In other words, if a business cannot be profitable _and_ pay it's staff a livable wage, then the answer is to make adjustments so it can do both, or close the business. Paying staff a non-livable wage, while perhaps making/retaining a profit, is still hard on the business (high turnover rate, constantly retraining new people, etc), and is nearly untenable for the staff (required to work multiple jobs, 1 paycheck away from not making rent, etc).
As a business owner, I know "close the business" sounds ludicrous to business owners, and isn't even on the table, but this so-called "labor shortage" is going to force things to go one way or the other.
Clamping the lower bound of wages may put many of such people out of an opportunity to make some money. In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage?
This, of course, works best if the job is not taking 8 hours a day. I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad; actually, my son worked this way for some time, which allowed him to pass a rough spot in job market in 2020-2021.
Problem being, things today are indicating what is happening is not for the good of employees, but for the good of employers. Which brings with it a whole other slew of issues which disenfranchises the worker class. Which historically is a really bad idea if one's goal is to maintain a peaceful, functional society.
It's why the question of "should X be able to make a livable wage" is one which has to be answered very carefully, as this question is slowly slipping into the territory of "should people who spend most their lives doing what others want be able to afford living". That's how revolutions start.
Yes. Many teenagers of working age are head of household and shouldn’t have their wages undercut by the dependent children of others.
> I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad
Because it makes life unnecessarily stressful. Transportation costs, typically borne by the worker, increase dramatically. It’s more efficient to work a single job, if possible.
Not sure how they’d be priced in SF, but to my intuition that seems out of working homelesss range. In cheaper cities though, definitely.
This is true on an individual level, but I don't believe that there has been much efficiency increase here that has permeated through the industry. There has been no shovel to digger moment that has improved the ability for most waitresses to do their work much more efficiently. I think it's going to happen with self-checkout though (you will still need someone to staff self-checkout).
>Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it.
But workers are better paid in the US than in almost any other country in the world: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY
Also look up part timers in Japan, and the kind of capitalism there.
If you can't make a profit under reasonable conditions you have a cult, or perhaps a crime syndicate. Or a slave plantation.
What you don't have is a business run by balanced functional adults.
Do you have a strategy of implementing feedback from these highly skilled workers that you have hired, or is your feedback loop pointed at a black hole?
Do you have high employee turnover?
Do you feel like as the boss, you are allowed to sexually harass your staff?
Imagine opening up a shoe factory, finding out that the price of leather was too high to make a profit on leather shoes, and instead of reworking my business to match my expenses I instead demand that the leather be sold to me at a lower price. When the leather providers refuse, I go complain to a bunch of newspapers that nobody wants to sell leather anymore and that we're in a leather shortage.
If your business requires all of its supplies and inputs to be sold to you below market value, then you don't have a business, you have a charity.
Everyone would be able to make a profitable construction business if they got their lumber for free. Everyone could run a department store profitably if all of their inventory was given to them. But sustainable business is about learning how to build a product/service that generates more profit than the costs required to make it. If the initial costs are too high or it's a question of scaling, then that's what investments and/or subsidies are for. But either way, it's silly to try and shame suppliers (employees) for setting their own prices.
Profit is simply income minus expenses, accounting nonsense aside.
The problem is not that businesses cannot make a profit. Rather, its that we've build in worker exploitation into our economy. Our prices should be higher than they are.
Externalities.
This is really a very complex problem and equation. There is also the question of "worker exploitation" in the sense of "is it reasonable to assume a McDonalds cashier should earn enough to support a family?".
In some, maybe even many, cases workers are likely underpaid. However, in many other cases, workers are paid relative to their overall value, but those same workers want to have a standard of living that is simply not practical with the job they hold.
I am unconvinced that this is the reason that businesses don't pay workers more.
Workers are usually paid according to their _replacement_ cost not the value they bring generally. In an ideal equilibrium, where the worker can push back against the employer equally, sure. However, that's seldom the case.
Businesses also push back harder by hiring _definitely_ exploited workers, e.g. in agriculture and meat packing, or by hiring contractors.
Part of "lower wage taxes" would roll down to "less government support", which would theoretically roll down to "more people seeking gainful employment", which would affect the supply/demand curve of the labor pool, etc.
I mean, we've run these experiments. There's no need for "theoretically." You can compare outcomes in countries with more and fewer social programs. Spend a couple hours comparing healthcare outcomes, poverty rates, unhoused rates, etc across various first-world nations, compare that to tax rates and social program availability, and see if you can come to any conclusions.
I will say I have not studied this deeply, but I've also given it much more than just casual thought, so I am genuinely curious to know what your sample examples of successful countries are.
Part of positive inflation metrics is that it was reinforced by cheaper electronics. But what about anything where human labor is involved that isn't outsourced to low wage countries?
Reasonable conditions of today include supporting wealth inequality (ridiculously top heavy salaries) to the point of being unstable.
Sometimes you do just need to accept decisions and move on. Or find a middle ground.