Employers upset with increase in legal wage

From the Columbus Dispatch:  Employers upset with increase in legal wage

DAYTON — The $3.59 Black Raspberry Cow Shake at Young’s Jersey Dairy in southwestern Ohio soon will cost a dime more. And two eggs and fixings at Granny Shaffer’s Family Restaurant in Joplin, Mo., will set diners back $6.60 instead of the $6 they now pay.

The price increases are coming to cover the minimum-wage raises mandated by voters in Ohio and Missouri in Tuesday’s elections. Four other states — Colorado, Arizona, Montana and Nevada — also approved increases in the minimum wage.

Restaurants and other businesses that employ minimum wage workers say the new mandate will squeeze their paperthin profits and result in layoffs and suffocating paperwork requirements. The workers say it will put desperately needed cash in their pockets.

…….

But Michael Wiggins, owner of Granny Shaffer’s in Missouri, plans to lay off two 15-year-old workers.

"They’re good kids. They’re hard workers," Wiggins said. "But I really can’t afford to do that. If I’m going to pay $6.50, I’m going to get someone with more of a skill level."

In Ohio, restaurants employ nearly 600,000 workers. The Ohio Council of Retail Merchants expects the new law to result in the loss of 12,000 restaurant and other jobs in 2007.

Young’s Dairy, a restaurant/ ice cream store near the southwestern Ohio village of Yellow Springs, employs about 300 workers in the summer, many of them high-school and college students who work part-time.

Co-owner Dan Young said he plans to hire fewer workers because the new law will require him to pay some of them as much as 62 percent more. He said he will have to raise prices and put more work on what will be a smaller pool of employees.

"It’s not a good thing," he said.

The median household income for minimum wage earners is $40,000 a year. About 15% of people making the minimum wage live in households below the poverty level. While the increase will improve wages for some workers, it will eliminate thousands of other jobs. Employers who take chances on unskilled workers with no or minimal experience will stop hiring them in favor of hiring other workers who are worth the wage they are forced to pay. The impact is disproportionately harmful to poor people. The first rung on the economic ladder has just been raised a couple of notches higher. In my estimation, these "social justice" measures might as well be called the "Poverty Enforcement" acts.


Comments

4 responses to “Employers upset with increase in legal wage”

  1. The Democrats would have the minimum wage at $7.25 or thereabouts. The minimum wage is not supposed to be a living wage. Nobody expects to work a lifetime on the minimum wage, raise a family with 2.6 kids in the suburbs, an SUV and piano lessons for the kids – on the minimum wage.

  2. Yeah, Mike. The perception is that there are masses of poor people in society earning the minimum wage. They would be much better off if greedy business owners would just pay a better wage. Therefore, we will pass a law and make business owners pay better wages. Two major problems here.
    First, a large number of these min wage workers are unskilled high school/college students or someone in a household working part time to add extra income to the household finances. Less than 15% are in poverty households. They are not oppressed poor people suffering oppresion at the hands of evil corporations.
    Second, is the absurd assumption that everything else will remain the same when the wages are raised. Employers will turn to automation where they can and drop unskilled workers in favor of people with more skill in keeping with the wage they are having to pay. Some may close altogehter because they can’t compete, or they may outsource work to places with cheaper labor. What that means is less low skilled jobs, which is exactly what we could use in areas of concentrated poverty to help unskilled workers get on the frist rung of the economic ladder.
    Good intentions are no substitute for sound public policy.

  3. Increasing the minimum wage seems to fall into the same category as requiring more benefits. In theory, the big, evil corporations pick up the tab . . . but it never quite works out that way. Even were the business to solely break even (which would make it a pointless endeavor), this would increase the cost of an employee. An employee’s work HAS to pay for itself – it has to generate enough value to pay for the wage, all of the taxes, all of the benefits, all of the paperwork, all of the insurance, all osha compliance, etc. That money has to come from the customer. I fail to see how people are helped by making more money and then turning around and spending more for the services they need. Do places of business underpay employees? Of course — many do. But there doesn’t seem to be a legislative remedy for that. Higher minimum wage sells well with voters, but it seems to be oversimplified.

  4. It is this oversimplification that just makes me nuts with so many Democrat backed policies. On the surface I agree with stated aims but the unwillingness to think dynamically in terms of cascading decisions people make in response is frustrating. That is how we got such “brilliant” ideas like warehousing the poor in high rise projects, creating welfare policies that make community accountability and fatherhood irrelevant, and rent controls that actually shrink the housing stock came into existence. A little less idealism and a lot more sound policy would be nice. (Okay. Mike taking deep breaths. In…out…in…out…)

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading