sense, is just a tool of exchange, and represents the value of labor (the value of your productivity).  If you were stranded on a deserted island, and you had to climb coconut trees to gather coconuts to survive, your daily demand for coconuts would be computed like this:
       Daily Working Hours / Average Hours to Get a Coconut = Daily Quantity of Coconuts.

And so if one day you jumped down from a tree while gathering coconuts, and you badly sprained your ankle on the landing, and the injury doubled the average amount of time it took you to gather a coconut, your demand for coconuts would be cut in half, just as it was for hamburgers in the previous example above, since in both cases the cost to you has doubled — nothing necessarily changed about the good you were trying to acquire, but your ability to produce it, or produce enough to trade for it, has decreased.

When viewed in this way, it is immediately obvious why demand is inversely related to price.  To say that the demand curve is flat, or that it sloped up to the right, would be to say that the quantity you could produce, was in now way affected by how long it took you to produce it — i.e. that you could acquire more of something, as the cost to you was increasing.

This is obviously impossible.

So, do you have to do a study to show that raising the minimum wage will reduce employment to the degree that individuals were earning less than the higher wage amount?

No, of course not, since if the minimum wage were raised above market rates, while there was no corresponding increase in the available capital to purchase labor, and unemployment did not increase, it would mean that the behavior of simple arithmetic changed, that the law of demand stopped working, and that employers could purchase just as much labor, as the cost was increasing.

That is, this same relationship holds:
        Money Available to Purchase Labor / Unit Cost of Labor = Quantity of Labor Purchased

Since the unit cost of labor is the divisor, increasing it in isolation must reduce the quantity of labor that can be employed. Even if employment went up after a minimum wage increase — which is still possible, depending on how far the new minimum is below prevailing wages — if there are any individuals who are not worth the new minimum, employment must still be less than it would have been without the minimum wage increase, since a minimum wage makes it uneconomical to hire those with skills that are worth less.  Increasing the cost of labor can only cause a decrease in employment, since the increase reduces the amount of labor that can be purchased.

Even if you believe that businesses can exploit individuals, and pay them far less than their labor is worth, raising the minimum does nothing to change that situation.  The obvious implication of this view is that businesses can simply charge their customers far more than it costs to produce something.  If this were true, raising the cost of labor would not eliminate that power — this belief implies that businesses can easily pass cost increases onto customers, since by assumption, they were charging well over their costs to begin with.  And so this means workers will just spend more on rising prices as a result of the wage increase, leaving them no better off — everyone will just be spending more, whether or not their income went up.

This is what is so comical about comments about how little prices would have to go up to support an increase in the minimum wage.  Here is a blog post regarding Senator Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) comments on this issue back in March, 2013, that is titled as if Warren 'dismantled a right wing talking point' that is obviously false —

http://boldprogressives.org/2013/03/watch-elizabeth-warren-bat-down-right-wing-talking-points-about-the-minimum-wage/
http://archive.is/ARCPK
WARREN: During my Senate campaign, I ate a number 11 at McDonald’s many, many times a week. I know the price on that. $7.19. According to the data on the analysis of what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be about four cents. So instead of being $7.19 it would be $7.23. Are you telling me that’s unsustainable?


Again, if prices have to rise to compensate for the increase, will not workers making minimum wage be in exactly the same position as they were before the increase?  This is just inflation, that does nothing to improve anyone's living standard.

The minimum wage is such a useful issue for demagogues, because it plays into popular public biases.  Regardless of knowing how difficult it is to start a business, and regardless of knowing how many businesses fail, people still act as if there is no competition for labor, and that businesses can pay workers as little as they want.

Even many economists support minimum wage laws.  Here is a letter signed by over 600 economists in support of an increase to the Federal Minimum Wage --
   http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/
   https://archive.is/VDDtV

Here is an excellent article by Walter Williams, John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, where he points out the absurdity of supporting minimum wage laws as a way to fight poverty, since we could eliminate poverty everywhere, if this worked.  But he goes on to make the rarely heard point that minimum wage laws are discriminatory, and hurt minorities the most.  He gives the example of the openly racist South African Building Worker's Union, and its support for minimum wage laws for blacks, as a way to price them out of the labor market --
  http://www.fee.org/files/docLib/0703williams.pdf

Here is a recording of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell discussing these issues with minimum wage laws —
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Ubp7U9Dq4

Here is another excellent article by Walter Williams on this issue.  His comparison of the law of demand with the law of gravity really highlights the absurdity of the disagreement among economists on this issue, since the law of demand is just as fundamental to the science of economics, as the law of gravity is to physics —
  http://walterewilliams.com/minimum-wage,-maximum-folly/

The disagreement among economists on the effects of minimum wage laws, would be like physicists being divided on the effects of gravity.

But since it is easier to support a popular bias, than explain why that bias is false, minimum wage laws will likely continue to get widespread support, despite that such laws only harm people.

Here is Elizabeth Warren again, pretending she is fighting for the underdog by supporting an increase in the minimum wage --
   http://archive.is/Ks5f3
   http://abcnews.go.com/Business/17-million-reasons-raise-minimum-wage/story?id=23054905
   http://archive.is/p7PgP

As they say, with friends like these ...

Monday, May 26, 2014

Cutting CEO Salaries Won't Help Fast Food Workers

Rather than documenting the problem of people having a family, when their job skills only qualify them for an entry level job at McDonalds, this 2013 report by the 'National Employment Law Project' makes the case that McDonalds is the cause of the welfare payment costs to taxpayers for the McDonalds workers who don't earn enough to support their families —
    http://archive.is/o4WVX
    NELP-Super-Sizing-Public-Costs-Fast-Food-Report.pdf from 2013
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-chains-costing-taxpayers-173510741.html

So following this logic, if you are an employer, and you don't pay each employee enough to support his family (however large), you are being subsidized by taxpayers!

The market value of the employee's work has nothing to do with what he should be paid. Of course, this is absurd — it is just more spin that will help people rationalize their entitlement mentality and avoid their own responsibility.

The report emphasizes the compensation of the highest paid executives of seven publicly traded fast food companies, giving the figure of $52.7 million. As if that figure alone proves the employees of those companies are being exploited.

Of course, it begs this obvious question:
'How much more could employees of those companies be paid, if the corporate management were simply eliminated, and their compensation distributed among the employees?'
Anyone familiar with the basic accounting for a large company (you can look the numbers up on any financial website) knows eliminating management would not do the employees any good, but let's do the math anyway.

As of early 2014, according to their website, McDonalds had something like 1.8M employees (including at all franchisees), and the total compensation for their key executives is under $35M, but lets just use the $52.7M figure from summing the amounts from multiple companies given in the NELP report at the URL above.  So the executive compensation for all the major fast food companies could raise each worker's pay at only McDonalds by $52.7M / 1.8M = $29.28 per year.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=MCD+Profile
    http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's
    https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-employees-mcdonald-s-511b2af5d945387f

But lets do the math again, using the number of restaurant workers for McDonalds shown in the 2013 NELP report: 707,850.

That would put the annual raise for just the McDonalds restaurant workers at $52.7M / 0.708M workers = $74.45 per year.

Ha!   Problem solved — eliminate those greedy fat cats!



Of course, you would have to eliminate the management at every major fast food company, and then distribute their pay to only the restaurant workers at McDonalds to even get to a $75 per year raise, but whatever.

Cutting CEO pay sounds good to people, even though it accomplishes nothing, so it will keep being repeated over and over.