Pretty simple arithmetic-- You run a business that makes an acceptable profit. You make it while paying 10 employees each $10/hr-- total payroll $100/hr x 8 hr/d = $800/d --that's $80/worker; total 80 man-hrs per day.
They raise min wage to $15/hr, so in order to maintain your barely acceptable profit, you have to keep weekly payroll at that same $800...To do that, 800/15 = 53 man-hrs per day, or 6.6 workers -- You'd have to fire 3.4 workers.
So in the end, 6.6 workers would get richer (while working harder), but 3.4 would have no income at all....What happened to Income Equality?
The Socialists whine "You can't raise a family on $10/hr"... Who says you're supposed to?
The idea is that the 3.4 workers with "no income at all" would find other work and fill a niche where they, too, "get richer." Aren't ya'll always first in line to bang that, "If you don't like it, find a new job!!?!?" drum?
Meanwhile, the 6.6 workers can quit their excessive part-time jobs because they can self-support on only the first job. This frees positions for the 3.4 workers to fill, and shifts the need from "many part times" to "a few but full shifts." Again, more stable and better for the working class.
I spent several years working with small businesses -- both
for them, and in support of them. There is one thing that a lot of these businesses had in common, and that was an obsession with monstrous, rapid growth. They would out-grow themselves, while never providing raises to their workers. Instead, they'd only add more workers at the bottom wage when their current staff could no longer physically support the workload (which always seemed to get worse). Many of these idiots would suck their company dry to pay for personal expenses (new house, new boat, etc). Then something happens, like a minor law changes or taxes change, and suddenly they can't afford all of their bottom-of-the-barrel employees because they didn't budget for higher human resource expenses. And who do they blame? The Democrats, or the government, or their competition, or the workers themselves for being "greedy takers" who "refuse to work." Never themselves, the business owners who should have been dripping cost-of-living adjustments and wages to keep time with their growth, and leaving their company coffers alone.
www.weforum.org
