Ah, yes, because companies will certainly lower their prices if they could find a way to reduce costs. They wouldn't take that extra profit and say "Nah, we don't need this."
Unfortunately, the only way to get everyone to a living wage is to enforce everyone having a living wage.
Companies reduce the price of things all the times when their initial investment has been returned or they can source cheap materials to produce the same product. Most commonly you see this in the electronics sector. They are keeping the same profit, a company is designed to make money, but they're reducing the cost be it through manufacturing efficiency, reduction of costs through new material contracts, etc. The lower they can get their cost while retaining their same profit the better. If they can cut a $100 item by $50 while still retaining the same profit margin, they're going to do it, because more people are going to buy at $50 vs $100. That's just basic stuff. If you can sell a 1000 units at $100, or 10000 Units at $50 with the same profit margin, which one are you going to do?
They would sell 10,000 units at $100 if they could. The only reason they sell for $50 is not because of any reduction in the manufacturing cost but because of competition.
Enforcing it is fine, but you have to take into account the inherent evil/apathy in modern companies. Enforcing doubling the minimum wage sounds fantastic to me, but I know that companies will either lay off half their staff to compensate, raise prices, (this decreasing the buying power of those people who just got the pay bump) or both. Because they're shit and they only care about money. You could then try to enforce price locks, and not allow them to lay people off. Good luck, they'll go to another country. They have so many options that the average person doesn't have for skirting around the rules its baffling. I think we can all agree that the goal is to stop middle and below class citizens from being screwed over, but that's a problem much larger than the minimum wage. Tackling it in the wrong order will do nothing but fiddle around the numbers in people's bank accounts while they continue to live in a state of financial anxiety.
Enforcing doubling the minimum wage sounds fantastic to me, but I know that companies will either lay off half their staff to compensate, raise prices, (this decreasing the buying power of those people who just got the pay bump) or both.
Fair, but given the current number, an increase to $10.10 is significantly more feasible than $15. On top of that, as you've mentioned before, it hasn't kept pace. So yeah maybe raising it in the past hasn't caused disruption, but that's almost certainly due to how comically low it was both before and after the increase.
I'll gladly change my tune if the McDonalds situation proves me wrong, but again, stagnant wages are a symptom, not the problem.
You could then try to enforce price locks, and not allow them to lay people off. Good luck, they'll go to another country. They have so many options that the average person doesn't have for skirting around the rules its baffling.
That sounds like you'd actually prefer a tyrannical Command Economy? .. The Soviet Union is out of business already, but you could still visit Venezuela and see how well it's working out for them.
Ah, yes, because companies will certainly lower their prices if they could find a way to reduce costs. They wouldn't take that extra profit and say "Nah, we don't need this."
Unfortunately, the only way to get everyone to a living wage is to enforce everyone having a living wage.
Companies reduce the price of things all the times when their initial investment has been returned or they can source cheap materials to produce the same product. Most commonly you see this in the electronics sector. They are keeping the same profit, a company is designed to make money, but they're reducing the cost be it through manufacturing efficiency, reduction of costs through new material contracts, etc. The lower they can get their cost while retaining their same profit the better. If they can cut a $100 item by $50 while still retaining the same profit margin, they're going to do it, because more people are going to buy at $50 vs $100. That's just basic stuff. If you can sell a 1000 units at $100, or 10000 Units at $50 with the same profit margin, which one are you going to do?
They would sell 10,000 units at $100 if they could. The only reason they sell for $50 is not because of any reduction in the manufacturing cost but because of competition.
Enforcing it is fine, but you have to take into account the inherent evil/apathy in modern companies. Enforcing doubling the minimum wage sounds fantastic to me, but I know that companies will either lay off half their staff to compensate, raise prices, (this decreasing the buying power of those people who just got the pay bump) or both. Because they're shit and they only care about money. You could then try to enforce price locks, and not allow them to lay people off. Good luck, they'll go to another country. They have so many options that the average person doesn't have for skirting around the rules its baffling. I think we can all agree that the goal is to stop middle and below class citizens from being screwed over, but that's a problem much larger than the minimum wage. Tackling it in the wrong order will do nothing but fiddle around the numbers in people's bank accounts while they continue to live in a state of financial anxiety.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
That one is #2.
Fair, but given the current number, an increase to $10.10 is significantly more feasible than $15. On top of that, as you've mentioned before, it hasn't kept pace. So yeah maybe raising it in the past hasn't caused disruption, but that's almost certainly due to how comically low it was both before and after the increase.
I'll gladly change my tune if the McDonalds situation proves me wrong, but again, stagnant wages are a symptom, not the problem.
$10.10 an hour is still far below the curve and doesn't begin to address the need for a living wage for families.
That sounds like you'd actually prefer a tyrannical Command Economy? .. The Soviet Union is out of business already, but you could still visit Venezuela and see how well it's working out for them.