Then employers will simply wholesale fire other employees. The point is that when costs go up, the demand curve shifts. Forcing businesses to do otherwise would wreak havoc.

Having employers that can't provide decent workplaces and decent pay go under is a good thing. That's the goal of these regulations. It's sometimes incorrectly seen as an unwanted side effect of more labor friendly regulations - but it's not. Employers that can't pay a living wage should simply go under.

Having fewer employees work better hours (full time) is also a desired effect.

Well your theory kind of flies in the face of most economist's views, which should be a red flag.

I don't think forcing companies to go out of business because they can't "provide wages" for employees makes sense. For one thing, that's not remotely the goal of the business. For another, nothing guarantees that these companies will go under, rather than (as most are doing) simply cutting back on some hours and some jobs.

You seem to suggest that the natural state of the world is a bunch of businesses paying a high wage, and that if we just get rid of all these businesses that are paying lower than that, we'd find jobs for everyone in higher-paying places. The truth is that some people simply can't provide more than $15 an hour in value to any business, for whatever reason, and no business will ever pay them more. These people will simply remain unemployed.

I think that it's more or less if not an explicit goal then at least an accepted reality of unions worldwide that businesses should pay reasonable wages or not be in business at all.

As you point out, this has a number of consequences, all of which are acceptable from the perspective of unions:

- Low wage unqualified jobs, beneath some lowest threshold of skill simply cannot exist. This level varies between markets, but e.g there are no shoe polishers or elevator attendants in Scandinavia.

- The natural rate of unemployment is higher than it otherwise would be. Basically instead of having 10% doing low paying jobs, you have 10% on generous unemployment benefits.

So essentially - and in accordance to all economic theory I know - having high wages and few unqualified jobs is certainly possible IF you

- spend lots of tax money on having an educated workforce

- have generous unemployment benefits

- Accept that society basically provides for anyone that doesn't provide value enough - either by training or just supporting them financially. Labor collectives prefer the state to pay these people instead of them driving wages down (because as you point out they don't provide that value)

Basically the scheme is possible if you tax the top N% of earners so much that you can let the bottom M% not have to work crap jobs.

Whether this is an appetizing solution depends on your political preferences of course, I'd say it's a pretty progressive version of social democracy, and it's found for example in the Nordic countries.

I think you've mixed up employees and employers a few times there, makes for confusing reading.

Haha thanks, I sorted it I think. If "e" and "r" makes any difference to a word then why are the keys right next to eachother?

Last election, Santa Clara (county, IIRC) had a ballot proposition up to change their labor law so that a business which needed additional hours worked would be required to offer them first to existing employees (potentially putting them over thresholds for things like full-time employment status) before they could hire any additional employees to work those hours.

It's a game of whack-a-mole, but if you want to get to living wage + benefits for everyone, that's kind of how you have to go about it, since businesses will always hunt for loopholes.

It's also a race to the bottom if you allow counties or even states to have local more "business friendly" employment laws. If every employer in the country was required to offer full time and 20 days paid vacation, then it wouldn't be a competitive disadvantage to do so.

except for global markets...

"Even people paid by the hour obviously need contracts that ensure them an amount of work"

I wish this were the case everywhere. I've just signed my first job contract in Norway, and I gotta say I prefer it. Folks working here have a right to a job contract. Even if you are part-time or temporary/seasonal. Even if you work fast food. Even getting paid hourly.

It does take care of things like getting wages cut and having trouble getting unemployment for it. You have proof in your contract.

That said, the contracts really don't really make wages more fair, merely affects some of the reactions to a rising minimum wage. There really isn't anything about a contract that would stipulate a better wage offer. Instead, it forces folks to be a lot more upfront about the job, wages, and promises of pay hikes/time off. The employee can sign it or not, the same as they can accept or deny a job now.

I'm gonna guess you can do away with minimum wage laws, but only if you actually have a balancing force against employers, even in times of economic downturn. Laws do that, especially if updated and adjusted to make sense for the times, but I don't know of anything else that could do that. Theoretically folks can just change jobs, form a union, or get schooling/training, but this doesn't realistically work for many minimum-wage workers. A strong safety net might make those sorts of things more possible, though.

Not a very viable solution: but you can apply for unemployment for those missing hours.