Not every employer can afford to pay more. Restaurants in particular operate on very thin margins. If the minimum wage, whether natural or legal, goes above what they can afford, the outcome isn’t restaurants that pay more, it’s fewer restaurant jobs.
This is just one of the many reasons why people who actually care about the poor, working or otherwise, should be transitioning away from a massive package of subsidies and entitlements that separately target an innumerable number of groups that need some kind of help (including workers whose wages are insufficient to live) and toward a single Basic Income program. In addition to being much cheaper to administer and much easier to access, it would also allow us to put the burden on those privileged individuals and entities that can actually afford to bear the burden, rather than putting up a sign that says “your business must be at least this profitable to operate”.
@DaSaw@some_guy If there is a demand for restaurant services, and a restaurant closes because it is not profitable while paying a living wage, it will be replaced by a restaurant with a more viable economic model that can fill that demand while meeting societal expectations for the workforce. They call this the Invisible Hand of the Free Market when it benefits the business, but pretend it doesn’t exist when it benefits the workers.
“demand” is not only willingness, but also ability to pay. If a business is going to pay employees more, it has to come from somewhere. If rents are rising and investors have other places to put their money, then it’s going to have to come from the customers. And the customers don’t have infinite money any more than anyone else does.
There are plenty of services that provide value to society, but don’t necessarily bring in massive amounts of revenue. There’s even a value to the workers themselves, the pride in providing a service to customers on need rather than having to come up with sketchy ways to squeeze yet more money out of the upper middle class. And don’t forget: restaurant owners aren’t rich. Most of them aren’t even upper middle. Divide their take-home by the number of hours they work, and many small business owners are doing poorly, sacrificing income for the sake of running their own business. The workers need to be able to sustain themselves, but just as most of the income of the rich comes from a source other than their labor, there’s no reason 100% of anyone’s income has to come from their labor.
A UBI would put more money in both the worker’s pocket, and their customers. Not only would it make it possible for workers to sustain themselves without breaking small businesses operating at the margin, it would also make it easier for the customers to absorb higher wages, should it become necessary.
The naivete of capitalist fundamentalism. It doesn’t actually work that way. You’d know if you’d experienced anything outside the bubble you were born in.
If your business cannot afford to pay its workers a living wage and instead relies on exploitation, then your business model sucks and deserves to fail.
“Business” isn’t all evil coproate entities sucking at the teat of other peoples work. It’s also small operators who put in a lot of time for not very much money. As a pest control technician, I’ve seen how the rich live from the outside. But I’ve also seen how small business operators (my bosses, in some cases) live. They weren’t doing much better than my middle management father, and putting in a lot more man-hours to get it.
There are a few different things touched on in your comment, and I’ll try to respond to them all, sorry if I miss any.
Losing jobs with no demand is not a bad thing. If you list a job, and nobody will take it for a year, then the market doesn’t want that job. There is an tendency to obsess over the number of jobs as a marker of economic health, but it’s a correlation at best.
The restaurant industry specifically is hugely over saturated, plenty of restaurants succeed paying a living wage, if you can’t then you need to make adjustments (e.g. change menu, move to a different location, etc).
A restaurant which can’t turn a profit is a hobby, not a business.
I imagine that at some point a UBI will be necessary, due to the lack of jobs lost to automation, but the purpose of UBI should never be to support the exploitation of workers. In fact it’s thought processes like that which make people argue against implementing UBI “Well if my landlord knows I get 1000 a month from UBI he will just charge me 1000 more for rent” or “If my boss knows I get 1000 a month from UBI then he’ll drop my salary by 1000 a month”.
Not every employer can afford to pay more. Restaurants in particular operate on very thin margins. If the minimum wage, whether natural or legal, goes above what they can afford, the outcome isn’t restaurants that pay more, it’s fewer restaurant jobs.
This is just one of the many reasons why people who actually care about the poor, working or otherwise, should be transitioning away from a massive package of subsidies and entitlements that separately target an innumerable number of groups that need some kind of help (including workers whose wages are insufficient to live) and toward a single Basic Income program. In addition to being much cheaper to administer and much easier to access, it would also allow us to put the burden on those privileged individuals and entities that can actually afford to bear the burden, rather than putting up a sign that says “your business must be at least this profitable to operate”.
@DaSaw @some_guy If there is a demand for restaurant services, and a restaurant closes because it is not profitable while paying a living wage, it will be replaced by a restaurant with a more viable economic model that can fill that demand while meeting societal expectations for the workforce. They call this the Invisible Hand of the Free Market when it benefits the business, but pretend it doesn’t exist when it benefits the workers.
Are you being sarcastic?
deleted by creator
“demand” is not only willingness, but also ability to pay. If a business is going to pay employees more, it has to come from somewhere. If rents are rising and investors have other places to put their money, then it’s going to have to come from the customers. And the customers don’t have infinite money any more than anyone else does.
There are plenty of services that provide value to society, but don’t necessarily bring in massive amounts of revenue. There’s even a value to the workers themselves, the pride in providing a service to customers on need rather than having to come up with sketchy ways to squeeze yet more money out of the upper middle class. And don’t forget: restaurant owners aren’t rich. Most of them aren’t even upper middle. Divide their take-home by the number of hours they work, and many small business owners are doing poorly, sacrificing income for the sake of running their own business. The workers need to be able to sustain themselves, but just as most of the income of the rich comes from a source other than their labor, there’s no reason 100% of anyone’s income has to come from their labor.
A UBI would put more money in both the worker’s pocket, and their customers. Not only would it make it possible for workers to sustain themselves without breaking small businesses operating at the margin, it would also make it easier for the customers to absorb higher wages, should it become necessary.
deleted by creator
The naivete of capitalist fundamentalism. It doesn’t actually work that way. You’d know if you’d experienced anything outside the bubble you were born in.
deleted by creator
If your business cannot afford to pay its workers a living wage and instead relies on exploitation, then your business model sucks and deserves to fail.
“Business” isn’t all evil coproate entities sucking at the teat of other peoples work. It’s also small operators who put in a lot of time for not very much money. As a pest control technician, I’ve seen how the rich live from the outside. But I’ve also seen how small business operators (my bosses, in some cases) live. They weren’t doing much better than my middle management father, and putting in a lot more man-hours to get it.
It’s not okay for small businesses to exploit people, either. I don’t see how this changes my point.
Ironic that I am being attacked by both sides at the same time.
I think some people think all business owners are evil, no matter how large or small they are.
There are a few different things touched on in your comment, and I’ll try to respond to them all, sorry if I miss any.
Losing jobs with no demand is not a bad thing. If you list a job, and nobody will take it for a year, then the market doesn’t want that job. There is an tendency to obsess over the number of jobs as a marker of economic health, but it’s a correlation at best.
The restaurant industry specifically is hugely over saturated, plenty of restaurants succeed paying a living wage, if you can’t then you need to make adjustments (e.g. change menu, move to a different location, etc).
A restaurant which can’t turn a profit is a hobby, not a business.
I imagine that at some point a UBI will be necessary, due to the lack of jobs lost to automation, but the purpose of UBI should never be to support the exploitation of workers. In fact it’s thought processes like that which make people argue against implementing UBI “Well if my landlord knows I get 1000 a month from UBI he will just charge me 1000 more for rent” or “If my boss knows I get 1000 a month from UBI then he’ll drop my salary by 1000 a month”.
If a business can’t afford to pay a living wage then it shouldn’t really be in business.
Yes, this is why 100 restaurants opened in 1854 and there are only six left.