Heh. The article is making the opposite claim, and the quoted paragraph was provided as counterpoint to the subject of the article.

I don't buy the bullet points pushed by pundits when "raising the minimum wage" is discussed.

One of the current hallmarks of today's economy is "high productivity"

I think that just means that employers are getting more product out of every employee.
But it also probably means they are paying the least amount of wages they can,
and their employees are working about as hard as they can.

If such is the case, employers are not as likely to lay off the workers they have now.
If they did, there were be fewer products and lower profits.

Consider a restaurant, if they laid off waiters/waitresses or cooks,
fewer meals would be served, and profits would go down

Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on.

Would you pay more for a meal at a place paying very high salaries to their wait staff, Lamp?

Not "employee", but "payroll dollar". There's no such thing as people to The Man, only numbers.

In the short term, profits would go up. Fewer meals wouldn't be served, right off the bat, they'd just take longer to get to the table, people would have to wait to order, etc. When customers stopped coming for those reasons is when fewer meals would be served and profits would drop.

I doubt it. American business isn't like Japanese business - they don't think long term. They see the short term improvement and think it will just continue. Six months later, they fold.

We already do.

Your stance is that minimum wage is "very high salaries" ?

It's a hypothetical.

OK, whatever that means.

It means I'm asking you a leading question as part of a discussion.

OK, my answer is Yes. Go ahead and say whatever you wanted to say.

Sorry, it's an annoying line of conversation, online. I will shorten the transaction.


In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?

It's because you said, "Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on."

I think the "move on" part is unacceptable. That's what a lot of this thread is about. Can't just throw away one side of the equation.

Now you have paid $10 more for your ribeye at Texas Roadhouse and your server was well-compensated. So far so good. But you can't just "move on", because now there are $10 fewer dollars in your billfold. So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?

From your link, what the hell is the difference between the duties of a Host vs a Hostess? Different pay and different pay range. :eyebrow:

UT, I think we have each misunderstood one another.
In my post, by "they" I meant the "employer" would move on.
Obviously the employer has several options ... taking a smaller profit is one, raising meal prices is another, or reducing other costs (menu, portion size, ingredients, etc.) are within the purview of the employer.

The employee has only 2 options... continue at currently offered wage or look for work elsewhere.

Within your meaning, whatever I would do if I had $10 less in my billfold would depend on my level of income and assets.
At some level downwards, I would not be able to pay for the meal.
At some level upwards, $10 would not make any difference at all.

My view of the minimum wage is that a (relatively) small increase in wages can make a much more significant improvement in the life of employees than the same sized decrease in profit will make in the life of the employer.
But all that is for a different posting

It's gender discrimination ;)