Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dem Rep. Khanna: “We Don’t Want” Small Businesses That Can’t Afford $15 Minimum Wage

Dem Rep. Khanna: “We Don’t Want” Small Businesses That Can’t Afford $15 Minimum Wage

Khanna: “We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

https://youtu.be/Me8IwAIRJew

Progressive Democrat Ro Khanna (CA) admitted that Democrats “don’t want” small “mom and pop” restaurants and businesses that cannot afford to pay employees $15 minimum wage.

Townhall reports:

Millions of Americans are out of work due to the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Thousands more are unemployed because of President Joe Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite the tough times, progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) believes “now is the right time” for Congress to press forward with a $15-an-hour minimum wage, something they tied to the latest COVID relief package.

. . . . The most concerning aspect, however, is Khanna knows pushing up the minimum wage would be detrimental to small businesses, yet he doesn’t care.

“Businesses like Amazon and McDonald’s, for example, can and perhaps should, pay more, but I’m wondering, what is your plan for smaller businesses?” CNN’s Abby Phillip asked. “How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?”

“Well, they shouldn’t be doing it by paying people low wages,” Khanna replied. “We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.”

Watch:

Transcript via Breitbart:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would cost 1.4 million Americans their jobs over the next four years.

Anchor Abby Phillip said, “I know that you feel very strongly like many progressives about the minimum wage issue. Right now, at the same time, businesses, both large and small, are struggling in this pandemic economy, more than 9 million jobs have been lost in the last year, and they still aren’t back, and the problem is particularly acute in industries like retail and foodservice, which are more likely to pay minimum wage. I think the question that a lot of Republicans are posing and perhaps some moderate Democrats is timing. Is now the right time to increase it to $15? I should say the bill has stages, of course, but immediately it would go up about 30% right now. Is now the right time to do that?”

Khanna said, “Abby, it’s absolutely the right time to give working Americans a raise. Let’s look at the facts. Amazon raised their wage to $15 nationally, not regionally. They have more jobs today. It didn’t hurt job creation or business. Target followed. They also did it nationally, more jobs.”

Phillip said, “Large businesses like Amazon and McDonald’s, for example, can and perhaps should pay more, but I’m wondering what is your plan for smaller businesses? How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on pate [sic] roll right now?”

Khanna said, “Well, they should be doing it by paying people low wages. We don’t want low-wage businesses. Most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage. If you look at the minimum wage, it increased with worker productivity until 1968, and that relationship was severed. If workers were actually getting paid for the value they were creating, it would be up to $23. I love small businesses, I’m all for it, but I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees. It’s fair for people to be making what they’re producing. I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

Needless to say, people have thoughts.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Friendly Grizzly | February 21, 2021 at 7:41 pm

…says the millionairess by marriage, who probably never even tried to run a childhood lemonade stand.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | February 21, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    Little people. Seriously. Who needs them? They are so ignorant and smelly. Can’t even stand to think about them least not ever see one.

    So gross. Gag me.

    Anyway, I have a party to go to, and the Gulfstream takes off in two hours. I need to figure out what to wear.

    18 to 22 million new citizens (thanks to Amnesty) with another 1 million per year crossing a fully open border.

    $15 minimum wage + automation tech that improves every day

    = disaster in 3 to 5 years. Permanent underclass.

    Congrats – Dems are turning USA into India / Mexico.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | February 21, 2021 at 10:47 pm

    They just do not get that many entry level are not worth $15 an hour. Every time they increase the minimum wage, jobs are lost to automation. Productivity matters. Pants up matters. Clear English matters. Attitude matters.

    No one is going to put up with attitude from dipshits.

    …says the millionairess by marriage

    “Millionairess”? Is this something he and his wife are keeping on the down low?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | February 22, 2021 at 8:57 am

    ^^^ millionaire

The true minimum wage is ‘zero.’ Anything more is simply a voluntary agreement between 2 or more consenting adults.

And I have it on good authority that what goes one between consenting adults is none of the governments business.

However, if the condescending authoritarians insist on micromanaging small business wages, there are many ‘kiosk & self-checkout’ memes to illustrate what employees look like in a mandated $15/hr economy.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to locomotivebreath1901. | February 21, 2021 at 8:49 pm

    “The true minimum wage is ‘zero.’”

    and

    “However, if the condescending authoritarians insist on micromanaging small business wages, there are many ‘kiosk & self-checkout’ memes to illustrate what employees look like in a mandated $15/hr economy”

    Yup. And if you don’t get your first job, you won’t get your second job, or your third. Hello eternal poverty.

    But hey, they need slave labor in China to make solar panels. So, there’s that to look forward to.

What a Khannt.

Elitist democrats continue to feel no reservations about displaying their contempt for the middle class. I personally don’t want to buy everything from Amazon. But Khanna would be fine with that.

Democrats are all insane.

I am going to bet that Rep. Ro doesn’t care what anyone says or thinks about him.

By that “logic” why not make the minimum wage $500? Then everyone will be rich! (sarc)

    Lausyl in reply to NYBruin. | February 22, 2021 at 4:22 am

    It did work in Zimbabwe. That country has more millionaires and billionaires than any other country on the planet.

Who is this ‘we’ she is talking about? Must be her fellow Marxists working for ‘news’ orgs and governments around the country.

Because non-Marxist consumers who work for a living and have to budget their costs and expenses, and who try to get the most value for their hard earned dollars, don’t think that way.

Most businesses are on the verge of bankrupcy. If you raise the minimum wage, those go out of business and a new set of businesses on the verge of bankrupcy are created from higher in the success chain, a new majority.

All part of the plan to destroy the middle class.

If we stay in this madhouse, we will be destroyed by it.

The Colonists ditched the British. It worked out great. We ened to ditch the left and the swamp (including the GOP).

The clock is ticking….

Michael Burry Warns Weimar Hyperinflation Is Coming:

“One week ago, Bank of America hinted at the unthinkable: the tsunami of monetary and fiscal stimulus, coupled with the upcoming surge in monetary velocity as the world’s economy emerges from lockdowns, would lead to unprecedented economic overheating… or rather precedented as BofA’s CIO Michael Hartnett reflected back on the post-WW1 Germany which he said was the “most epic, extreme analog of surging velocity and inflation following end of war psychology, pent-up savings, lost confidence in currency & authorities” and specifically the Reichsbank’s monetization of debt, and extrapolated that this is similar to what is going on now. There is, of course, another name for that period: Weimar Germany, and because we all know what happened then, it is understandable why BofA does not want to mention that particular name….”

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/michael-burry-warns-weimar-hyperinflation-coming

We’re living in the Weimar Republic. That didn’t end well.

    “All part of the plan to destroy the middle class.”

    Yes. It is actually easy to see if one looks at the battlefield rather than looking at isolated battles.

Corporate chain restaurants can be conrolled at a convenient choke point: the board of directors.

Democrats and other leftists have always preferred centralization for that very reason.

Dumbshits like Ro actually believe an employee paid $15.00 per hour only costs the employer $15.00 per hour.

    Ironclaw in reply to Sanddog. | February 22, 2021 at 3:37 pm

    That’s the fun part, if they cost the employer more than the value the bring in then it doesn’t matter. The only intelligent thing to do at that point is to eliminate the employee.

Doesn’t matter what he wants for minimum wage. They’re letting in so many illegal immigrants who will work for under the table wages that $15 an hour will be a minor impediment to getting cheap labor.

I wanted to hire a kid for $5.00 an hour to push a broom around.
I can’t.
Sorry kid.

    mark311 in reply to snowshooze. | February 22, 2021 at 7:10 am

    Does the US have an apprenticeship scheme at all?

    In the UK there is a minimum wage but during an apprenticeship scheme the wage is much lower on the basis that the company is training the person and giving appropriate support.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 10:10 am

      Not really, in the sense you are speaking of. Some states have tried to created a multi-tiered minimum wage law in which younger people can be paid less to help them gain job entry, or the minimum wage kicks in at full time employment (which just gave incentives for companies to employ temps and part-time employees), or after a certain of time employed by the employer (which incentivizes companies to cycle through low skilled employees and not keep them for longer-term development), and other types of measures.

      One big problem with the minimum wage, especially high minimum wages, is that businesses resort to unpaid internships which people take just to get the job experience and to have something on a resume. I think it would be better to pay a new job entrant $8 and hour for three months than nothing.

      Then, of course, is the the creation of a labor black market for low skill employees where citizens are placed in direct competition with low skill imported labor via illegal immigration.

      Off book employment then leads to welfare fraud as low wage employees try and supplement their wages from the public dole, or increased welfare dependency as displaced citizen workers cannot find gainful employment and develop the skills required to lift them out of poverty and dependence.

      The minimum wage law distortion of the job market creates these perverse conditions.

        Interesting thank you, I’m inclined to agree with what you say. Balancing out the need to encourage full employment vs a reasonable wage is a tricky one. Like you say too high a wage encourages other effects that should be avoided.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 10:55 am

          There is no perfect solution. Even a natural unregulated market has its downsides. However, when I see a small set of the population’s wealth explode while that of the remainder stagnates or recedes, it does require attention. Such a situation of concentration of wealth and power is not sustainable in the long-term.

          The minimum wage laws do not really effect the large multi-nationals, especially since they can shift operations to lower wage areas (regions or countries) quite easily, while small businesses cannot. Therefore, they hurt small businesses but do not impact large multi-nationals.

          But if you try and strip the likes of Bezos and Gates of their wealth and return it to distribution among their employees who helped them produce it (say in the form of equity ownership), they could simply flee and send their assets to a local that would protect them.

          Bezos and Gates have produced great things and have benefited mankind and so deserve our thanks, but they have also disrupted the world as well, and have an obligation for that disruption they caused. The least they could do is more freely share their fortune with those who helped create it.

          I know those people made a deal that they would work for certain wages and conditions, but when things turned out better than expected and the wealth of that success accumulated in one or a few places, I would hope those who benefited to appreciate the happenstance and share their wealth. A foundation where the owner of all that wealth maintains firm control is not really giving back. It’s just hiding the wealth from the tax man while he still plays with it according to his whim while collecting accolades for his supposed generosity.

          This is a very long way of saying if you are asking me for solutions, I do not have good ones, but I do not think increasing the minimum wage helps at all.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:29 am

          Oh absolutely agree that the concentration of wealth with the few is a big problem. There are specific things that can be addressed like big business lobbying government. I think they make way to many exemptions for themselves that are routes in self interest and not the wider good. There are quite a few half baked ideas floating around but maybe they have some clue on what to do but I’m not sure. For example there was one idea mooted that there should be a maximum wage i.e the CEO could only have say 20x the wage of the lowest earner. It was a good idea until you realised most CEO’s make all there money from stock options and bonus pay. Its a tricky one and probably going to take a long time to resolve.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 10:53 pm

          Such a situation of concentration of wealth and power is not sustainable in the long-term.

          Why not? If you mean simply that the next generation or the one after it is bound to fritter it all away, fine, let them do that. If that is the case the situation will take care of itself. If they don’t fritter it away, that means it is sustainable.

          When I see statements like this, I think what they really mean is “If you don’t give the bulk of your wealth to other people, they will come with guns and knives and take it away, and kill you in the process”. Which is not an argument, it’s a threat. It’s a demand for tribute, protection money, Danegeld; and the proper response is to declare that one would rather spend millions for defense rather than pay a sixpence in tribute. Why is that valid for a country and not for an individual who’s richer than most countries?

          Bezos and Gates have produced great things and have benefited mankind and so deserve our thanks, but they have also disrupted the world as well, and have an obligation for that disruption they caused.

          No, they don’t. Where could such an obligation come from? They haven’t taken anything that someone else had a right to. Everything they have they created themselves. Their employees were paid what their labor was worth, and generally a bit more.

          A foundation where the owner of all that wealth maintains firm control is not really giving back.

          “Giving back” to whom? That very term is wrong and evil. They didn’t take anything from anyone, so there’s no one to give anything back to.

          It’s just hiding the wealth from the tax man while he still plays with it according to his whim while collecting accolades for his supposed generosity.

          What do you mean by “supposed” generosity? It is generosity. And the only reason for them to be generous is because when one is at that level of wealth the only thing left to buy is the good feeling one gets from helping others, and/or the accolades one gets from other people knowing one has done so. The appropriate mix of those two returns is purely a matter of taste. Some people like accolades, some prefer to keep the good they do secret and just quietly enjoy it. Either way it makes sense to spend their charity where they’ll get the biggest return on their investment in those terms.

          There are specific things that can be addressed like big business lobbying government.

          Lobbying government is specifically protected by the US constitution; and not as a right granted by the constitution but as a fundamental term of the implied social contract by which “governments are instituted among men”, which the constitution merely prohibits congress from violating.

