Angery people.

In reply to STM317 :

Well if that's the case the system is berkeleyed and we need to start modifying the system to control population/have a UBI/create new jobs.

In reply to frenchyd :

Your case? Raising McD’s burger cost a buck.  Post racing the minimum wage 5 Guys will also need to raise their burger prices.  Relative market positions will remain the same, all that will happen is numbers will change. 

In fact prices will go up across the board.  That is good.  It doesn’t matter if it’s cause or effect inflation will happen and managed properly it can be good for the country. 

I don't think you are understanding the effect of inflation on those making minimum wage. Inflation is not good for low wage workers, because the cost of goods and services on the lower end of the market are disproportionally affected. Your example of housing inflation has little to do with low wage workers, who are not buying houses. And your example is an extreme example of buying a house in the right place at the right time, and not indicative of most of the country. How long did it take you to go from $100k to $1m? 30 years? Even that would be outstanding, well above the national average. A friend of mine just bought a 25 year old house from the original owner in one of the hottest housing markets on the country, the CA Bay Area. The original owner paid $300k, sold for $1.2m. You are beating that, you think that happens to every homeowner? And you expect minimum wage earners, who often can't plan to the end of the month, to join your 30 years and lots of luck plan? Assuming they could afford a house in the first place? 

I find it incredibly ironic that your wealth increased dramatically in large part because wealthy people decided to move next to you, driving up your property value. Maybe you had great fore site, got lucky, whatever- I guarantee if housing projects had moved in next door instead of governors and CEO's, you wouldn't be praising inflation right now.

frenchyd said:

In reply to STM317 :

I like that people are beginning to realize that an increase of the minimum wage is not a simple sound bite.  That costs are different in San Francisco  than Waco Texas  but a minimum wage level has to be the absolute floor nation wide.  

Yet if it’s below the actual cost of living  the government makes up the difference. 

 For that reason alone  people should  favor a solid increase.   The government must not underwrite a corporation’s profits. 

We're talking about the government that bailed out Wall St banks and automakers right? And the same government that gives companies tax breaks all the time? Or highly lucrative government contracts? Tell me again how government shouldn't be supplementing businesses.

Also, why should minimum wage be the same in Des Moines as it is in NYC? It seems like it would be much less wasteful to let states determine minimum wage themselves.

In reply to STM317 :

Complicated situation for sure. This is and should be a state issue, but there should also be a Federal minimum wage to cover federal issues. Things like Medicaid, Social Secuity etc should be covered by the Federal min wage while the state's adjusment would cover SNAP, housing etc.

Bailing out the banks and automakers was tough. Seemed like the Fed got a good deal but seems weird to pick the winners and losers. 

Another thing that I love to get on my soap box for is anti trust rules. The #2 problem that needs to be tackled is competition. All these major mergers and acquistions are killing jobs and killing competition. 

In reply to Enyar :

Gosh darn it, I think we're starting to get on the same page here. Better stop before we find more common ground!

In reply to STM317 :

So, Davey the Doo Dad maker is qualified to be in a higher paying job @ Firestone already, but he's not able to work there for some reason? Wilson the shelf stocker can just go right in and get a higher paying job making Doo Dads in Davey's old job? If these people are currently qualified to have better jobs, making more money then why are they settling for lower paying gigs? It's not like companies aren't routinely looking to add talent. If they were all capable of retraining and getting these better jobs then shouldn't they already be doing that?

What if the robot that Bobby builds @ Robo World is a shelf stocking robot that can do the same work as Wilson and his 2 buddies? Bobby got a better gig, and so did his replacement Freddy. But now you've got 3 low skilled workers (hopefully)  trying to retrain and fighting for 1 job making Doo Dads. But the Doo Dad factory is automating even more than they already are and is planning a 25% reduction in staffing. So now those 25% semi-skilled workers are also out of work and competing for jobs and training with Wilson and his unskilled buddies. Expecting a 1:1 ratio of job gains throughout the economy would basically defeat the prime driving force behind automation. These companies want to automate to remove humans from these jobs in order to save money.

 

As for McDs, If they have to increase their worker's wages, then so does 5 guys. And Burger King. And Wendys. And In-n-out. They might choose to respond to the changes differently I suppose but none of the changes are particularly good for low end workers. Perhaps instead of raising prices they reduce staffing, or they keep staffing levels the same but cutback hours and make everybody part-time. How are the workers actually benefiting?

