Story: "Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.
That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.
Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.
And teens are among the first workers to go.
Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.
Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.
"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, 'Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,' " he said. " 'Sorry, I don't have any hours for you.' "
Messner's monthly cost to train an employee has jumped from $440 to $580 as the turnover rate remains high.
"We go to great lengths to hang on to our high school workers, but there are a lot of kids who come in and get one check in their pocket and feel like they're living large and out the door they go," he said. "We never get our return on investment when that happens." "
Ah, but what do you expect? The dismal science (economics) has proved over and over again, when you set an artificial level of wages, then something else has to give, be it prices, effciency, availability, or number of employees. So, because buisness are being forced to pay more to workers who are not deserving of a raise, then some people are laid off, just to keep the payroll tight.
And thats liberalism, compassionate with wonton disregard for the consequences, and compassion with other peoples money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
If we consider Karl Marx's underlying economic theory (labor theory of value) then the majority Party (Democrats) have discerned that the value of McDonald's and similar organizations should have higher economic value, or cost in their venacular. I guess this means that they may be wanting to punish McDonald's for the increase of their stock value (check it out for the past 2 years) since they probably have not had any share of those (dirty capitalist) pies, opting to spend their money on commodities such as John Kerry, et al that have not done so well.
Yup, darn those bourgeois capitalist. They're making money, and not sharing it!
Nice of you to drop in an comment, J.
I agree. You cannot set wages artificially.
That the price paid for labor has increased does not mean that the value of the labor is increased. For instance, I can write a paper and get it published, receiving $X for it. Suppose that a law is passed demanding higher payment for any and all papers published. I next turn in a paper of identical length and quality, but I now receive $Y for it. The quality of the paper (hypothetically, not my best) has no bearing on the price paid, exactly as it shouldn't be. Would you pay as much for a fake Rolex as you would a real one? I hope not, bur if so, I've got a few chain letters I need to send you.
I'm confused, Palm Boy: is this the liberals' idea of lowering the unemployment rate (people getting fired), or is it their idea of making "better jobs," (simply by upping minimum wages and thereby inflating the whole economy) since the jobs the republicans are making are bad ones, according to them?
Or, is it a small quencher of their unquenchable thirst for government control--and ultimately a socialist economy--and a way to get more money in taxes (ah, it always is, isn't it?)
Or, is it a way to get illegals who work these jobs to like them?
Setting prices and wage minimums or maximums (with the exceptions of penalizing gouging and such things) don't help the economy, in the long run at the very least. The consumers should decide, not the government.
Yep, it's a bummer.
Post a Comment