          For example there was one idea mooted that there should be a maximum wage i.e the CEO could only have say 20x the wage of the lowest earner.

          You point out a practical flaw with it, but the real flaw is fundamental; it’s not a good idea because it has no reason. If the CEO produces more than 20x the value for the company that the tea lady does, then she should be paid more than 20x what the tea lady is. And if there are other people willing to pay the CEO more than 20x what this company’s tea lady is paid, why should he not take one of those jobs if this one won’t match the offer? After all, the tea lady wouldn’t hesitate to take a different job if they offered her more money.

          What it all comes down to is “Yes, Mr 0bama, yes, Ms Warren, I built that”. And surely that is something we all agree on.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 8:35 am

          “Such a situation of concentration of wealth and power is not sustainable in the long-term.

          Why not? If you mean simply that the next generation or the one after it is bound to fritter it all away, fine, let them do that. If that is the case the situation will take care of itself. If they don’t fritter it away, that means it is sustainable.

          When I see statements like this, I think what they really mean is “If you don’t give the bulk of your wealth to other people, they will come with guns and knives and take it away, and kill you in the process”. Which is not an argument, it’s a threat. It’s a demand for tribute, protection money, Danegeld; and the proper response is to declare that one would rather spend millions for defense rather than pay a sixpence in tribute. Why is that valid for a country and not for an individual who’s richer than most countries?”

          There are lots of reasons why not, society begins to break down when there is a large wealth divide. Hell its one of the reasons Trump was elected because of the forgot folks who don’t earn nearly as much as the rest of society. When there is a disconnect between the wealthiest and the poorest values disintegrate. Laws are shaped to benefit a small sub section and the rest be damned. Whole sub sections of society end up with poorer outcomes across the spectrum including fundamental things like health care. You seem to equate big gov as over reach and a threat to liberty etc but the reality is that the worst of in society have limited liberty they cant afford decent health care, cant afford good education, cant get a fuel efficient car, cant get startup money for a business idea. There are so many ways in which you arent seeing the bigger picture.

          Bezos and Gates have produced great things and have benefited mankind and so deserve our thanks, but they have also disrupted the world as well, and have an obligation for that disruption they caused.

          No, they don’t. Where could such an obligation come from? They haven’t taken anything that someone else had a right to. Everything they have they created themselves. Their employees were paid what their labor was worth, and generally a bit more.

          That flawed in so many ways, Bezos in particular created a company that exploited its market position to keep wages low (until recently) and push out the market place other rivals. Its problematic for a number of reasons you end up with a monopoly and free markets don’t really deal with them very well.

          A foundation where the owner of all that wealth maintains firm control is not really giving back.

          “Giving back” to whom? That very term is wrong and evil. They didn’t take anything from anyone, so there’s no one to give anything back to.

          Leveraging an extremely privileged position isn’t good, it benefits only the one person and there immediate family (maybe). There is nothing wrong with being super rich but it does mean they have extraordinary privilege and tend to result in wealth creation for only themselves by virtue of having that wealth

          There are specific things that can be addressed like big business lobbying government.

          Lobbying government is specifically protected by the US constitution; and not as a right granted by the constitution but as a fundamental term of the implied social contract by which “governments are instituted among men”, which the constitution merely prohibits congress from violating.

          That’s not precisely true its protected under the 1st amendment but that’s in relation to grievances and free speech. The idea that this is fair and balanced just isn’t true though big business with its money and power warps laws to there own benefit which is detrimental to society as a whole.

          For example there was one idea mooted that there should be a maximum wage i.e the CEO could only have say 20x the wage of the lowest earner.

          You point out a practical flaw with it, but the real flaw is fundamental; it’s not a good idea because it has no reason. If the CEO produces more than 20x the value for the company that the tea lady does, then she should be paid more than 20x what the tea lady is. And if there are other people willing to pay the CEO more than 20x what this company’s tea lady is paid, why should he not take one of those jobs if this one won’t match the offer? After all, the tea lady wouldn’t hesitate to take a different job if they offered her more money.

          Yes of course its a problematic idea, the principle is reasonable but the implementation is a challenge.

      UserP in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 3:13 pm

      How are things in the UK since Brexit, Mark?

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | February 23, 2021 at 8:40 am

        Well it depends on the sector of the economy you are in. In mine practically nothing. For logistics and transportation its been pretty problematic. To be fair we wont see the effects for awhile until the pandemic is done, that’s muddied any coherent analysis to the point where I’m not sure you could tell what’s caused what.

        The irony is of course that in terms of regulation its done practically nothing which was one of the big bug bears of the Brexit crowd.

        Economically the worst affected are industries with a connection to Europe its basically fucked them over but that’s only anecdotal reports.

Progressive wages to compensate for progressive prices and debt, labor and environmental arbitrage, and regulatory excess. The big businesses can’t afford it either, other than through shared/shifted responsibility. Oh, well, color matters, lives don’t. #HateLovesAbortion

As always, Dems/Progs have a problem with reality. The view from an ivory tower is, rosey. When there is no personal experience truly needing a paycheck, tripe like this emanates, without recognition of consequences.

Some people aspire to only get a minimum wage I guess. Next step…not being able to fire someone.

Jordan Peterson has lectured on the fact 50% of work in a business is performed by the number of workers defined as the square root of the workforce. If one has 100 workers… 10 do 50% of the work. Increasing the wages doesn’t increase the work output… those 90 that do 50% get a pay raise while the 10 that get the other half get functionally paid less…again.

    mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | February 22, 2021 at 7:28 am

    Id be careful about that, Price’s law was in relation to production of scientific literature. It didn’t delve into anything other than the quantity of literature. Nor did it look into a business setting, nor any other setting for that manner. If you look up studies on Price’s law there is very little literature on the subject. In other words it sounds great and deep but no one really knows if it holds up to scrutiny, nor the limits to the principles it describes.

Minimum wage laws secretly hurt the poor by curbing their economic freedom. They put a price floor on labor that ties the hands of the job applicant just as much as the employer.

    I’m confused by your statement. A minimum wage is a minimum wage, there is nothing preventing an increase in that. Really the minimum wage applies to sectors where the employer wants labour at the cheapest possible price and no specific skills or education are required to perform that role. In other words it stops employers exploiting those entering the job market.

    You only have a valid argument if the minimum wage causes employers to not employ people. The COB has several scenarios on this and indicated $15 is to much but a lower $12 might be better.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:55 am

      “I’m confused by your statement. A minimum wage is a minimum wage, there is nothing preventing an increase in that.”