This. People work low wage jobs because they lack the skills, experience, confidence, or motivation to work a higher paying job. If the low paying job went away, they would not automatically be qualified for a better job, they would have to find another low paying job or develop their skills and bring more to the market. 

That said, "low wage worker" is not a class. It's a transitional period for most, and a brief one at that. Lots of people start off working at McDonalds. Most people move on to bigger and better things. Look at the turnover at a low wage job. Most don't stay long. Some stay and move up in the company, or buy their own restaurants. And they can make very good money as a manager or franchise owner. The minimum wage job is not a source to support a family. It's an admission ticket to the process. 

One thing often overlooked is the cost to employ someone. The employer's cost is much higher than the wage.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Part of the reason for entry level jobs is young people need to buy a lot of stuff.  They need transportation, a place of their own to stay, or maybe to save for college. Or Votech school.  

Maybe they need a place for the baby that is on the way.  Maybe mom and dad have split and now that they are paying for two homes they can’t afford to support their child anymore.  

It doesn’t matter!  Anything less than a living wage puts the rest of the burden on the tax payer.   In effect the Walmart’s, McDonalds,  and other minimum/ low wage employers get a subsidy from the tax payer. 

Demand businesses pay a living wage to get them off the tax rolls.  

In reply to frenchyd :

How much can they buy with no job? Because as minimum wage is raised, that is what they are more likely to get. 

Why must I demand that they get a wage that is higher than the market says that their labor is worth? Why can't I demand that they work two jobs instead if they "have" to buy things? Lots of people work two jobs when they are starting off. Not wanting to work two jobs is a good incentive to work towards a better job. Or an unpopular job that pays better. Fast food or Walmart are unskilled jobs that don't pay a lot, but they are not hard jobs. There are plenty of low skill hard jobs that pay more. None in the person's area? No problem, they can move where the jobs are. I've known young, unskilled workers who made more in a summer than many skilled workers make in a year. But the jobs sucked with 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. This is not a this or that discussion. Lots of options for people who want to provide for themselves. Making them victims of their own circumstance is not going to help them. Lowering the bar is not going to help them. They need to help themselves. And most do just fine, without your help. And by help, I mean you volunteering other people to help them for you. 

I think you're a bit off base here frenchyd.  Boost_Crazy and others are right.  I know a few restaurant owners, and mostly they employ HS or college kids.  There are very few full time employees that do not meet that, and the ones that do usually start above those.  Once you start calling for the "living wage" what you are going to do is put most of the people that do want to work there out of a job.  As my buddy that hires in these environments says, if I have to pay that much for a worker, he or she is going to have to have a skill set to go along with it.  In most cases, what you earn goes along with a skill set and how much a demand there is for it.

You seem to think these people have a stash of cash waiting to pay all of this money out.  They don't.  Employees are their biggest expense in most fast food places, and in most businesses to be honest, and as stated, it is not just what the employee sees, but also what must be paid to the government for them.   The only way around that would be to increase prices, sometimes substantially, and that can lead to business failures as you may have fewer customers willing to pay the increased pricing.  When a family of say 4 can no longer go to McDonalds for under say $50 to $75 then I think the gig is up.  The only way around that would be for salaries to rise for everyone, and then what did you effectively accomplish?  If the customer base can no longer afford your product it doesn't make a damn difference what you pay your employees as you won't need then any longer.  

The real problem here is not the minimum wage, as that is just a good sound bite to get voters, the real issue is that we may have families trying to live on it and not progress to better jobs.  Training them to succeed in life is money far better spent rather than perhaps get them a dollar or two more and keep them in poverty the rest of their lives.

we are at 4% unemployment. Wages HAVE to go up as the pool of available people is shrinking.

racerdave600 said:

I think you're a bit off base here frenchyd.  Boost_Crazy and others are right.  I know a few restaurant owners, and mostly they employ HS or college kids.  There are very few full time employees that do not meet that, and the ones that do usually start above those.  Once you start calling for the "living wage" what you are going to do is put most of the people that do want to work there out of a job.  As my buddy that hires in these environments says, if I have to pay that much for a worker, he or she is going to have to have a skill set to go along with it.  In most cases, what you earn goes along with a skill set and how much a demand there is for it.

You seem to think these people have a stash of cash waiting to pay all of this money out.  They don't.  Employees are their biggest expense in most fast food places, and in most businesses to be honest, and as stated, it is not just what the employee sees, but also what must be paid to the government for them.   The only way around that would be to increase prices, sometimes substantially, and that can lead to business failures as you may have fewer customers willing to pay the increased pricing.  When a family of say 4 can no longer go to McDonalds for under say $50 to $75 then I think the gig is up.  The only way around that would be for salaries to rise for everyone, and then what did you effectively accomplish?  If the customer base can no longer afford your product it doesn't make a damn difference what you pay your employees as you won't need then any longer.  

