Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage

People spoke of them as two distinct proposals, and even said the payment would be paid to those that didn't work, so I wanted to make sure.

Minimum wage, where ever you go, is NOT meant to be a "living" wage. HECK, a college said they typically pay their workers about 15.75. But they can do that with just ANYONE! Can you imagine paying $15.75 for someone that steals, cheats, does nothing, etc....? So they start them off at minimum wage. Apparently, in like MONTHS, IF they work out, their pay is bumped up.

They said if the minimum wage goes up, not as many people will get the chance for the higher paying job.

HOBBY LOBBY does the SAME sort of thing! They quickly give raises, and the average worker makes close to DOUBLE the current minimum wage.

AND, if they increase wages, companies will likely ask for resumes, references, and prefer older people with a track record. So that hurts the younger workers.

Steve

Pity! On THAT one, it will ALWAYS be a bad idea. On THIS one it is bad because of the current economy.

Steve

The part I found interesting was that Government was against it, businesses were against it and 75% of the voting populous is against it.

Who was for it? Unions and Socialist.

Joe Mobley

Well, Normal inflation would make it like $9 in the US, though current laws have reduced the value of such a wage, or even one of $10. A government agency has determined $10.10 is too high, but that is what this admin wants. Interestingly, that still doesn't bring the wage to the level it was just a year ago!

BTW the rates in Europe have been higher for a while. That is for basically two reasons. For one, they have taxes and the like that make things more expensive. So they figured in inflation because of THAT! ALSO, the US had a lot of problems, so europe GAVE up on the idea of following the dollar, like they used to do. That meant that things in US dollar terms seem even BETTER, since the US dollar is lower. TODAY, for example, the Euro costs about 37% more than the US dollar!

Steve

Consider for a moment the economic and job growth we would have if we LOWERED minimum wage to $6. Companies would be reporting higher profits due to reduced labor costs, the stock market would soar, unemployment would drop because companies could afford to hire more people, and in competitive markets (food, groceries, etc) prices would drop - all it would take is one chain to drop their prices, and the competitors will follow. That's how competition works.

The country and the majority of society would benefit immediately - the money they're saving on reduced costs from companies that employ a large number of minimum wage workers is now free to spend elsewhere. But that's not all, something else would happen... "Minimum wage" jobs would actually become competitive, because most employers won't cut their existing workers wages. The companies that DID decide to cut would likely lose their better workers to companies that decided not to cut, which would create performance incentives that don't currently exist within minimum wage job markets.

That's how a free market works - a persons contributions to a company should not be measured by government, they should be measured by the person paying the bill. Would you want the government to tell you you have to pay someone $5,000 to paint your house when someone is willing to do just as good of a job for $3,000? If some kid wants to help out around your office for $2.00 per hour just to learn the ropes and get some experience in your field, why should the government mandate you give him more than what he's asking for? Wages should be a private agreement between employer and employee.

Now let's look at what happens when you raise it, because these so-called "economists" who think raising wages is good for the economy never factor in the real math behind it. Going from $7.25 to $8 sounds like such a small bump. What's another 75 cents, right? But what happens to a company that's open 24 hours, with a mere 10 minimum wage workers on the clock at any given time? That increase just cost the company $5,400 per month. Where will that extra $5,400 come from?

The left will say "The owners have plenty, they can afford it." Maybe they're right - but that will never happen in the real world. Nobody starts a business to "create jobs", they start businesses to create a higher standard of living for themselves. That is the only goal - any jobs that are created, and anyone else who gets to make money from that along the way, is a side effect of the motivation of the individual who started it. So no, the owners won't take a pay cut, nor should they. Instead, one of 3 things will happen: either 3 of the 10 people will be let go, hours will be cut back so each individual effectively costs the company the same amount as they did before the increase (meaning their take-home pay ends up the same), or the company will raise its prices. Usually it's a combination of the three. But it's never the owners saying "Oh well, I'll just pay myself less". Ever.

Then the left will say "I'm OK with paying higher prices if it means people get to keep their jobs". Ok, sure. Maybe you're sincere when you say that... but the majority WON'T be OK with it. Either because they won't be able to afford to, or they just don't see the point. Products have a value threshold - I'm not going to pay $50 to take my kids to McDonalds. It's nothing against the workers, I just don't feel like the PRODUCT is worth it.

So I don't go, and neither will hundreds of other people. Now that $5,400 increase, coupled with the loss of business due to higher prices, is really costing McDonalds $10,000. Which, for the typical franchise owner, is more than half of his net pay from an individual location. And this cycle will continue.

Eventually he'll stop throwing away the $10k a month, invest $50k in automation, and cut his staff down to 3 people. But let's not even get into that yet...

Let's look at the BIGGER picture. Many of the companies that employ minimum wage workers are publicly traded. What happens to a company's stock when they start laying off workers or see a decrease in business? Downsville, baby.

"But that only affects Wall Street fat cats" the left will say. Once again, they miss the point. Who REALLY owns that stock? You do. Your parents do. Your grandparents do. The majority of the shareholders are regular Joe's, with their IRA's and 401(k)'s are invested in mutual funds which hold it. Your minimum wage increase, which didn't even improve the buying power of the people it was supposed to help since the prices rose and job market declined to compensate for it, is now TAKING money out of Grandma's retirement income.

And for what? So someone with no skills can make an extra 75 cents an hour?

We need to stop propping up the bottom. We need to say "This is how it is. This is how the world works. If you want more, bring something of value to the table and you'll get it." I can name a couple dozen guys right now, close friends of mine, all making $100k+ salaries that would have similar job offers within a WEEK if they were let go today because they have skills people are willing to pay for.

They weren't born with these skills or born into wealthy families who paid their way through life. They're regular guys, with regular backgrounds, who made a conscious decision to learn things that paid more. Meanwhile, the minimum wage worker made a conscious decision not to.

There are people who make decisions, and there are people who make excuses. It's really that simple. If you're dissatisfied with your post in life, it's not the government's job to give you a raise... it's yours to make yourself worthy of one.