2/11 So apparently minimum wage increases do in fact result in layoffs.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html
\- yeah, and vaccines kills people
\_ So do you still think the Iraq occupation was the right thing?
\_you are an idiot.
\_ your an idiot.
\_ Is this supposed to be funny?
\_ But they do not result in layoffs of unoin workers, which is why
unions are so keen on pushing minimum wage increases. This is not
new.
\_ Many union contracts are written such that the base wage is a
multiple of the minimum wage. Thus, raising the minimum wage
has nothing to do with the working poor they claimed to be
helping and everything to do with a *huge* gimme to unions.
\_ Exactly. Another reason is that raising minimum wage makes
hiring unskilled workers more costly, and hiring skilled
workers not as costly in comparison. So employers will be
more likely to hire skilled workers, which again doesn't help
the working poor they claim to be helping. -- PP
\_ Did you even read the article? The layoffs are amongst
teenagers, not the "working poor." In fact, it implies
that older and more experienced workers were becoming
more valuable. This is a good thing, imho. Also, it is
forcing workplaces to become more efficient, which is
the best way to improve standards of living. Without
knowing what the unemployment rate is before and after,
you are not really measuring much. Maybe all those
laid off fast food workers found more economically
prodcutive activity.
productive activity.
\_ No one said the working poor were laid off. Yet. Two
things were said: raising the minimum wage is a gimme
to unions, and that teens are getting axed. I do like
the idea that firing people improves their lives. That
sure worked well for employees in the 2001-2004 era.
\_ "... nothing to do with the working poor they..."
Someone sure said that. Give me some real stats
and not just anecdotes, otherwise you are just
talking out your ass.
\_ Quote them please. Stats: there are no stats that
demonstrate the legal fact that union contracts
are based on a multiple of the minimum wage. It
is a legal fact, not a numeric statistical event.
You really need to keep up with what is being
said, especially if you're going to accuse other
people of "talking out your ass".
\_ Scroll up 20 lines. I am not going to repeat
something that was posted three paragraphs
ago. Do you have a reading comprehension
problem?
\_ You spent more time talking about how you're
too cool/smart to quote than it would have
taken to quote. Except, oh wait, there is
really nothing there for you to quote that
backs up what you said. Quote it.
\_ Minor quibble here: telling teens you're cutting back shifts and
hours constitutes "layoffs"? I thought you had to employ someone
fulltime in order to lay them off.
\_ Okay, whatever: ^layoffs^hour reductions
\_ Okay, whatever: ^layoffs^reduced employment
\_ You ever been laid off a real job? On the way down, some
companies will cut hours or force lower wages (which obviously
isn't possible in this case), before finally cutting for real.
And how is it that cutting back a shift isn't a layoff/firing
if it was your shift that got cut? No job, but good worker =
laid off.
\_ In answer to your question, yes. They gave me a severance
package and paid my health insurance for two months. As I
said before, I thought you had to employ someone fulltime
in order to lay them off.
\_ Layoff has simply become the nice way to say "fired". It's
also used in the same way as it used to be.
\_ If you are working 30 hours per week and your employer
tells you he doesn't need you anymore, then you've
been laid off. What does full-time have to do with
anything?
\_ Nothing. I also think it's funny that he thinks firing
people is good for them. |