The real problem here is not the minimum wage, as that is just a good sound bite to get voters, the real issue is that we may have families trying to live on it and not progress to better jobs.  Training them to succeed in life is money far better spent rather than perhaps get them a dollar or two more and keep them in poverty the rest of their lives.

Look I’m not looking to get any votes here. I just don’t like the government subsidizing private business.  Talk about picking winners and losers, this should be a hot button issue on that subject.  

I’m not unaware of the difficulty involved. I’ve seen numbers that a modest annual increase achieves it fast enough.  Last time was 2009 ?  Why not a buck an hour per year?   Maybe slightly less. Gives Ma and Pa business time to  adjust prices sufficiently to deal with it in a realistic manor.  

Another source says that with restaurants modest increases result In temporary selection of slightly lower cost items on the menu until the clientele adapt to the raised prices.  

Another way to deal is slightly smaller portions. More European in size than the glutinous American sized ones.  

Perhaps a combination of both?  Seriously there has to be a way for employees to live without government aide and a business to still make a profit. 

The hard part of all of this is there isn’t one right answer.  It’s said that it costs $58.XX an hour to live in San Francisco and $11.xx an hour in San Antonio. So is $15 really out of line?    

Yes there are countless ways to economize but sooner or later an illness or unanticipated event puts the lower wage employee out of work.  Then it starts all over.  

New employees have a turnover cost.  Employee stability is a good goal.  

mad_machine said:

we are at 4% unemployment. Wages HAVE to go up as the pool of available people is shrinking.

In addition as unemployment drops the quality of low cost employees go down.  Now a few of those former drug addicts and  and schedule phobic will use this opportunity to  return to real world requirements and resume there progress up the worker ladder. However most of the bottom dwellers will remain just that bottom dwellers. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Your case? Raising McD’s burger cost a buck.  Post racing the minimum wage 5 Guys will also need to raise their burger prices.  Relative market positions will remain the same, all that will happen is numbers will change. 

In fact prices will go up across the board.  That is good.  It doesn’t matter if it’s cause or effect inflation will happen and managed properly it can be good for the country. 

I don't think you are understanding the effect of inflation on those making minimum wage. Inflation is not good for low wage workers, because the cost of goods and services on the lower end of the market are disproportionally affected. Your example of housing inflation has little to do with low wage workers, who are not buying houses. And your example is an extreme example of buying a house in the right place at the right time, and not indicative of most of the country. How long did it take you to go from $100k to $1m? 30 years? Even that would be outstanding, well above the national average. A friend of mine just bought a 25 year old house from the original owner in one of the hottest housing markets on the country, the CA Bay Area. The original owner paid $300k, sold for $1.2m. You are beating that, you think that happens to every homeowner? And you expect minimum wage earners, who often can't plan to the end of the month, to join your 30 years and lots of luck plan? Assuming they could afford a house in the first place? 

I find it incredibly ironic that your wealth increased dramatically in large part because wealthy people decided to move next to you, driving up your property value. Maybe you had great fore site, got lucky, whatever- I guarantee if housing projects had moved in next door instead of governors and CEO's, you wouldn't be praising inflation right now.

I should claim innocence because I bought not to profit but because I wanted to.  To be fair shortly after buying here I had a chance to sell at a profit and buy in an even better location. Massively bigger house with a much larger yard.  That property recently sold for 6.5 million. 

I decided with my relatively modest income I’d constantly be on the edge of losing it. So I passed.  

in hindsight I’m glad I did.  

As for the gains of inflation.  Most home owners “banked”  the increase and used it to add comfort to their retirement.  Some lost everything betting inflation would continue .  

Those at the bottom, the renters condemned to permanent rental status are unlikely to see the potential and remain. A small handful  will and I guess that’s the best we can hope for.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Look I’m not looking to get any votes here. I just don’t like the government subsidizing private business.  Talk about picking winners and losers, this should be a hot button issue on that subject.  

I completely agree with you here, we are just 180 degrees out on how how to solve it. We both agree that an able bodied adult cannot support themselves on a single minimum wage job. 

You argue that they should be able to, because otherwise the government will have to subsidize him until he can support himself. 

I argue that should not be the case, you are assuming that he needs support when he does not. He may take it if you give it to him, but he doesn't need it. Either way, government support or increase minimum wage, society is subsidizing him. The government doesn't have any money of it's own, we are the government. If anything, as much as I hate the idea of subsidizing him through the government, a larger portion of that subsidy would come from higher income earners who pay most of the taxes. A minimum wage raise is also a subsidy, but paid directly by customers, more likely low wage earners. That said, a subsidy of any kind would have a negative impact for all- the tax payer or customer, the employee himself because he is not earning what he is worth and growing correspondingly, and the prospective employee who should be filling that position. And so the cycle continues. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

How much can they buy with no job? Because as minimum wage is raised, that is what they are more likely to get. 

Why must I demand that they get a wage that is higher than the market says that their labor is worth? Why can't I demand that they work two jobs instead if they "have" to buy things? Lots of people work two jobs when they are starting off. Not wanting to work two jobs is a good incentive to work towards a better job. Or an unpopular job that pays better. Fast food or Walmart are unskilled jobs that don't pay a lot, but they are not hard jobs. There are plenty of low skill hard jobs that pay more. None in the person's area? No problem, they can move where the jobs are. I've known young, unskilled workers who made more in a summer than many skilled workers make in a year. But the jobs sucked with 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. This is not a this or that discussion. Lots of options for people who want to provide for themselves. Making them victims of their own circumstance is not going to help them. Lowering the bar is not going to help them. They need to help themselves. And most do just fine, without your help. And by help, I mean you volunteering other people to help them for you. 

Loss of jobs is a weak argument  to allow the owners to pocket the benefits of inflation. 

Weak because there isn’t a single businessman who employs someone simply because they are cheap. Owners/ bosses. only  employ  people they need and the smart ones don’t look for the cheapest but the best for whatever they can afford to pay. 

 Depending on the lowest cost employees is almost a sure way  to failure.  

Follow Henry Ford’s example. When he was having trouble finding employees he doubled the wages to $5.00 a day.  As a result he had his choice of the best workers in the country.  Those workers helped make his Model T a success and Ford the richest man in the country/ world. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Look I’m not looking to get any votes here. I just don’t like the government subsidizing private business.  Talk about picking winners and losers, this should be a hot button issue on that subject.  

I completely agree with you here, we are just 180 degrees out on how how to solve it. We both agree that an able bodied adult cannot support themselves on a single minimum wage job. 

You argue that they should be able to, because otherwise the government will have to subsidize him until he can support himself. 

I argue that should not be the case, you are assuming that he needs support when he does not. He may take it if you give it to him, but he doesn't need it. Either way, government support or increase minimum wage, society is subsidizing him. The government doesn't have any money of it's own, we are the government. If anything, as much as I hate the idea of subsidizing him through the government, a larger portion of that subsidy would come from higher income earners who pay most of the taxes. A minimum wage raise is also a subsidy, but paid directly by customers, more likely low wage earners. That said, a subsidy of any kind would have a negative impact for all- the tax payer or customer, the employee himself because he is not earning what he is worth and growing correspondingly, and the prospective employee who should be filling that position. And so the cycle continues. 

Here is what I know. Higher wages means more demand and faster growth.  Lower taxes for the  1%  means less demand and slower growth.  

The 1% are doing just fine.  They won’t go anyplace.  American taxes when considered with opportunity is a smart place to Invest in.   A smart government treats the richest  tax wise  as a good customer. The government should raise taxes to the point where the  richest pays as much as  they can pay and still remain here. 

Sort of like Mc Donald’s does on pricing their menu.  

I'm not sure but frequently citing the Ford example might not be a good argument.  People were different then.  Very different.  It's rarely a good argument to cite history.  Universal truths yes.                                                                                                                                                                                         Many people will walk away from very good paying jobs and take lesser paying job for whatever personal reasons also.  John Horvat II recently wrote an article asserting our world today is a walk away world.  Certainly I don't think we should ever overlook the human side of our nature and rely on utilitarian contemplations concerning the poor who will always be with us.  

In reply to nutherjrfan :  Your statement about a walk away world is correct.   Especially about human nature. 

However my example about Ford is a fundamental truth. It’s the principle CEO’s are hired as well as all top management.   The point of departure is when we treat humans like a machine.  Purchased at the lowest price possible to do a given task.   

A bus boy for example can be clumsy or graceful about clearing a table.  Since you can’t tell which he is in the job application you buy him as cheap as possible. Hopefully increasing his pay as he proves himself.  However that isn’t always the case.  