      Economic reality creates a limit to how much an employer can pay a low skilled, low productivity employee. A minimum wage prevents an employer from hiring such a person, usually a new entrant into the work force, as a training wage. It prevents low skilled workers from getting their first job, thereby locking them out of the job market, locking them from acquiring and developing higher levels of job skills and productivity, and locking them into poverty and dependency on state income. A minimum wage prevents the freedom of the poor or unskilled to gain employment, job skills, and upward mobility.

      As stated by someone else in an earlier post, the actual minimum wage is zero.

      Minimum wages are entry level wages for those without skills. Price these people out of the job market and they do not get a first job, nor a second, nor a third, with the increasing income that goes with increasing work skills and productivity.

      If we stopped importing low skilled labor from foreign countries, entry level wages would rise. Minimum wage laws create a black market for low skilled and low paid workers which is used to exploit foreign workers brought to the US at the expense of domestic workers and their income.

      If we want to increase the income for the common person, I suggest we think about how to make the likes of Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos share their massive wealth with the people that helped them create it, and not put a burden of people with a small businesses struggling to get by and who cannot support such “let them eat cake” largess.

        @Fuzzy slippers

        Yes I’m aware of the federal minimum wage as I’m also aware there might be higher minimum wages at state level.

          Right, and companies are free to pay employees whatever they wish above minimum wage for legal workers. So why come after struggling small businesses who can barely afford rent, insurance, a bazillian government-required licences and regulatory requirements, taxes that trillion dollar companies don’t pay, and etc. when companies like Amazon can easily afford to pay employees $50/hour? Or more.

          Just pulled that out of the air like regressives do, but hey, I can just as easily yank another number from the ether. Let’s have a progressive minimum wage scale, you people just love progressive taxation, right? Let the government mandate that Amazon, Google, Target, etc. should be paying employees $4k an hour, a mere rounding error for the big guys, and small businesses can pay the existing minimum wage, scale everything in between based on company value, profits, who cares what. Great plan, right?

          Feel I need to add a /sarc tag here for you.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 2:19 pm

          @Fuzzy slippers

          Do you have a source for what you say? It’s not clear to me whether it’s true that a sub section of businesses would unduly suffer or not? I can see that it might be true but not whether it’s actually supported by evidence.

          My understanding is that the federal minimum wage hasn’t been updated for a long time so accounting for inflation it has some logic to increase it in line with that.

          My source is completely alien and esoteric to your sort; it’s a combination of common sense and critical thinking. We know that thousands of small businesses have closed forever, Google it. We know that those still hanging on are doing so by a thread, Google it. We know that local, state, and federal government impede small businesses with onerous regulations, insurance, and other requirements. Google it. We know that gig workers and restaurant servers oppose a minimum wage of $15 being forced on them, Google it. We know that small business owners rarely get a salary of their own in the first one to five years, Google it. If they can’t pay themselves, there’s a pretty good chance they are already sacrificing for their employees . . . who may be betting on mom and pop online bookstore today becoming Amazon tomorrow, in which case they will be richly rewarded for their loyalty.

          Unlike you, I don’t need a single study, probably bought and paid for by anti-free market forces, to paint me a picture that is completely contrary to what I can see with my own eyes. Try thinking all on your own some time. You may find you like it.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 6:56 pm

          Well, Trollmark, maybe you missed the last time the minimum wage was raised in Seattle, McDonald’s responded by firing half their counter monkeys and installing display-panel ordering. And McDonald’s isn’t exactly a mom-and-pop, and the employees sacked were not a drop in the bucket.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 8:56 am

          @Fuzzyslippers

          “We know that thousands of small businesses have closed forever”

          Caused by what though? the Pandemic or that a general statement. Most small businesses fail within the first 2 years

          “We know that local, state, and federal government impede small businesses with onerous regulations, insurance, and other requirements. ”

          Do we, a businesses profitability is more than just a reference to regulations. Sometimes its just a non-viable business, or the pandemic or market conditions have changed. I would also point out that without regulations businesses can become targets for asset stripping for example or to take out the competition. Nice pay-out for the owner but everyone else left hanging. You seem to have over simplified.

          “We know that gig workers and restaurant servers oppose a minimum wage of $15 being forced on them”

          Do we, citation please. That seems counter intuitive.

          “We know that small business owners rarely get a salary of their own in the first one to five years”

          Do we, again I haven’t read anything that matches that. I am aware that the first year is challenging I’ve been there. Admittedly my business is a profession rather than a retail type proposition. Id say that if you aren’t turning a profit after 2 years you probably need to either adjust your business or find a job.

          “Who may be betting on mom and pop online bookstore today becoming Amazon tomorrow, in which case they will be richly rewarded for their loyalty.”

          That sounds a bad bet

          Unlike you, I don’t need a single study, probably bought and paid for by anti-free market forces, to paint me a picture that is completely contrary to what I can see with my own eyes. Try thinking all on your own some time. You may find you like it.

          A lot of supposition there. I think on my own a lot and with the benefit of evidence and thoughtful discussion. I’m not claiming to have the answers but it seems like you haven’t opened your eyes to the possibility that the American system is deeply flawed. I would argue that far from it being the land of opportunity its geared to make the rich richer and the poor will stagnate. Maybe its time to try and different argument than less regulation because well America doesn’t have much regulation does it.

          Well, yeah, genius mark311, a lot of those businesses have been plowed under by democrat tyranny during a panedemic that is only fatal to tiny segment of the population, so yeah, we know that the left loathes and wants to destroy the middle classes; it’s been their goal for decades. The left wants an impossibly wealthy and priviledged elite and the poverty-stricken masses that cater to the elites’ every need. That’s the communist, tyrannical model you advocate.

          Oh, and I completely get that the American system is deeply flawed. We have far too much government (local, city, county, state) interference in every aspect of our lives. There is far too much government control over far too much of our lives. Period. If I want to add a rooom to my home on my property, I have to get permits and jump through hoops. Why? What does an add-on have to do with anyone but me? If I want to keep a couple chickens in my backyard, I have to get county approval and submit to inspection. If I want to park an old car in my driveway, I have to keep it registered and insured, even if it doesn’t even run. If I want to dig a ditch on my own property and fill it with water, I cannot. Heck, I can’t dig a fish pond in my backyard without government approval. In point of fact, I can’t do anything on my own property without some government automaton showing up to tell me I don’t have the permit, the approval, the insurance, the whatever. Everything is wrong with this set-up, and yes, it means that I see the American system as deeply flawed. There are too many regulations, restrictions, and requirements already.

          This is not the land of opportunity, not with Democrats stating outright that they don’t want small businesses to survive, not with government colluding with Big Tech to silence anyone not toeing the commie party line, not with Democrats working to illegally discriminate against white people for employment.

          And as a not minor point, who the hell are you to dictate to me what is American and what is not? Who are you to judge my country when you are (presumably) a Brit. You can’t vote here (thank God, though I suppose as a foreign leftie, you do vote here, early and often). There are serious problems in my (not your) country, but absolutely none of them can be solved by some central planning utopia-seeking model that pretends people aren’t people but are instead worker bees happy to do the bidding of the state. That model does not and cannot work. Period. We have a century of its genocidal failure to guide us.

          But I waste my breath, you are (you claim) a Brit. You can’t vote here, and further, your viewpoint is less than meaningless on its own lack of merit.

      Anonamom in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 9:32 am
        mark311 in reply to Anonamom. | February 22, 2021 at 10:33 am

        I understand all that but his statement was ‘Minimum wage laws secretly hurt the poor by curbing their economic freedom’ which didn’t make any sense to me at all. The employee is only limited in his economic freedom if jobs are no longer viable because of the minimum wage. No other reason exists. Since the analysis by COB considers other scenarios we have reason to believe that a minimum wage of $12 wouldn’t be detrimental to the job market thus there is an argument for raising the minimum wage. This is from the point of view that it will give more spending power to more people increasing expenditure and overall wealth within society.

        @Brave Sir Robin

        “Minimum wages are entry level wages for those without skills. Price these people out of the job market and they do not get a first job, nor a second, nor a third, with the increasing income that goes with increasing work skills and productivity.”

        I think this is the key point, the UK has a graduated minimum wage rising to its max at 25, whereas for apprentices its much lower thus dealing with your point. Based on your previous comment sounds like there is no graduation; which strikes me as stupid for the precise reasons you state.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:14 am

          Not that other people don’t have better ideas. In the past, seamen used to sign onto ships for a percentage of revenue from a voyage.

          A common scam was to offer a seaman 1/500th of the revenue. The sailor would object, saying this was too small a share. The operator would counter with 1/1000th, and the seaman, not being very good at math, would sign.

          These contracts, which in basic structure I think were fair and correctly incentivized all parties, actually made sense but were outlawed to force operators to pay wages because of the rampant abuse of the poor math skills of the work force. But these laws precluded sailors from partaking in any special good fortune from a voyage where owners could make tremendous profits that then did not have to be shared. All that was needed was better math education to correct the abuse.

          My point is, there are more compensation options than simple minimum wage and people should be allowed the freedom to engage in those options.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:32 am

          I do see your point, but I personally feel that there should be some kind of minimum. What that’s set at I don’t know. Its in some respects a case of being fair to people. The free market left unchecked would shred a lot of people and that’s not a good thing. It needs checks and balances like any well thought out system.

          Wait, are you under the mistaken impression that there is no minimum wage in America? We do have one . . .for legal workers. What we don’t need is a one-size-fits-all “fix” decided by a deluded, economically-illiterate regressive from Failifornia.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:37 am

          “I think this is the key point, the UK has a graduated minimum wage rising to its max at 25, whereas for apprentices its much lower thus dealing with your point.”

          Again, not that we cannot learn from others, but there may be cultural factors that make this work better in the UK. I have had the great fortune to spend a great deal of time there, and, though I think the UK is being more Americanized, there still appears to be a greater employer – employee commitment. UK employers will put up with stuff no American employer would ever allow (with the exception of disrespect), and US employees are simply more mercenary and more willing to switch employers. We tend to be much more willing to “stick it to the man!”

          American employers tend to shed the bottom and lose the top more so than in the UK.

          The system you refer may work in the UK but incentivize US companies to shed and cycle through low skill employees before rate increases hit. If these employees were allowed to remain longer without having to paid more, perhaps the American employer would keep them on longer and allow greater development. Just a consideration or thought.

          This may not directly address your comment, but culture trumps reason in many instances, and solutions often need to be culturally appropriate to succeed.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 1:27 pm

          @Brave sir Robbin

          Well that’s an interesting point. The UK has maybe slightly stronger labour/employment laws. Yeah the UK is less corporate for sure, which is a good thing. I’m not overly keen on some of the American ideas imported, some of the management ideas are pretty bad.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:00 pm

          A common scam was to offer a seaman 1/500th of the revenue. The sailor would object, saying this was too small a share. The operator would counter with 1/1000th, and the seaman, not being very good at math, would sign.

          Sounds like the reason the A&W “third pound burger” failed, even though it was priced the same as McDonald’s quarter pounder. Too many morons couldn’t understand why they should buy a third of a pound when for the same price they could get a quarter of a pound. You can’t fix stupid.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:05 pm

          I do see your point, but I personally feel that there should be some kind of minimum.

          Then you want to curb poor people’s economic freedom, just as Sowell says.

          ts in some respects a case of being fair to people. The free market left unchecked would shred a lot of people

          That’s a contradiction in terms. The free market is the definition of fairness. Anything that compels people to deviate from a market price is unfair. The minimum wage we have now is unfair and unjust, but the harm it does is minimal because for most people it’s below the market rate anyway. For those few people whom the market would pay less than the current minimum, it does harm them.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 9:01 am

          @ Milhouse

          “I do see your point, but I personally feel that there should be some kind of minimum.

          Then you want to curb poor people’s economic freedom, just as Sowell says.”

          As I pointed out that argument hinges on the unemployment caused by the wage rise. There are no other means by which economic freedom could be limited because inherently being paid more generate more economic freedom.

          “The free market is the definition of fairness. Anything that compels people to deviate from a market price is unfair. The minimum wage we have now is unfair and unjust, but the harm it does is minimal because for most people it’s below the market rate anyway. For those few people whom the market would pay less than the current minimum, it does harm them.”

          No it isn’t the free market doesn’t give a hoot about fairness at all. Its driven by growth and profit not fairness.

          You say the minimum wage is unfair but then to go to say that it doesn’t cause harm that seems to me a contradiction.

      Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 3:44 pm

      In the real world, the minimum wage is always zero as that is what is paid out if the job is not created. Raising the mandated minimum wage simply makes it easier to justify not creating the position.

Oh wow. So Khanna says Democrats don’t want small businesses to survive, and contends that the minimum wage should be $23. That’s higher than any other country in the world, and more than three times the current federal minimum. Why do Democrats want corporations to control society? Isn’t that what Hitler pushed for in the Third Reich – the party rules all, corporations kowtow to the party, and the people work for the corporations?

Is corporatocracy a right or left wing form of government?

Chuckin Houston | February 22, 2021 at 12:46 am

Khanna is guilty of the same error as are Elizabeth Warren and other advocates of a higher minimum wage who use the “increased productivity” argument — they assume that the rate of productivity gain is the same across all jobs and industries. This isn’t even remotely true. Minimum wage jobs are by their nature not very amenable to productivity gains.

    Chuckin Houston in reply to Chuckin Houston. | February 22, 2021 at 12:54 am

    The modern day human burger flipper isn’t much more productive than the 1980 version. On the other hand the person operating the crane unloading a container ship does the work done by several hundred longshoremen back in 1980. (The inflation adjusted cost of unloading a cargo ship has fallen by 98.5% since then and most of the remaining 1.5% is capital not labor.)

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Chuckin Houston. | February 22, 2021 at 10:28 am

      This makes the point. The people who operate those cranes at the ports make good coin. They are highly skilled, and being replaced, by the way, with fully automated cranes.

      Where technology can replace costs, it will, to include labor. The problem with the minimum wage is it locks out low skilled workers from gaining skills to stay competitive against increasing technology to either gain entry or stave off displacement and give them more time develop better or different skills to adapt to the changing technological and economic environment.

        Its a good point but the wrong solution. There are always costs associated with having a human operator even if the wage is 0. Your crane example is a good one, the crane whilst having been automated will still require maintenance and thus actually creates a technician role who might for sake of argument have a yearly unit cost implied in the operation of said crane. Provided that the capital cost of the crane (presumably spread out) and its maintenance cost is lower than the operator it makes economic sense. The automative process means that there is a requirements to upskill everybody but that process is likely to have its limits. Sure upskilling someone working as a burger flipper might be straight forward but when your base skill level is now upskilling a crane operator to say a robotics engineer/technician that’s becomes more difficult. Then it gets even worse what happens when your robotics technician becomes obsolete. Not any easy question to answer at all.

          Ironclaw in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 3:47 pm

          You’re still going to pay those technicians to maintain the equipment regardless of whether they are human-operated or automated.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 9:02 am

          Thats true Ironclaw but the technician would likely support multiple cranes as opposed to a crane driver who could only support one crane.

politician’s have got to be the dummest people yet, what do they think will happen when the minimum wage goes to 15, see seattle wa for an example,they added ‘hazzard duty pay’, kroger closed 2 stores, some other cities that did something similar lost stores also, then they have the nerve to blame the stores

    TX-rifraph in reply to ronk. | February 22, 2021 at 6:20 am

    Perhaps she is not dumb. The objective is to destroy small business. She has her assignment as a traitor.

    This is not about logic. It is about power and winning and centralized control.

“Let’s look at the facts. Amazon raised their wage to $15 nationally, not regionally.”

I own a small business myself. The reason that small businesses have such a problem paying the same wages as big businesses is because the playing field isn’t level. When Amazon opens a distribution center; they get all of their state and local taxes abated. Then, when they need to ship their products, they get a sweetheart deal from the US postal system. The small mom & pop business pays full price for everything.

If rep. Khanna wants small businesses to pay $15.00 per hour like Amazon; then maybe Amazon should start paying taxes and shipping rates like a small business would.

    Amazon is infamous for once playing this game with sales tax and the nexus fog.

    mark311 in reply to Lausyl. | February 22, 2021 at 7:01 am

    Totally agree, companies should pay there fair share in taxes. Loop holes and tax rebates for larger companies doesn’t make sense to me, if a company is profitable and established it doesn’t need further help in the form of tax exemptions etc.

    Id argue that given small businesses tend to be a stepping stone for many people into employment and the tendency for smaller margins in small businesses that a lower minimum wage might make sense when the employer has less than say 15 employees.

      amatuerwrangler in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 10:43 am

      Your “split field” (over-under) for number of employees fails where the small employer gets to the point of adding employee #16.(And 15 is not magic; #11 or #25, or any other, presents the same issue.) That adds not only the the worker’s wage but also the attendant costs (workers’ comp, SS contribution, training, etc) as well as requiring a wage increase for all those currently employed. The result is too often a re-thinking of the addition, and learning about automation.

      And as it was for the existing employees: when you get to the point of wanting to add that next one, will there be enough additional work to keep that person working?

      Labor is an expense, a commodity, in the business world. Like raw materials, utilities, cost of site, distribution, all cost the business and determine the cost of the product. The cost of the product in the market is the limiting factor.

        Of course its a valid point, the issue is defining a small business. At some point a small business becomes larger and they operate and function in a different way. In my own industry this is borne out by the professional fees I can charge. Larger firms tend to charge larger amounts for the work they do but correspondingly have larger over heads. My own business can only support a small number of grads because my over heads don’t cover the extra over for babysitting them at scale nor am I willing to risk my professional insurance on a grad without adequate supervision. Larger companies have dedicated training programmes and so on which I cant make work numbers wise.

        Where the right balance is I don’t know.

          Why do feel you can’t run your own internet trolling business without the government telling you what to do at every turn? Is it really your business if you just seem baffled all the time and need government supervision? Kind of a sad state of affairs, really.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 1:45 pm

          Oh Fuzzy, once again you seem not to be able to engage with the arguments at hand nor seem able to comment without throwing baseless insults around.

          If you hadn’t noticed regulations help keep the playing field fair. There is a balance between regulation and marketplace competition. For example in my own industry there is regulation on the contract law, the minimum standards of construction as well as legal issues around disputes, party wall, rights of light, particular contract and warranty arrangements. Some of that regulation protects the consumer or helps keep to a minimum disputes which the construction industry is notorious for historically. That principle applies more broadly , some regulation can have a positive effect. If you seem to take a black and white approach of saying ‘regulation = bad’ which really isn’t the case. There are plenty of areas where regulation is burdensome and others where it would benefit society as a whole. Taking a blanket approach doesn’t allow for any nuance in the discussion.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 7:00 pm

          Regulations help keep the playing field fair only when the government is fair. When government is radically biased, as it is now, they help keep the playing field open only to cronies, and barred to their rivals (or, as they like to call them, enemies).

