Posted on 02/11/2007 3:26:33 PM PST by zendari
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.
It's a valid point IMO.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . the Law of Intended Consequences strikes again!!
This is why politicians should NEVER be allowed to run private businesses - they have no clue about economics or finance.
Clearly, this will be spun as Bush's fault to make sure that these teens never go off the liberal reservation.
Grocery store chains in AZ fight over getting baggers who are somewhat retarded or mentally slow. Unlike "normal" kids, the handicapped are good, reliable workers, on time every day.
One chain, now defunct, was surprised by getting applications by a bunch of "normal" teenage girls who did show up to work on time. Until it was discovered that when male customers would hit on them, the girls would offer sex for money. They ran a successful prostitution ring for the better part of a year. Bagger by day, hooker by night.
Perhaps foolishly, the grocery store where they worked fired them when it found out. Foolish because their union cashiers were not happy about bagging for a few weeks until they could hire more baggers. And also foolish because they lost a lot of male customers who would buy hundreds of dollars of groceries there, too.
The so-called "minimum wage" law is nothing of the sort. It is a minimum productivity law. Without a "minimum wage" law, employers hire whoever is willing to work for less that the value of his/her efforts - so that it is worth the employer's effort to hire, train, and supervise him/her. With a "minimum wage" law, nobody is allowed to agree to work for less than the legislated minimum - and if a person is unable to find an employer who expects their productivity will be above that minimum, that person will not get hired.That's all the "minimum wage" law can do. It might induce employers to increase some marginally productive workers' wages to the new minimum sooner than they otherwise would - but it is hardly likely to induce employers to help the hard cases who are fully adult and still not worth the new minimum. And it makes the prospective employer more skeptical about hiring an inexperienced new employee. And forces the employer to supervise the employees he does employ more intensively to get the productivity from them that will justifiy their higher wage.
There is IMHO no realistic scenario in which those effects can increase employment. I am not prepared to believe that a study which purports to prove the contrary of that is properly designed and has statistically significant results.
Because fast food outlets only operate after 3:00 pm? Because teens are so much more attached to a paycheck, and therefore more committed? Because the FF managers would rather deal with 30 part timers, when they can hire Rosa from Zapateca to do full shifts and schedule her when they need her? Because under-the-table costs are lower than legit hires, but all employers are too honest for that? Because teens are willing to remain at the local Jack in the Box for years at the same wage?
In what way is the typical teen more productive?
At a sit-down restaurant, they would do even better. They would cover more tables, take the orders correctly in English, interact better with the customers.
Sit downs use minimum wage earners to bus tables and clean dishes. Waiting tables is a step up with access to earning tips. What is under discussion is so-called "entry level" jobs, which require minimal skills and training. When you require that these level jobs pay with the expectation that the earner is self supporting, perhaps with a family, you eliminate the true bottom rung. Where is the space for the non-essential, unskilled laborer?
Minimum wage rises. Teens and legal workers hit hardest. Just a slight change.
I don't know about that. Around here customers must be able to speak some Spanish.
"Grocery store chains in AZ fight over getting baggers who are somewhat retarded or mentally slow. Unlike "normal" kids, the handicapped are good, reliable workers, on time every day"
They fail to mention that the Fed's pay half their wages. Take that away and see how quick they get rid of them for picking their nose every 12 sec while bagging.
They are always the first to go without grant money.
....just hire more illegals.
"problem solved"
Them too.
Sigh.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.