But without minimum wage, most employees would be exploited and underpaid.
As it stands right now, minimum wage is barely enough to get by on and is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to a paycheck.

If a business can't afford to pay its employees as part of the "cost-of-doing-business" then that business "should" fail and make way for a better business model.

Now, no one wants a business to fail, (especially the owner,) but when a business can't make ends meet, they re-evaluate, trim where needed and then adjust the business model to make up for the missing revenues to employ the employees that are needed to keep the place running.

If you can't afford to pay your employees a fair wage that increases with inflation, then you shouldn't be an employer.

This video isn't designed to "convince" anyone of anything.
It's meant to polarize opinions and provide an entry level argument for people who already agree with the basic premise that minimum wage is bad...or
"big government" is bad,
regulation is bad,
gun control is bad so anything those anti-gun liberals support is bad...

Honestly, if you can't poke a million holes in the argument provided in this video then it's simply because you WANT to believe what he's telling you.

it's pretty amazing how hypersimplistic some people's world view is. someone invoke *lies.

Invocations (lies) cannot be called by kir_mokum because kir_mokum is not privileged - sorry.

I agree @kir_mokum
*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by Boise_Lib.

@Sagemind if most employees would be exploited and underpaid without minimum wage, why is it that most employees, today, are earning more instead of *exactly* the minimum wage? I mean, isn't that allegedly what's keeping most employers from exploiting their workers?

I totally agree that businesses should fail if they have to, to be replaced by better business models. However, if we add a burden of minimum wage to a smaller business, wouldn't that benefit established businesses at the expense of struggling newcomers? Wouldn't we be undermining that very competition by making it harder for new business models to replace older ones?

When you mentioned a business should "trim where needed", that trimming might include workers who are less competent or skilled in their craft, and those workers would have to be fired and earn nothing at all because of minimum wage. Doesn't that bother you?

I got his "point" in the first 30 seconds. The rest of the video it is just a long winded faff

Why is it that right wing libertarian think tanks always use cartoons to inculcate their followers? I guess they know their audience.

So, enlighten me guys, what's wrong with what he said?

It's obvious that not all employers seek to exploit - but there are numerous positions that pay the minimum only because they are forced to. They would pay even less if they could - and that's exploitation. To pretend some employers won't take advantage of paying employees less is laughable.

As far as trimming employees. An employer is not going to trim the staff it needs to exist. If an employer can still cover the shifts and turn a profit with one or two less employees, then those employees were never needed to begin with. If they notice that they are constantly a body short, the employer will adjust to accommodate and hire someone back on to fill the void as needed.

If someone is not "skilled-in-their-craft," it's likely they won't last at their job anyway. That's just the way of things. The skilled move forward. The unskilled, retrain and find a new craft.

I'm not unfeeling. I care for the next guy just as much as anyone and I know it sounds cold but... The fact remains, jobs don't exist so that everyone remains employed. Jobs exist so that the employer can ruin his business. Don't pretend it isn't. A business minded person will find a way to make their business turn a profit. That is the sole purpose of a business. A viable income source for first the employer and to keep the business running. The employees are simply the cost of doing business.

>> ^renatojj:

@Sagemind if most employees would be exploited and underpaid without minimum wage, why is it that most employees, today, are earning more instead of exactly the minimum wage? I mean, isn't that allegedly what's keeping most employers from exploiting their workers?
When you mentioned a business should "trim where needed", that trimming might include workers who are less competent or skilled in their craft, and those workers would have to be fired and earn nothing at all because of minimum wage. Doesn't that bother you?

Moving this video to renatojj's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@Sagemind You have a good point, even though I'm not questioning whether employers want to underpay, but whether the minimum wage law is the actual mechanism that's stopping employers from underpaying.

If someone is not skilled, isn't it possible for them to acquire skills while they are employed earning less, so that their employment is not a burden on the business? Isn't making it illegal to hire them hindering them from eventually acquiring the skills they need to become productive and competitive? If so, wouldn't that be most harmful towards those who most need employment, like the poor?

I don't think you're unfeeling, actually, the stated goal of the minimum wage is very honorable. What should be argued is whether it does any good towards that stated goal. Did you know that during the Apartheid, minimum wage laws were imposed as a way of protecting employed white people from losing their jobs to black people who were willing to work for lower wages?

Btw, it's refreshing to see someone willing to argue instead of being closed-minded and quick to dismiss and downvote. This community needs more people like you. Thanks