Discrimination is often used to denote the arbitrary ill treatment of one class of people. That class of people, in this discussion, is not only the employers who must endure the new minimum wage laws. It also negatively impacts the beginning worker and all employees of that company as well. The laws being talked about in Washington, DC is discriminatory against most people on the lower end of the pay scale.
It is stated that everyone should get as close to what is referred to as a living wage as possible. The current minimum wage is standing at a little over seven dollars an hour. This was an arbitrary amount when it was established. Many states have larger amounts that are required to be paid to all starting employees, some almost as high as 10 dollars.
The problem with a one size fits all approach to a pay scale that affects less than four percent of the population is that one size rarely fits all in the first place. When an employers payroll expense, the largest part of their expenses, is arbitrarily increased, something else has to give way. This is usually accomplished by not hiring as many people or lowering other perks for those already employed.
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.
By discriminating teenagers from being hired, the new rate will have employers looking for older, more experienced workers. These potential employees provide more value than a new person getting started. The new wages that would be set by Federal authorities do not take any input from these businesses. This is because this input is counterproductive to their ideas about how the market should run regardless of how it actually does work.
When the minimum pay for a new person is arbitrarily raised to be at or above the supervisors pay, there are internal problems with employee morale. They will have to be raised in order to provide the pay difference which will further deplete any retained earnings and future growth plans will be put aside. Every other position, above them, will have to have adjustments made and it can become complicated and expensive quite quickly.
Since the new pay rate does not take into consideration the new employees lack of skill and experience, it does nothing to increase productivity. New employees start at the beginning rate and do not stay there long. They either increase their skills and gain additional experience to become more valuable or they do not and are laid off or terminated.
The largest problem with these federal laws is what they do for people who do not even work at those wages. Most union contracts are based on a factor of the minimum wage in the area. By raising the wage to an unsupportable level, union contracts, already extremely confining to many companies, will be even more so as they use the new rates to demand more pay for their members.
It is stated that everyone should get as close to what is referred to as a living wage as possible. The current minimum wage is standing at a little over seven dollars an hour. This was an arbitrary amount when it was established. Many states have larger amounts that are required to be paid to all starting employees, some almost as high as 10 dollars.
The problem with a one size fits all approach to a pay scale that affects less than four percent of the population is that one size rarely fits all in the first place. When an employers payroll expense, the largest part of their expenses, is arbitrarily increased, something else has to give way. This is usually accomplished by not hiring as many people or lowering other perks for those already employed.
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.
By discriminating teenagers from being hired, the new rate will have employers looking for older, more experienced workers. These potential employees provide more value than a new person getting started. The new wages that would be set by Federal authorities do not take any input from these businesses. This is because this input is counterproductive to their ideas about how the market should run regardless of how it actually does work.
When the minimum pay for a new person is arbitrarily raised to be at or above the supervisors pay, there are internal problems with employee morale. They will have to be raised in order to provide the pay difference which will further deplete any retained earnings and future growth plans will be put aside. Every other position, above them, will have to have adjustments made and it can become complicated and expensive quite quickly.
Since the new pay rate does not take into consideration the new employees lack of skill and experience, it does nothing to increase productivity. New employees start at the beginning rate and do not stay there long. They either increase their skills and gain additional experience to become more valuable or they do not and are laid off or terminated.
The largest problem with these federal laws is what they do for people who do not even work at those wages. Most union contracts are based on a factor of the minimum wage in the area. By raising the wage to an unsupportable level, union contracts, already extremely confining to many companies, will be even more so as they use the new rates to demand more pay for their members.
About the Author:
You can visit www.employmentlawhandbook.com for more helpful information about The Problem With Minimum Wage Laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment