stutefish stutefish

Why I Hate: The Minimum Wage

Why I Hate: The Minimum Wage

A Thought Experiment

Let's say I own a small factory. The factory produces about $100[1] worth of widgets every day, and requires a crew of seven people to operate at full efficiency.

Let's also say that this factory operates in a country where it is customary to pay workers by the day, and that $10 per day is a low but acceptable wage.

Now, I could pay my seven workers up to $14 per day, and still make a $2 profit. Very tight margin, but at least there's some money left over for my investors, or for capital improvements, or for the company Christmas party, or whatever.

Now, let's say the government passes a law, requiring that all workers be paid a minimum of $15 per day. What happens?

The first thing that happens, the day I begin complying with the new minimum wage, is that my factory loses money: $5 per day, in fact. Not much, but it will add up quickly.

Why I Hate, #1: The minimum wage hurts the economy, creating deficits instead of surpluses for any employer on a tight profit margin. It punishes employers for being competitive or generous in their hiring and employee compensation practices. Thus, it is bad for both employers and employees.

Of course, I can't keep operating my factory at a loss each day. I need to make some adjustments.

One thing I could do is raise the price of my widgets, to cover the increase in my payroll costs. Of course, this would tend to nullify the value of the minimum wage in the first place. Sure, my workers get paid more, but--surprise!--their cost of living just went up, too.

Why I Hate, #2: The minimum wage promotes inflation. By increasing the operating costs for employers, it drives increases in the costs consumers must pay for goods and services. Pay raises are offset by price increases. Instead of a Better Tomorrow for my employees, they get inflation. And inflation is bad for the economy.

But as bad as inflation is, a price increase may be my best option. Let's see what else I can do...

Well, I can fire one of my employees. This brings my factory back into profitability--improves it, even, since I go from a $2 profit to a $10 profit.

Why I Hate, #3: The minimum wage promotes unemployment.

Of course, my profit margin just improved dramatically, from $2 before the minimum wage law to $10 after the minimum wage law. And my employees even got a raise (the ones I didn't have to lay off got a raise, anyway)! On the other hand, that profit increase isn't real, because the factory's efficiency just went down. Now, instead of having 7 workers producing $100 worth of widgets, I have six workers producing about $85 worth of widgets. In fact, at $15 per day, my workers cost me more than the value of the widgets they produce.

Why I Hate, #4: The minimum wage promotes massive unemployment by driving companies out of business. It also hurts the economy by making whole sectors unprofitable.

But maybe I can keep my factory in the black. Let's say I lay off my least efficient worker. Instead of a 14% efficiency loss, maybe I only have a 9% efficiency loss--that's the maximum I can afford, anyway. Now my factory is making $91 of widgets every day, but at least that's better than my payroll costs of $90 per day for my remaining 6 employees. I'm down to a $1 profit from a $2 profit before the minimum wage, but it's better than going out of business, laying off more employees, or driving inflation, isn't it?

Why I Hate, #5: The minimum wage harms the economy by reducing profits.

Summary:
1 The minimum wage increases deficits and decreases surpluses.
2 The minimum wage accelerates inflation.
3 The minimum wage increases unemployment.
4 The minimum wage puts employers out of business, hurting the economy and increasing unemployment at the same time.
5 The minimum wage makes employers less profitable, without improving the economy or the lives of employees (who must now work harder to keep their employer profitable; sure, they get paid more, but they have to work more, too. You could call this another kind of inflation.)

Question: What do I not understand about the minimum wage, that makes it such a great idea?




[1] After accounting for the cost of raw materials and support services like water and power, but not payroll expenses.
19,435 views 36 replies
Reply #26 Top
I'm relieved to discover that so far, Gideon's pessimistic prediction has proven false, and nobody is telling me how stupid I am.


umm, I don't remember saying this...were you meaning GUY'S response, right below mine? Just curious.
Reply #27 Top
latour999: Goods or services. The easiest way to determine the value of your work is to ask a bunch of people how much they'd be willing to pay for your work. If you can find someone who's willing to pay you $7.25/hour CDN for your work, great. But if you can't, then the minimum wage is forcing your employer to lose money so long as he employs you (i.e., he's giving you more value for your work, than the value you're giving him by doing your job). If he's paying you exactly the minimum wage, it's a safe bet he thinks you're overpriced, and would gladly pay you less if he could. Note that this might not be through any fault of your own, but simply because the job you do isn't very much in demand, for whatever reason.

Janitors, cashiers, and waiters all are necessary for the operation of their respective businesses. Their wages reflect how necessary they are.

Labor is only one component of the value of work. A guy who spends all day making papier-mache rabbits is putting in a lot of effort, but I'm not about to pay him the same rate I'd pay a guy who spends all day managing the finances of a Fortune 500 company. If you want to survive by providing goods and services to other people, then you have to accept that the value of your work is determined by your customers, not by you. You're welcome to spend all day doing work that's valuable to you, but if nobody else wants or needs it, don't expect to get paid much.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that my salary is $150/day--ten times what I'm paying my workers. As it turns out, I'm more interested in having an inefficient business, and in going out of business altogether, than I am in paying my employees well. Of course, this means that the real problem isn't the minimum wage at all, but that I'm an asshat. And that problem gets solved right away by me going out of business (either through sheer incompetence or through having a competitor who's willing to take a mild pay cut in order to outperform and underprice me). So what's your point?

Or we could assume that my take-home pay is the net profit from the factory. After paying minimum wages to my workers, and after laying one of them off, I'm getting $1/day. My hope is that by living extremely lean (my wife's two part-time jobs are what keep our children clothed and our dog's rabies shots up to date) for a few years, while paying my employees (relatively) well and keeping factory performance high, I can increase the profits over time and one day see my major capital investment pay off in a better tomorrow for not only my employees and my customers, but for my family and myself as well. Again, what's your point?

Gid: Yeah, Guy's post. Sorry about that. And either way, still relieved.
Reply #28 Top
WRONG!
The tiny pennies you spend on the minimum wage isn’t what makes your factory not profitable it is the ungodly amount of money all your CEO's CFOs and other high paid workers make.
All management should be paid based on incentives no more of these huge golden parachutes, no more huge annual salaries, NO MORE and all the sudden instead of saving 10 or 20 dollars a year you save hundreds of thousands a year.
But will this happen? no you wont cut your own salary so pretend that Joe Work a day making 7.50 an hour working 50 hours a week is to blame when you take home more in a month that he will all freaking year,

The Best and Worst Bosses
Forbes.com
“The heads of America's 500 biggest companies received an aggregate 54% pay raise last year. Some of these chief executives really earned their pay. Some didn't. Some did so bad they should have paid their shareholders”

Oh yeah these people should talk about whether to pay the peons who actually produce something $5.50 an hour or 6 buck, give me a break!
Reply #29 Top
keithpup, here's your break: We're not talking about CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, here. This article is about Joe Smallbusinessman, who's operating on a tight margin already.

Bad laws often prevent government from doing good things. So do corrupt politicians. Behold a sample dialogue!

STUTEFISH: Bad laws are a problem. Let us discuss it.
KEITHPUP: Yeah! Only, let's talk about corrupt politicians instead!
STUTEFISH: You want to change the subject, write your own damn article already.
Reply #30 Top
Keithpup: Would it be correct to assume you think these "Highly Paid Workers" burn their piles of money -- or just bury it forever? Assume for a moment, they do not. Then: Don't their savings & investments create easy credit, creation of new employment, and production of luxury goods that would not otherwise be possible? Then again, do you think that luxury goods should be done away with altogether? I think the people gainfully employed making the fittings for Bill Gates next Luxury Yacht or Jet would disagree with you.

On another slant -- where does population growth fit into the minimum wage scenario?
Reply #31 Top
wonderful artical, much more articulate than mine. Very well put.
Reply #32 Top
I think the problem here is that the minimum wage was too high. You said that $10 an hour was a low but acceptable wage. So a minimum wage of between $8 and $12 wouldn't cause any problems for you, or for pretty much anyone. Then you could still pay your workers $14, which in this world of yours looks like a decent wage.

Reply #33 Top
Heck Latour, why stop at $14 then? I say drop the hourly down to $8 and hire an Artist to decorate the Corporate Washroom with the extra cash.
Reply #34 Top
Hello

You've laid out your argument using macroeconomic principals to support a microeconomic ambition of "pure efficiency".
As such its too simplistic.

Im not about to argue that a minimum wage is neccessarily the most efficient in pure terms but you seem to have almost entirely disregarded the role of a government as social engineering device. When it comes to people, effectiveness is more important than efficiency and the whole point of an economy is too enrich the lives of the people who participate in it. Economies are for the people, not the other way around.

With respect to point #1. It would be a fundamental mistake to produce widgets in an economy where the cost of production, including labour, exceeded the price. In fact this is impossible as the price would actually be higher. Price being the intersection of what consumers are willing to pay and suppliers are willing to sell at for a given qty

Although you might wish to sell at a lower price, this does not make it the actual market price. If one ecomony can produce a good at a lower cost than another then that is its comparative advantage. A government artificially inflating the price of labour through the setting of a minimum wage does conceed comparative advantage to another ecomony but that again is a social engineering device. The government has decided that some goods are simply not worth manfacturing. Every ecomony in the world is seeking to produce higher value goods in full knowledge that this will mean a need to abandone or offshore lower valued goods.

If as a businessman you want to produce widgets then you first have to determine where you can feasiblly do so. It is not the economies fault/mim wage fault that a businessman chooses to produce in an unsustainable labour cost environment.

#2. Yes a minimum wage does increase inflation but i disagree that inflation is a bad thing. High inflation is a bad thing but not simple inflation. In fact in many cases a moderate level of inflation can be indicative a growing economy. With respect to what can you do? How about R & D to make your workers more productive such that you can produce more efficiently and thus sustain/turn a profit.

#3 I disagree with your third point. What about the flipside of the argument that people simply wont work for less than the minmum wage. This prodcues much more unemployment that the min wage does. I dont think you can argue that illegal immigrants will do it becuase by definition they are illegal and external to the system. This is also counter to your position in #1 of the *pure wage rate* [my words not yours]. If you're going to argue for a pure wgae rate then you really must be consistent and argue for a pure price. Where pure means actual.

We know for a fact that the developed world is piliaging the third. The actual cost of lifestyles is well beyond what we are really paying for it. Such that if we're talking pure then the market price of a given commodity would be much higher than currently paid so the minmium wage wouldn;t put people out of business/employment, the price of a good would. Not as many people could afford the things they currently buy therefore less would be sold therefore less employment.

If you extend your *government free* argument re:wage rate to the whole economy then things look very different to the ideas i think you were promoting.

#4 & #5 I think these points are much the same as above. You've taking a very negative approach to the cost of labour re:sacking and redundancy etc. Again what about R & D etc etc. What about the argument that some jobs are better suited to some economies than others. Its a poor form of economic organistion to have all economies producing the same goods. You seem to have overlooked trade entirely. I appreciate yours is a post on the min wgae but i dont see how you can argue your point in isolation from all the other variables of an economy.

And lets not forget that not one ecomony in the entire world has even been purely market driven....All economies use some form of centralised fiscal and monetary command mechanism to some degree. There is a very good reason for this and that reason is people, you and me. Purity is all well and good but at what cost?


All in all i disagree.
Thanks.
Reply #35 Top
bigrickstallion, thanks for the reply.

Your argument seems to have a fundamental flaw: My factory is profitable. I am a good businessman. I am enriching my own life, the lives of my employees, and the lives of my consumers, by producing my widgets. All my problems begin when the government, in a misguided attempt at social engineering, tries to artificially enrich us even more by imposing a minimum wage. As I have described, this has the opposite effect of impoverishing us all.

You're absolutely right: If the minimum wage makes my factory unprofitable, the only sensible thing for me to do is shut it down and write off whatever capital investment I've already made. Now that I have a business loan I can no longer pay off, and now that all my employees are out of work, please explain to me again how the minimum wage has enriched us.