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 11:12 pm

          Regulations don’t keep anything fair. All the issues can be resolved with contracts, which are negotiable and can be customized to suit the parties. Regulations protect only those interests the regulator thinks are important, whether the people involved care about them or not, at the expense of those interests the regulator either hasn’t thought of or doesn’t think important, but the parties do.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 23, 2021 at 9:16 am

          @ Milhouse

          “Regulations don’t keep anything fair. All the issues can be resolved with contracts, which are negotiable and can be customized to suit the parties. Regulations protect only those interests the regulator thinks are important, whether the people involved care about them or not, at the expense of those interests the regulator either hasn’t thought of or doesn’t think important, but the parties do.”

          That doesnt work at all, contract law in the circumstances you describe is basically a negotiation to distribute risk and profitability. If there is no regulation you’ll find that one side will try and load all the risk onto the other side. This creates a lot of issues. In my own industry that used to be the case large companies would negotiate contracts with a contractor and load the risk onto the contractor. The contractor in turn tailors his price to be the bare minimum and the quality of the project is much harder to manage. Me being stuck in the middle gets to fight the contractor over the quality and cost of every item on the project which in turn means I charge the client a shit ton of money. Hard work and no one wins. There are other consequences too if the quality aspect isn’t controlled very tightly which is hard without a Clarke of works the client ends up with a shit building. Further when times get tougher you have the added joys of contractors going pop mid construction which i can tell you now is a royal pain in the but. Which is why contracts and construction contracts in particular are regulated because its to the benefit of everyone to have some fairness inherent within them.

          There are plenty of other examples where regulations keep things fair

The CBO has a really interesting page on this showing the employment fall in several given scenarios. It would appear that $15 min wage has a high effect on unemployment but a $12 min wage would only have a slight increase.

Given the minimum wage hasn’t been increased for a number of years it seems like an uplift is a good idea. The question is to what level. The data seems to suggest that $15 is too high perhaps $11/12 would be more appropriate?

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 8:29 am

    I would suggest allowing the market find the appropriate wage levels. There are other factors in employment beside wages to include benefits, work flexibility, work conditions, potential to gain desire skills and experience.. I could go on.

    I would also suggest the government refrain from taking action to distort this natural seeking of equilibrium that benefit large corporations at the expense of small businesses. For example, one action is allowing the importation of cheaper labor from foreign nations weather from illegal immigrants of legal visa programs that do little but undercut domestic wages. Another is global financialization which allows large corporations to simply shift capital and jobs to lower wage countries if they are not allowed to import lower wage workers and displace existing employees, thereby creating a global labor market to drive down wages in high wage areas. In the US, the reaction against this is the what I call “the Trump effect.”

    A global international corporation has no loyalty to any country or group of people. Everything becomes a target for financial exploitation for the benefit of the owners and senior management of the corporation. I am fully on the side of small businesses because they have a stake in the well being of the communities they live and operate in, and their margins are being sucked away by humongous global corporations that rent seek and distort the markets in their own favor.

      Well that isn’t a good idea especially when it comes to the present situation. High unemployment and thus a high demand for jobs, particularly low skill jobs because those sectors have been hardest hit (I assume the US is the same). So what does the employer do he sets a low wage because they can, it increases there profit at the detriment of those employed. That potentially sends a vulnerable category of people into poverty or/and into the arms of the state welfare system which is something i think is bad. I personally think people should be able to have a fair wage.

      There is another issue which goes slightly beyond minimum wage and that’s of market value vs intrinsic value. If you go down the market value route then you end up with people who have a social function but no profitability being valued very badly. For example how do you value a Nurse or a Dr. The market cant value such activities very well because they are not inherently to do with profit. If you are interested in that topic id recommend radio 4 Reith Lectures with Mark Carney – it explains it very well and in a lot of detail.

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 10:38 am

    What you’re missing is the reason $12 would cause only a slight increase in unemployment. I’ll go one better: $8 would cause almost no increase. The reason is simply because very few people are getting less than that anyway. A minimum wage that is below the market wage does no harm, because it may as well not exist.

    To the extent that a minimum wage has any impact at all, it increases unemployment. That’s its true purpose; raise prices by eliminating competition. It also eliminates cheap products, thus raising average quality at the expense of the poor. For instance, if it becomes uneconomical to produce a burger for less than $10, that doesn’t mean the plain $5 burger will now cost $10. It means the plain $5 burger will no longer be sold, and the only burgers available will be the fancy $10 burger. Those with money will appreciate the increase in quality and consider it a good thing. Those who depended on the $5 burger will have to go without lunch.

      mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 22, 2021 at 10:53 am

      $12 is much higher than $7.25 which is the current Federal minimum wage. The COB analysis doesn’t really support your assertion that it would dramatically shift unemployment (it does show that for $15).

      Your point about the unit price of a burger going up depends on the number the unit price of a burger is made up of more than just the employees wages. A burger according to Forbes is around a third on labour a third on overheads and a third on ingredients assuming that were true we could take a $9 burger and %50 to the labour cost for a wage rise and get $10.50 as our new unit price of a burger (assuming all the costs are passed to the customer). That is an increase sure but not a dramatic one. We now have a situation where that employee has an extra $4 per hour. They could afford this new unit price and have change for something else.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 22, 2021 at 12:51 pm

        “$12 is much higher than $7.25 which is the current Federal minimum wage. The COB analysis doesn’t really support your assertion that it would dramatically shift unemployment (it does show that for $15)”

        I think you are missing Milhouse’s point. He is saying the $12 minimum wage is pretty much now at market rate for entry level jobs in most places in the US, therefore, its adoption will have less effect than a mandated above market wage of $15. The current federally mandated minimum wage is below market in most places, but not all. Many states have mandated higher minimum wages than the federal mandate.

        $15 may be easy for an employer in New York City, Boston, or DC to meet for entry level pay because they are already there or near there, but that is supervisor pay in many parts of the US, and a $15 minimum will drive people out of business.

Progressive wages are a near-sighted patch. The problem is progressive prices in medical, energy, education, real estate, etc, which are in part normalized by progressive costs forced by regulatory and sociopolitical policies.

“Progressive Democrat Ro Khanna (CA) admitted that Democrats “don’t want” small “mom and pop” restaurants and businesses that cannot afford to pay employees $15 minimum wage.”

Well then, since California just “cancelled” the anti-cancel culture bill, there should be no pushback to mom-and-pop businesses posting “No Democrats allowed inside” signage. If Democrats don’t want them, they can’t use them.

Comrade Khanna has spoken! Businesses deemed undesirable will not be permitted to prosper until they are approved by his authority.

We don’t want legislators that can’t propose a balanced budget/ Most successful legislators can propose a balanced budget.

Another dim witted leftist has spoken. She couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted her two letters.

    Milhouse in reply to MAJack. | February 22, 2021 at 10:41 am

    “She”? Of course nowadays it’s difficult to know for sure, but to the best of my knowledge Rep. Khanna not only has the genitals usually associated with males, but also identifies and presents as male. But really who knows?

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | February 22, 2021 at 12:54 pm

      “best of my knowledge Rep. Khanna not only has the genitals usually associated with males”

      I advise you to maintain this knowledge at a theoretical or assumed level, a priori, if you will, and not seek ex post facto knowledge of the matter.

      I assume he would appreciate the same.

    henrybowman in reply to MAJack. | February 22, 2021 at 7:03 pm

    Khanna is the one on the right.

The Friendly Grizzly | February 22, 2021 at 9:08 am

Asked at another site: what Republicans ever opposed the H1B visa programs?

    I believe Cotton and Hawley do. Cruz has changed his position since being trounced by Trump and is now apparently opposing increases-for at least as long as it is politically expedient, I would guess.

    But, generally, your point is valid: the GOPe is every bit as against the American working classes (those icky people who actually, you know, are paying for everything) as are the “progressives.”

just for the record, Ro Khanna is the guy in the picture at the start of this post.
Rohit Khanna is an American politician, lawyer, and academic serving as the U.S. Representative from California’s 17th congressional district since 2017. Wikipedia
Born: September 13, 1976 (age 44 years), Pennsylvania
Nationality: American
Spouse: Ritu Khanna (m. 2015)
Office: Representative (D-CA 17th District) since 2017
Movies: The Swamp
Books: Entrepreneurial Nation: Why Manufacturing is Still Key to America’s Future

“Khanna said, “Abby, it’s absolutely the right time to give working Americans a raise. Let’s look at the facts. Amazon raised their wage to $15 nationally, not regionally. They have more jobs today. It didn’t hurt job creation or business. Target followed. They also did it nationally, more jobs.” ”

Amazon grew because the various governments shut down their competition, leaving them the only game in town. Funny how that could boost the old bottom line.

    Massinsanity in reply to venril. | February 22, 2021 at 12:51 pm

    This is so spot on. Also no company uses automation more than AMZN and their integration of automation only increase every day.

      henrybowman in reply to Massinsanity. | February 22, 2021 at 7:06 pm

      And if you want stories about how Amazon abuses their workers, just ask any Amazon worker.

      My senior friend, an Uber driver, signed on as an Amazon delivery driver. His job was to deliver packages they loaded in his vehicle. Amazon had him moving stacks of boxes from one warehouse area to another, which is beyond his health limits.

If only the owners of new small businesses made minimum wage. It would be like a $35/hour pay raise.

Another educated but dim witted leftist has spoken.

Not in Liberalfonia but the small towns around here would welcome small business 15 or not.

1. See
Lausyl | February 22, 2021 at 4:48 am
and
venril | February 22, 2021 at 11:34 am
comments above.

2. Ro Khanna did NOT say that the Biden administration does not want small business “that cannot afford to pay employees $15 minimum wage.” His point is that a business should not be using the services of another person unless the business pays that person a particular minimum wage – now being promoted as $15/hr. His point is that if for any reason you’re not going to pay that minimum wage, then you should not be employing anyone. Here is his full quote:

“We don’t want low-wage businesses. I think most successful small businesses can pay a fair wage.

“I love small businesses, I’m all for it, but I don’t want small businesses that are underpaying employees. It’s fair for people to be making what they are producing, and I think $15 is very reasonable in this country.”

Note Khanna’s use of the phrases “fair wage” and “underpaying employees.”

3. On the other hand, we can count on the Democrats to actually intend to undermine independent small business owners.

Yeah, right, screw those people who have been f*cked over and had their businesses repeatedly crushed for the last year by overbearing government. They should just take their losses and smile about it I guess.

This arguably highlights a major difficulty within the Republican Party.

As the party of small business and the workers we need a slate of policies to benefit both that both will find acceptable but there are ways the working class will want us to go against small business interest (i.e. the 15$minimum wage).

The 15$ minimum wage is in my opinion bad policy but it is nothing to scoff at and something that could very easily be our undoing if we don’t make up for it elsewhere.

A 15$ minimum wage would be devastating for small businesses and good for automation but how does the working class feel about it?

    That’s a good question. I think people like the idea of a “raise” and will continue to like it if they are not among those employees easily replaced with AI . . . and until the economy evens out to absorb the wage hike in increased cost of living.

    No business, big or small, increases the wages of its least valuable (i.e. entry level, unskilled) workers without passing that cost on to consumers.

    Eventually, a “living wage” again becomes a “slave” wage, and the cycle starts all over again. With Democrats once again pretending they care for votes and the duped multitudes vote for them to solve the same ‘problem’ they keep ‘solving’ for votes but somehow never stays solved (and no one cares why that is). It’s nauseating.

If this passes, I think many low income workers are going to end up with buyer’s remorse. The 30 year old single parent trying to raise a child on $7.25/hr rarely does that alone. Usually they also get an EBT card with $300-$400 per month and a voucher that pays most of their rent. Once that low income worker gets their raise to $15.00/hr; I suspect many will be told by their welfare case worker “We can’t help you anymore. You make too much money.”

There’s a point many people miss: Very few people have to support a family on the minimum wage, or even to support themselves. Almost all minimum-wage-earners live in households with at least one other person who makes more than that, and are merely supplementing the household income, or even making pocket money for themselves.

“Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage.[2] In 2011 and 2012, 3.7 million Americans reported earning $7.25 or less per hour—just 2.9 percent of all workers in the United States.[3] These numbers include workers who also earn tip income. […] just over half are between the ages of 16 and 24.[4]”

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 23, 2021 at 9:44 am

    Well that means roughly that half of your 3.7m figure aren’t kids and therefore could be in a vulnerable category. Thats a pretty significant figure.

I’m not certain this is really about workers at all. I think this is actually intended to wreak economic ruin on the largely Republican “flyover country”. Even “large” businesses in Arkansas or Montana will likely be put out of business by a $15 minimum wage. Unemployment will be epidemic. It won’t be great in SF/LA/NYC/DC/Boston but they won’t be reduced to ruin by it. Portland, Seattle, and Baltimore will be crushed though, despite being progressive strongholds, as will Virginia outside the DC Beltway (but those are largely Republican voters).

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend