With their existing jobs. The people that were working minimum wage for less than 40 hours a week will have to be retrained and re-enter the workforce with a more sustainable career path. Attempting to try and keep minimum wage jobs at their current rates as the cost of living increases is akin to expecting coal mines to stay open as the world shifts to cleaner energy. Either one results in the government footing the bill for the company.is it fukk big business/start your own shyt, #supportlocal or fukk small biz only ones who should thrive is big business
with what jobs? yall conveniently love to talk in the theory of a perfect world and i have post in this thread sharing what's actually happening in a bay area city.
small businesses can't move afford to do business in emeryville right now, yet most the storefronts and restaurants are partitioned for small business plus the city is anti chain...so now you have storefronts sitting vacant, people out of jobs and nothing coming to replace it...sure sounds like blanket application of minimum wage hikes is working
sounds like someone who has never owned shyt
housing wasn't a right even when we lived as pre-historic beings. it's also interesting what type of housing people feel is a right or that everyone is entitled to. people throw that argument at landlords because they want a certain type of housing, you can go to a rooming home, dormitory, SRO, etc and live within your means and have shelter. if the government provided shelter for the down and out, great, but you're not entitled to some special rate/treatment for market rate housing where a person or entity is bearing market rate costs.While your response makes no sense, i understand your point that regulations can create barriers to entry and the cost is something only a large business could absorb (in certain instances).
At the same time, i believe housing should be a human right.
this is an awful answer. half the country is employed by small businesses, so dismissing them by saying if you can't pay $xx, you deserve to go under, is both bad for business and bad for employees. those jobs aren't being replaced. walmart isn't increasing the # of people they hire because five mom and pop stores went out of business, they're focused on automating away min wage jobs themselves. taking a blanket approach to min wage for big and small businesses is a disaster, especially in high COL areas where they're being pressed by rents as well. unless some relief if built in on the cost side for small business, the more that "fail as a business themselves" the more people pushed out the job marketWith their existing jobs. The people that were working minimum wage for less than 40 hours a week will have to be retrained and re-enter the workforce with a more sustainable career path. Attempting to try and keep minimum wage jobs at their current rates as the cost of living increases is akin to expecting coal mines to stay open as the world shifts to cleaner energy. Either one results in the government footing the bill for the company.
The point is that if a business cannot pay their employees a livable wage, then they are failing as a business themselves. Just because some is desperate enough to be financially taken advantage of by an employer doesn't mean that it is right. It is similar to an employer exploiting undocumented immigrants and then complaining that they are actually looking out for undocumented immigrants and that the immigrants will be worse off if they weren't being exploited.
Wouldn't be a min wage in a free market.If the employer can't afford to pay their employees a living wage then they should be liquidated and the employers who can pay the living wage will be able to absorb the extra capacity in the market and thrive. Isn't that how the free market works?
While your response makes no sense, i understand your point that regulations can create barriers to entry and the cost is something only a large business could absorb (in certain instances).
At the same time, i believe housing should be a human right.
Still no consensus… that's a bad look for the increase
Wouldn't be a min wage in a free market.
Good topic. And yes small business owers operate on some razor thin.people underestimate how thin of margins folks are operating on, especially restaurants. rent, supplies, insurance, utilities eat up a lot...CA has, at least in my lifetime, always paid full state/locale min wage to these workers so margins have had to take that into consideration.
in emeryville, min wage is $16.30/hr, they shot down an exception for small businesses to only pay $15/hr...they have so much commercial space sitting idle because coming into new spots is prohibitively expensive as most spots are made for small to mid size businesses and they can't pay the rents + wages, and this area of the bay is notoriously anti-chain - the people who could pay it. it's actually the perfect real live proof for conservative talking points...residents are also mad as hell about all the closures and vacant spaces
So i cant take @paperbag out to a high class resturant like red lobster for some sckrimpsis it fukk big business/start your own shyt, #supportlocal or fukk small biz only ones who should thrive is big business
with what jobs? yall conveniently love to talk in the theory of a perfect world and i have post in this thread sharing what's actually happening in a bay area city.
small businesses can't move afford to do business in emeryville right now, yet most the storefronts and restaurants are partitioned for small business plus the city is anti chain...so now you have storefronts sitting vacant, people out of jobs and nothing coming to replace it...sure sounds like blanket application of minimum wage hikes is working
Lose/Lose for workers, no bailouts and the workers are out of a jobWouldn't be massive corporate bailouts and multi million dollar severance payouts in a free market either. I get it though, the principals of the free market only apply when it's time to fukk over the worker.
What about my point on exploited workers? Did you not read that far or not have a good response to it? Do you refuse to acknowledge that workers are being exploited by not being paid a livable wage?this is an awful answer. half the country is employed by small businesses, so dismissing them by saying if you can't pay $xx, you deserve to go under, is both bad for business and bad for employees. those jobs aren't being replaced. walmart isn't increasing the # of people they hire because five mom and pop stores went out of business, they're focused on automating away min wage jobs themselves. taking a blanket approach to min wage for big and small businesses is a disaster, especially in high COL areas where they're being pressed by rents as well. unless some relief if built in on the cost size for small business, the more that "fail as a business themselves" the more people pushed out the job market
If the employer can't afford to pay their employees a living wage then they should be liquidated and the employers who can pay the living wage will be able to absorb the extra capacity in the market and thrive. Isn't that how the free market works?