Minimum wage laws, currently the latest debate in Washington, DC to distract everyone from the horrors of Obamacare, interfere with free market concepts and activities. The one size fits all approach to meddling in the private enterprise disrupts the free flow of capital. Without perspective, the mandate will negatively impact not just the employers who must pay the new wage, but also the potential employees and others already employed.
Some states, those entities that are the closest to the people, have larger rates than the federal wage floor of about seven dollars an hour. This occurred with only a small increase in the unemployment rate. When the federal government mandated the seven dollar an hour rate, the unemployment rate spiked because it applied to all people, everywhere. Now they want to take it to over 10 dollars an hour.
A new, mandatory, pay rate will influence the expenses of each business affected in a discriminatory way. The payroll expenses will go up and that means other things will have to go down. Arbitrary increases of this kind will make the almost four percent of employees affected, almost not worth the extra pay for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that one size fits all programs rarely fit all or even most.
Raising any expenses, as would have to happen in all of the payroll expense based tax payments, impact the companies abilities to be as flexible as they need to be in this economy. The main troubles with these laws are that the individuals who promote these do not, themselves, have payrolls they are responsible for. They believe that companies simply have large amounts of money, such as their slush funds, to dip into.
By discriminating teenagers from being hired, the new rate will have employers looking for older, more experienced workers. These potential employees provide more value than a new person getting started. The new wages that would be set by Federal authorities do not take any input from these businesses. This is because this input is counterproductive to their ideas about how the market should run regardless of how it actually does work.
Raising the starting pay for new employees to somewhere closer to their supervisors pay creates problems with employee morale. This person will have to be given a raise, which raises all of the associated expenses as well. All other personnel will have to be reviewed in order to ensure salary separation for the various duties, titles and positions. This further interferes with the market as future expansions, additional business locations and other growth activities will have to be put on hold.
A very large concern about any new minimum wage mandate is that there is no automatic increase in production as a free market will require for the extra costs. The vast majority of minimum pay personnel starts there and rarely stays there. They gain experience and additional training and move up the ladder. If they can accept additional duties and responsibilities, they are given raises. If they are not able to become more valuable, they are let go.
The largest discrimination has to do with who this type of law hurts and who it helps. Most union contracts base all of their step increases for their members on the minimum wage. Arbitrarily raising them will give the unions all the ammunition they need to further tie up other companies and support the politicians who vote for these mandates.
Some states, those entities that are the closest to the people, have larger rates than the federal wage floor of about seven dollars an hour. This occurred with only a small increase in the unemployment rate. When the federal government mandated the seven dollar an hour rate, the unemployment rate spiked because it applied to all people, everywhere. Now they want to take it to over 10 dollars an hour.
A new, mandatory, pay rate will influence the expenses of each business affected in a discriminatory way. The payroll expenses will go up and that means other things will have to go down. Arbitrary increases of this kind will make the almost four percent of employees affected, almost not worth the extra pay for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that one size fits all programs rarely fit all or even most.
Raising any expenses, as would have to happen in all of the payroll expense based tax payments, impact the companies abilities to be as flexible as they need to be in this economy. The main troubles with these laws are that the individuals who promote these do not, themselves, have payrolls they are responsible for. They believe that companies simply have large amounts of money, such as their slush funds, to dip into.
By discriminating teenagers from being hired, the new rate will have employers looking for older, more experienced workers. These potential employees provide more value than a new person getting started. The new wages that would be set by Federal authorities do not take any input from these businesses. This is because this input is counterproductive to their ideas about how the market should run regardless of how it actually does work.
Raising the starting pay for new employees to somewhere closer to their supervisors pay creates problems with employee morale. This person will have to be given a raise, which raises all of the associated expenses as well. All other personnel will have to be reviewed in order to ensure salary separation for the various duties, titles and positions. This further interferes with the market as future expansions, additional business locations and other growth activities will have to be put on hold.
A very large concern about any new minimum wage mandate is that there is no automatic increase in production as a free market will require for the extra costs. The vast majority of minimum pay personnel starts there and rarely stays there. They gain experience and additional training and move up the ladder. If they can accept additional duties and responsibilities, they are given raises. If they are not able to become more valuable, they are let go.
The largest discrimination has to do with who this type of law hurts and who it helps. Most union contracts base all of their step increases for their members on the minimum wage. Arbitrarily raising them will give the unions all the ammunition they need to further tie up other companies and support the politicians who vote for these mandates.
No comments:
Post a Comment