STM317 said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to STM317 :

I like that people are beginning to realize that an increase of the minimum wage is not a simple sound bite.  That costs are different in San Francisco  than Waco Texas  but a minimum wage level has to be the absolute floor nation wide.  

Yet if it’s below the actual cost of living  the government makes up the difference. 

 For that reason alone  people should  favor a solid increase.   The government must not underwrite a corporation’s profits. 

We're talking about the government that bailed out Wall St banks and automakers right? And the same government that gives companies tax breaks all the time? Or highly lucrative government contracts? Tell me again how government shouldn't be supplementing businesses.

Also, why should minimum wage be the same in Des Moines as it is in NYC? It seems like it would be much less wasteful to let states determine minimum wage themselves.

Wealth equals power. The banking industry called in their chips from all those millions donated to the politicians campaigns. Same with all those the government bails out.  

It’s not right and everybody knows it but the lower classes don’t own politicians. The 1% does. 

That’s why minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009 The poor only vote and often not in their best interest.  They are so easily distracted by special interests.  Religion guns abortion etc. 

As to states versus federal government.  In a state because it’s so much cheaper and easier to control it’s far easier for the rich and powerful to set a lower level than the federal government. 

Right now it costs $11.xx an hour in the cheapest areas to earn a living wage so is $15.xx an hour really an extravagance?   

Remember the poorest states also have the poorest health, the poorest education, the poorest wages. 

You simply won’t get any applicants in New York San Diego  Honolulu  Or San Francisco for jobs at the federal minimum wages.  

But you will get companies paying less than the $50.00+ an hour a living wage costs there. 

Then the taxpayer makes up the difference.  

Isn’t it time the tax payer gets a break and companies figure out how to employ people without federal or state subsidies?  

I can only go by my own experiences. I worked for years for a company that would only pay me $10/hr. I worked hard, I never wrecked the truck, and as I found out later, most of my fellow employees made more, but I was stuck at $10/hr.

When I quit that job, I took my experience to the Casinos and made over 3 times that amount. My ex-employer lost a good employee who knew a lot and was in demand at other businesses. His loss was my big gain. If he had doubled my pay, I might not have left. It was convenient to home, I liked the work, and I had good friends there. From what I understand, my position has been a revolving door since.

In reply to frenchyd :

Ok, so lets do some math. The internet tells me that WalMart currently pays cashiers around $10/hr. Lets say they employ 40 cashiers at a store (full timers, part timers, etc). Your assertion is that it takes $15/hr to support them, with $10 coming from WalMart in the form of wages and the other $5 currently coming from taxpayers in the form of various subsidies, tax returns, etc. So, WalMart currently spends $400/hr on cashiers  ($10 X 40 cashiers) and Joe Taxpayer spends $200/hr ($5 X 40 cashiers)  to subsidize them.

Now, say WalMart is required to pay them $15/hr living wage. WalMart is in an absolutely cut throat retail industry. They're not going to just give 40 cashiers a 50% raise without some changes. Their clientele has made it very clear that low prices are their highest priority, so raising prices and passing the costs to the consumer isn't an appealing option for them. They're more likely to install self-checkout lanes where a single cashier can monitor 6 lanes instead of just one lane. This means fewer cashiers are needed, so they downsize by something like 40% to 24 cashiers. So you've got 24 cashiers that are fully supported by WalMart and 16 former cashiers that are now fully supported by the gov. 24 cashiers X $15/hr = $360/hr for WalMart to staff their store with cashiers. 16 unemployed cashiers X $15/hr = $240/hr that the government is now paying. The cashiers and former cashiers are all seeing the same amount that they saw before but WalMart's cost went down, and the gov's cost increased. This doesn't include any other reductions in costs that WalMart would see from downsizing the number of cashiers by reducing the amount of benefits and other costs associated with employing somebody.

Now to be fair, if WalMart reduced staffing by less than 33%, the math works out in favor of the Gov. But is it helping the cashiers in either scenario? They're seeing the equivalent of $15/hr either way according to your assertion. But with a higher minimum wage, some places are very likely to increase prices, and increased prices lead to increased sales tax on purchases. So you've got a cashier that's making the same amount as before that now has to pay more for goods and pay more in taxes. How is that helping them?

In reply to STM317 :

All Walmarts I've been in already have self-checkout lanes.  Of the 20 or so standard lanes, typically only 4 or 5 actually have cashiers.  Typically only during the high volume holiday period are the majority of lanes active.

A friend of mine is a dept manager at a Walmart store.  She hates it beyond belief but where she lives in central PA there simply aren't many employment options. 

In reply to Ian F :

Yep. I try to avoid going into my local store so I haven't counted, but I think it has something like 30 single checkout lanes, about 10 express lanes for 15 items or less, and at least a dozen self checkout lanes. The self checkout lanes are always staffed. The single checkout lanes might have 2-4 lanes open.

When profit is king, and the margins are so small, workers are easily seen as a liability. That only becomes more true the lower the skill level required is to complete a job.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Look I’m not looking to get any votes here. I just don’t like the government subsidizing private business.  Talk about picking winners and losers, this should be a hot button issue on that subject.  

I completely agree with you here, we are just 180 degrees out on how how to solve it. We both agree that an able bodied adult cannot support themselves on a single minimum wage job. 

You argue that they should be able to, because otherwise the government will have to subsidize him until he can support himself. 

I argue that should not be the case, you are assuming that he needs support when he does not. He may take it if you give it to him, but he doesn't need it. Either way, government support or increase minimum wage, society is subsidizing him. The government doesn't have any money of it's own, we are the government. If anything, as much as I hate the idea of subsidizing him through the government, a larger portion of that subsidy would come from higher income earners who pay most of the taxes. A minimum wage raise is also a subsidy, but paid directly by customers, more likely low wage earners. That said, a subsidy of any kind would have a negative impact for all- the tax payer or customer, the employee himself because he is not earning what he is worth and growing correspondingly, and the prospective employee who should be filling that position. And so the cycle continues. 

I get where you're coming from but I think you're wrong here. Yes, in the end we the taxpayer will be fronting the costs for government subsidies (SNAP, Medicaid, etc) or through paying higher prices at the register. What's important to note is that while all taxpayers will be paying for subsidies, not all will be paying for the higher register prices. If the true cost of buying a gallon of oil from Walmart is $20 instead of $15, then people may decide to substitute with $18 oil from Napa where the employees are paid more than minimum wage because they have a little bit of knowledge. Or they may go longer between oil changes. Or Granola Gary rides a bike to work and berkeleying hates petrol burners so he doesn't shop at Walmart. Although his tax dollars now  subsidize Walmart workers, if the minimum wage was increased and subsidies decreased he would not be.

A capitalistic society cant correctly function when costs are being skewed from external forces. Don't get me started on farm subsidies.

STM317 said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Ok, so lets do some math. The internet tells me that WalMart currently pays cashiers around $10/hr. Lets say they employ 40 cashiers at a store (full timers, part timers, etc). Your assertion is that it takes $15/hr to support them, with $10 coming from WalMart in the form of wages and the other $5 currently coming from taxpayers in the form of various subsidies, tax returns, etc. So, WalMart currently spends $400/hr on cashiers  ($10 X 40 cashiers) and Joe Taxpayer spends $200/hr ($5 X 40 cashiers)  to subsidize them.

Now, say WalMart is required to pay them $15/hr living wage. WalMart is in an absolutely cut throat retail industry. They're not going to just give 40 cashiers a 50% raise without some changes. Their clientele has made it very clear that low prices are their highest priority, so raising prices and passing the costs to the consumer isn't an appealing option for them. They're more likely to install self-checkout lanes where a single cashier can monitor 6 lanes instead of just one lane. This means fewer cashiers are needed, so they downsize by something like 40% to 24 cashiers. So you've got 24 cashiers that are fully supported by WalMart and 16 former cashiers that are now fully supported by the gov. 24 cashiers X $15/hr = $360/hr for WalMart to staff their store with cashiers. 16 unemployed cashiers X $15/hr = $240/hr that the government is now paying. The cashiers and former cashiers are all seeing the same amount that they saw before but WalMart's cost went down, and the gov's cost increased. This doesn't include any other reductions in costs that WalMart would see from downsizing the number of cashiers by reducing the amount of benefits and other costs associated with employing somebody.

 

Now to be fair, if WalMart reduced staffing by less than 33%, the math works out in favor of the Gov. But is it helping the cashiers in either scenario? They're seeing the equivalent of $15/hr either way according to your assertion. But with a higher minimum wage, some places are very likely to increase prices, and increased prices lead to increased sales tax on purchases. So you've got a cashier that's making the same amount as before that now has to pay more for goods and pay more in taxes. How is that helping them?

See my post above that I believe touches on your example. It's impossible to make judgement with your example because like you said the numbers could go either way. It's also making huge assumptions about changing the product (with even LESS customer service) so you're not comparing apples to apples. The only real takeaway is that all things equal, prices would have to go up