On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 4:19:21 PM UTC-5, F. George McDuffee wrote:




This is one perspective. The other perspective is that all

of the taxpayers are currently subsidizing this cheap labor

through SNAP/food stamps, medicaid/mediCAL, subsidized

housing, etc.



Raising the minimum wage to a point where most social

services/safety net are no longer required will force the

labor costs back onto the for-profit company books where

these belong, preventing them from externalizing this cost

to society and the general taxpayer. From a Darwinian

viewpoint, if the companies can't make it without their

covert labor subsidy, so sad -- too bad. This is

Schumpter's "creative destruction*" in action, and their

successors/replacements will be able to pay their full labor

costs (or go out of business in turn).



It will not happen as you think it will. The companies will automate and reduce the number of employees. So more people will be without a job and the costs will increase for the general tax payer and society.

Have you looked at steel mills recently? Nucor runs their West Seattle mill with less than 20 people per shift. When I toured it, they were making rebar. Every thing was automated including the bundling of the finished rebar and tying the bundles with wire. There are no minimum wage jobs at the steel mill. The average wage was about $80,000 a few years back. The creative destruction has resulted in lower labor costs because there are fewer workers..

They have two plants that make fasteners. The grave yard shift runs with no employees on site.

Machine shops are also automated and have no minimum wage workers.

It costs society less to have people working and subsidising them. The alternative is to not have people working and have society pay all their expenses.

Dan