There has been a lot of talk about minimum wage laws coming out of the federal government lately. The proponents say that all companies must increase the pay they provide their minimum wage employees. There is no perspective given as to what these laws will do to those employees and the employers who must pay these new wages.
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.
Free markets decide what an employee, just starting out, should be paid. Their expenses are balanced against their income and plans for expansion. If their expenses, such as employees expenses go up, something else has to be done away with or severely cut back. Starting employees who make the minimum wage represent only about four percent of the work force and this dislocation, as arbitrary as it is, interferes with the operation of the company.
Legislators, working in Washington, DC, do not have payrolls for which they must be responsible. Many of them never have and do not understand how raising all employee expenses, for any company, impacts their ability to be flexible. All of this nanny state interference comes from the belief that all private companies have slush funds that they can dip into whenever new taxes are imposed.
These types of arbitrary laws discriminate against the teenager, just getting into the work force, preventing them from being hired. As these new comers do not have much training or experience, they are not valued as being worth the newer pay rates. This makes employers look for the older, more experienced workers and not someone that does not have a lengthy resume.
Making the new employees work with the newer rate will discriminate against the senior employees. This will cause raises from the new persons supervisor through the rest of the vertical organization to eliminate employee morale problems. This creates a problem for future plans as monies will have to be allocated for all of the extra expenses associated with payroll to be held onto.
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.
Free markets decide what an employee, just starting out, should be paid. Their expenses are balanced against their income and plans for expansion. If their expenses, such as employees expenses go up, something else has to be done away with or severely cut back. Starting employees who make the minimum wage represent only about four percent of the work force and this dislocation, as arbitrary as it is, interferes with the operation of the company.
Legislators, working in Washington, DC, do not have payrolls for which they must be responsible. Many of them never have and do not understand how raising all employee expenses, for any company, impacts their ability to be flexible. All of this nanny state interference comes from the belief that all private companies have slush funds that they can dip into whenever new taxes are imposed.
These types of arbitrary laws discriminate against the teenager, just getting into the work force, preventing them from being hired. As these new comers do not have much training or experience, they are not valued as being worth the newer pay rates. This makes employers look for the older, more experienced workers and not someone that does not have a lengthy resume.
Making the new employees work with the newer rate will discriminate against the senior employees. This will cause raises from the new persons supervisor through the rest of the vertical organization to eliminate employee morale problems. This creates a problem for future plans as monies will have to be allocated for all of the extra expenses associated with payroll to be held onto.
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.
About the Author:
When you want information about minimum wage laws, pay a visit to the web pages here today. You can see details at http://www.employmentlawhandbook.com now.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар