Minimum Wage Unions: Car wash in New York City = Failure

So for those who don't want to watch the whole thing....

Unions in NYC, made a push to unionize the car wash employees. They succeeded in unionizing 11 car washes. Two of those car washes closed down. Three others, the unions left the car wash after employees opposed the unions.

With the Union drive failing, the activists started pushing for a higher minimum wage. The results of this was to drive car washes to replace people with machines. This was a huge benefit for car washes that were already mechanized.

Meanwhile, many formerly employed car wash people have started illegally washing cars from vans parked on the street. These shadow economy car washes, are now the target of government and the Unions, to be shut down and jailed.

Some of the very employees that supported the Unions, now are the target of the Unions to be thrown in jail.

Conclusion:

Unions are not there for the benefit of the workers. This is a well known, and established fact. They harm the people that they claim to be for.

The minimum wage eliminates jobs, and drives people into the black market.

Everything that right-wing people have said about Unions and the Minimum Wage, documented and empirically observed, in 3 years.

And contrary to the claims that the owners will make do with less profits, and other nonsense..... Instead the owners were making even more money than before, because the unions and the laws, drove out competition, while at the same time reducing their labor costs and making even more profits.

Two key moments in the video:

A man who runs a car wash installation company, said that in years before, they were removing automatic car washes in favor of manual labor, which created jobs.

The Unions and the Minimum wage completely changed that trend, where now they are reinstalling automatic car washes to replace manual labor, eliminating jobs.

The other key moment was the car wash Vegas Auto Spa, which was where the protest first started, where all the employees celebrated their victory and their unionization....... was closed, and all the employees laid off.

Yarddog said:

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income | Congressional Budget Office

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum-wage increase.

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. CBO examined family income overall and for various income groups, reaching the following conclusions (see the figure below):

• Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
• Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).
• Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
• Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.

Click to expand...

Let's think about this rationally for a moment.

We both cited information about the minimum wage.

I cited a real life direct example, of the actual empirically documented results of the minimum wage.
You cited a report put out by a government agency controlled by politicians, that published estimated effects.

Which do you think that citizens should consider more an accurate assessment of the minimum wage? Real life examples of documented effects? Or a report by politicians of estimated results?

Let me make my position clear. The politicians have been lying about the minimum wage for decades. It doesn't do what they claim it does, and never has. Not one time has it ever had the positive effects they claim. Not once.

New York City, demonstrated in unambiguous clear cut proof, that the minimum wage harms jobs, and results in lower unemployment. It isn't an estimate, it is documented fact.

Yarddog said:

What you provided is a small slice of what has happened in NYC. A video can be easily manipulated by its producer. If you want to provide actual data based on facts regarding how the minimum wage has affected all other the car washes, plus all other aspects of the issue, please do. There isn't much raw data about this on the internet which I could find.

The CBO is a source, unlike yours, with no prejudice in the matter.

Click to expand...

So can an 'estimate' from a governmental agency? The CBO has no prejudice in the matter? That's crazy. Go read Thomas Sowells book, where he talks about working for the government, and having people give him "suggestions" on how to improve his reports, and then end up re-writing them when he missed the "suggestions". There is no government agency, in existence in the world, that doesn't have a bias.

The difference is, an government agency can't force former car wash employees to illegally run a car wash out of a van. The video documentation was pretty detailed. Can you prove the car washes they said closed didn't? Or the car washes that replaced employees with automation didn't? Or would you like to claim former employees were not running a car wash illegally, and provide an explanation why the Union was openly in favor of shutting down these car washes that didn't exist?

By all means, go prove the video wrong. Go talk to the immigrants who opposed the Unions, or the shop owners who closed, or the shop owners that automated.

You can easily disprove the video if it was in fact wrong.

But you'll need facts, not an estimated benefit that never materialized. At this point, even if you tried to debate the negative impact, what you can't at all debate is the lack of a positive impact. All the Utopian claims of what would happen, simply didn't.

Yarddog said:

Yes, with far more facts than your claim about Unions.

What's crazy is trusting a conservative Libertarian editor and film maker with giving facts which doesn't support his political position.

No one is forcing them to do that. They choose to.

He gave the details he wanted you to know. Can you provide facts from an unbiased source to back up all of his claims?

Can you prove they closed for the reasons that he claimed?

Can you prove that they did? No, you are just taking his word.

They were probably running them before. Most of the employees are illegal immigrants according to the film maker. That is how the car washes got by with paying such low wages. The owners had tried automation years ago but cheap illegal immigrant labor allowed them to operate bette, according to your guy.

Then you could also easily prove your OP if it is correct. That is your responsibility.

I'll be waiting for your fact sheet.

Click to expand...

The CBO was published estimates. Not facts.

This is actual documented real life effects.

What's crazy is trusting a conservative Libertarian editor and film maker with giving facts which doesn't support his political position.

If you can provide clear contradictory evidence, go for it. Not estimates from a bunch of politicians. Provide facts, real facts.

No one is forcing them to do that. They choose to.

So people had legal jobs, then you changed the laws, and now they don't have jobs, and instead are working on the street.

No one is forcing them?

After Germany enacted a minimum wage in 2015, the first thing that happened was an increase in the shadow economy. The term "shadow economy" is used in Europe to describe black market workers. Which is what we're talking about here.

Minimum wage fuels Germany's underground economy | DW | 03.02.2015

Same thing in Greece. Greece had a minimum wage for decades that was tied to inflation. The result was 21% or 1/5th of the entire Greek economy is black market.

Greek Shadow Economy Market Worst in the EU, Costly Too - The National Herald

There is universally across this entire world, a correlation between the minimum wage and the shadow economy.

Can you prove they closed for the reasons that he claimed?

Really? So you have a profitable business that has operated since 2009, and immediately sells the business after being unionized? Then the new owner, closes it?

Here is another hint. The owner sold the business at a loss according to several accounts.
One More Folded Sunset: Owner Selling Vegas Auto Spa

This account is particularly interesting because the person supports the union and employees.

Now my question for you is, why would the owner sell a business at a loss? Profitable businesses, usually sell for about 10X the profits. If a business was making $200K, you would expect to sell for a $2 Million dollars or more.

Yet in this case, the entire business sold for under the value of the installed equipment. Why do you think that is? Likely the same reason the new owners after buying the place, closed it.

The unions and the minimum wage, made making a profit impossible, and so it was closed. Why would you close a profitable business? And don't tell me that it wasn't profitable since 2009. It wouldn't have been open this long if it wasn't.

So yes, it was clearly the minimum wage and the unions, that ruined this business.

If you need more evidence, there are numerous direct statements by business owners.
Thanks To The Fight For $15 Minimum Wage, Small Businesses Close And Employees Are Laid Off

There are dozens of examples in that one article alone. Not a single example of the 'employment boost' that was 'estimated' in your CBO garbage.

Can you prove that they did? No, you are just taking his word.

Really, so a business owner that openly says "We are replacing workers with machines", and has video of machines being installed.... is not proof? It's just "taking his word"?

And talking to a guy who does car wash installations for a living, and says openly that the Unions and Minimum wage have been driving his customers to order his services to install machines... is not proof? It's just "taking his word"?

If that proof, isn't proof to you, then there is no such thing as proof in your world. That is about as clear cut proof as you can get.

Then you could also easily prove your OP if it is correct. That is your responsibility.

By that logic, then you need to prove your CBO is correct. That is your responsibility.

Babe Ruth said:

Hi..
I'm gonna address the minimum wage increase in food service; something I believe is overlooked. If a relatively sharp & rapid increase is implemented for entry level employees, then the wages of crew leaders & asst manager will have to increase quickly & commensurately.. Seems like that is rarely mentioned. If u take cashiers from $8 to $15, then mid level employees will understandably expect/demand their pay rate follow suit (which could be catastrophic for overhead/labor costs). And unfortunately food service jobs are already in peril from automation. Look at the rise of touch screen, and online ordering.. the current Federal minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, it sucks for hard-working entry level employees. But my opinion, $15 an hour is gonna further destabilize (an increasingly fragile) food service work force.. to me, the solution is a more modest, mandated increase & if unions wanna fight something: should resist automation, however futile. [I'm not qualified to comment on car wash business/emerging technologies]

Click to expand...

I experienced this myself. When I was working at a fast food store, the first thing they did when the minimum wage increased, was to lay off all the part-time workers.

The only workers that were affected, were part-time workers, who earned the minimum wage. All the full time workers already earned more than minimum wage.

So if you have no choice but to pay the same wage for a part-time worker as a full-time worker, why have part time people? So 3 part-time people lost their job.

As a result the rest of us were expected to pick up the slack in work that the part time people were expected to do.

After this, the started reducing serving sizes. Effectively increasing the price. So the size of the burgers got a little smaller. The size of the fries got smaller, and drinks got smaller.

So reduced employment, and increase in prices, was the result of the minimum wage.

Again, if you are not happy with your wage, the solution isn't to demand more money, the solution is to find a job that pays more.

Gigimo said:

You know I'm curios as to why some folks just can't accept the fact that minimum wage jobs are beginners jobs (no/low skill) and aren't supposed to pay living wages?

Click to expand...

There are multiple reasons why.

Number one, because people don't want to do harder work, to earn more money.

Simply put, there are people that do not want to learn better skills, or put up with more responsibility, in order to earn more money. If I can earn $50K a year to flip burgers over, just by passing a law, why not?

Number two, there are people who simply believe they are entitled to a middle class life.

If you believe, truly believe that you are simply entitled to a better life, then by definition it is not your job to improve your income. Instead it it the job of society to improve your income.

Number Three, there are many people who do not like competition.

Just like a business will go to government to try and shut out competitors with laws, so do individuals try and shut out competition from other individuals with the minimum wage. Unions are famous for doing this.

Someone comes here from another country, and is willing to fix you leaking sink for less money than a Union pipe fitter, and the Unions go to government to raise the minimum wage so that person can't under cut the Union plumbers.

This is exactly why the Union guy in the video I posted, was openly supporting putting former employees that he supported, in jail for working on the street. Because now that they are working on their own, they are undercutting the Unions.

Number Four, and lastly, there are lots of people who are arrogant and think they know better than anyone else, what is best for them.

On this forum and others, I have been routinely told by some individuals "you are voting against your best interest"... which is another way of saying that I am too stupid to know what is good for me, and I need to just blindly follow their dictates, because they know best.

There is a certain large segment of society, that knows absolutely nothing about what the lower class is doing, but assumes they know better. So they wish to control their employment.... you know... for their betterment.

Yarddog said:

They publish estimates based on facts. They looked at data collected over the past 40+ years to give estimates on how raising the minimum wage would effect employment and family income.

It's a video. If facts are present he provides no references which we can check.


I'm still waiting on you to provide facts to back up your OP. As of yet you have provided nothing other than a video with no links to the facts he supposedly used. There were some interviews but some were cut off in mid sentence showing he just wanted you to hear that portion, which could be out of context.

Prove they had legal jobs. Provide employment records showing they were actually legally employed. The last time I was in Chicago you couldn't walk past any street corner downtown and not be approached by panhandlers. People would come out and clean your windows, without asking, in hopes of getting a tip for their service. These are not legal jobs.

Not for sure how that effected them but the first thing that also occurred is unemployment decreased. More people were working legal jobs.

The German Minimum Wage Is Not A Job Killer

Also, raising the minimum wages in the US hasn't harmed those cities.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-didnt-impact-jobs-in-6-us-cities-study-shows

Another study done over a long period shows that there is usually a decrease in jobs paying below the new minimum wage but that number is offset by the increase in jobs paying above the new minimum wage. This shows an over all improvement in quality with minimum wage increases.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tiple-studies-suggest/?utm_term=.d122461c018a


So your answer is no.

Did you read where the investment can pay off in just 2 years? it says "Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!"
Not a bad investment.


A person who "supports" the Union doesn't have his employees picketing all winter to get representation. A person who supports his employees gives them a living wage.

Provide a basis for your numbers. The link that "YOU" provided said "The entire Inventory, equipment, fixtures and furniture are included in the price totaling $435,000.
Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!
The owner Must sell, it is his loss at this price."

Now, I don't know why he must sell, and neither do you but you sure like to assume. \

With every change in economic conditions businesses close and businesses open. Some were close to closing and the increase may have tipped the scale but as the data I've already provided you shows there is an increase in jobs which pay above the new minimum wage which offsets any decrease in those below.

Click to expand...

They publish estimates based on facts. They looked at data collected over the past 40+ years to give estimates

Right. They published estimates, which is clearly written in the document you posted.

I posted direct factual results of the minimum wage. You posted an estimate. You are correct.

If facts are present he provides no references which we can check.

The video posted facts throughout the entire thing. You can check them. I have. They were true.

If I can check the facts given, you can to. It's not that hard for anyone intellectually honest about it.

There were some interviews but some were cut off in mid sentence showing he just wanted you to hear that portion, which could be out of context.

Prove it. Show the rest. Go there, and interview the people, and ask them what else they wish to say. By all means, prove your claim.

Prove they had legal jobs. Provide employment records showing they were actually legally employed.

I have no reason to disbelieve the people who are saying they are now unemployed and working on the street illegally.

If you wish to prove they were never legally employed, by all means do so and then sue Reason.tv. You could make a lot of money.

The German Minimum Wage Is Not A Job Killer

This article, and the dozens of others like it, are all crap. Every single article talking about how the German minimum wage is great, all end their data in 2015, or 2016. This laws, according to the people who put it in place, is phased in over 2 years.

They started with Berlin, which already has wages generally higher than the minimum wage. In short, the people who would be most affected by the minimum wage, are not even covered yet, and you are looking at the results thus far to mean something?

The second problem is, the Germany economy was in an upswing. When the economy is in an upswing, the affects of a minimum wage can be lost in the data.

Say you raised the minimum wage on McDonald's, during an upswing in the economy, and you look at employment at McDonald's. So the minimum wage hits, and my store lays off 3 workers. However, McDonald's over all opens another store, that hires 20 people. So you look at employment, and say employment increased by 17! So the minimum wage increases employment!

No it didn't. The minimum wage eliminated 3 jobs. You didn't see it because they opened another store in a growing economy. But without the minimum wage, employment would have gone up by 20, or even more, because maybe the new store would have hired 23 people without the minimum wage there.

And here's the real crusher. During a recession, the way you get people back to work is by lowering wages. During a recession, employers can't afford to pay wages they were before.... because it's a recession. If employers can lower wages, they can hire on all those people who lost their jobs due to the recession.

So, you show me what happens in Germany after a recession, or at least what happens in 2018 after the new minimum wage is fully implemented. If Germany still shows lower and lower unemployment.... AND show me that the lower unemployment isn't due to people joining the shadow economy.... then I'll agree you have a point. Until then, these articles prove nothing.

Did you read where the investment can pay off in just 2 years? it says "Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!"
Not a bad investment.

Well except it obviously was his opinion, and it was obviously not true. If that was true, the new owners would have kept it open for two years, and earned back their investment. Instead it is closed.

Now, I don't know why he must sell, and neither do you but you sure like to assume.

I've worked with business owners my whole life. People who own a business, are a pretty dedicated bunch. It's like a member of the family to them. It is their hopes, and dreams.

They do not close their business, if it is making money, especially after 6 years of operation.

Now if you believe otherwise, his name was listed in the article. Go find him, and ask. By all means prove me wrong. Owner Marat Leshehinsky. There, I'm even helping you out.

By all means. Track him down and ask. I'm sure if you are correct and all the claims about why the car wash closed are false, you can make a hit story disproving the claims. But until you provide solid evidence to support your argument, I'm sticking with my views. You need evidence to convince me, not opinion.

Also, raising the minimum wages in the US hasn't harmed those cities.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-didnt-impact-jobs-in-6-us-cities-study-shows

Right, and when the economy is doing well, and most of the people in the city already earn more than the minimum wage, I wouldn't expect them to do badly.

Just like I said before. If McDonald's opens another store because the economy doing well, you won't notice 3 people lost their jobs because of the minimum wage. That doesn't mean those three people didn't lose their jobs because of the minimum wage.

Another study done over a long period shows that there is usually a decrease in jobs paying below the new minimum wage but that number is offset by the increase in jobs paying above the new minimum wage. This shows an over all improvement in quality with minimum wage increases.

And I would agree with that. The problem is you are connecting the increase in jobs paying above the minimum wage, with the minimum wage.

I connect more jobs paying above the minimum wage, with an improving economy.

FenderTL5 said:

Answer; because it was intended to be a living wage from the very beginning.

The Federal Minimum Wage was established in the late 1930's. In promoting the concept, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” “By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living...”

Click to expand...

Yeah, and it worked so well. So well, that we had a recession during the great depression. Instead of creating jobs, and employment, it dragged out the economic crash for years longer.

Sparagmos said:

So if I post a piece about how unions have been successful in an industry does that cancel your anecdote out?

Click to expand...

I'll consider any information you provide. I will say that I may not come to the same conclusion you do about the evidence you provide.

Couple of requirements. Must be current, and in the US.

There is no question that in the now distance past, Unions served a specific purpose.

My favorite and most obvious example would be isolated coal mining towns. These towns where the company paid to have a train track installed, and paid to have individuals shipped to these towns, and then paid the employees with company dollars only used at the company store, which did not carry in stock things needed to leave the town, nor tickets to leave the town via the train.

In such cases, the employees were effectively trapped. They couldn't leave, and even if they did leave, their company dollars were worthless outside of that town. The company store didn't carry wagons or horses required to leave the town either.

Unions stepped in as a way of forcing companies to pay in legal tender, or other solutions.

Regardless, there are no people stuck in jobs today. It simply isn't the case. I have quit numerous jobs, to go find higher paying jobs. No one is trapped.

To claim that Unions today are just as needed and relevant, doesn't fit the facts. If unions were even remotely as valuable to workers as some would claim, then we would not see that union membership has declined in absolutely every area of the economy, with the exception of the public sector, which is expected given that the people paying the cost of funding a union, is not the employees or the employers... but the tax payers.

I've been asked to join a union, and not me, nor a single other person was in favor of it. Not only that, but out of the roughly dozen people I know who were union members, not one was happy about it.

Nevertheless, if you would like to post some information in support of unions, I will gladly read it. I suppose it is possible that somewhere Unions are good, but even then the exception likely doesn't prove the rule.

It is pretty obvious Unions can't be that great, since GM and Chrysler both unionized, went into bankruptcy, while Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, all non-union, did not. There has to be a reason that Hostess filed for bankruptcy while unionized, and then after bankruptcy opened up completely profitable as a non-union company. And there are many more examples beyond those.

Yarddog said:

They publish estimates based on facts. They looked at data collected over the past 40+ years to give estimates on how raising the minimum wage would effect employment and family income.

It's a video. If facts are present he provides no references which we can check.


I'm still waiting on you to provide facts to back up your OP. As of yet you have provided nothing other than a video with no links to the facts he supposedly used. There were some interviews but some were cut off in mid sentence showing he just wanted you to hear that portion, which could be out of context.

Prove they had legal jobs. Provide employment records showing they were actually legally employed. The last time I was in Chicago you couldn't walk past any street corner downtown and not be approached by panhandlers. People would come out and clean your windows, without asking, in hopes of getting a tip for their service. These are not legal jobs.

Not for sure how that effected them but the first thing that also occurred is unemployment decreased. More people were working legal jobs.

The German Minimum Wage Is Not A Job Killer

Also, raising the minimum wages in the US hasn't harmed those cities.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-didnt-impact-jobs-in-6-us-cities-study-shows

Another study done over a long period shows that there is usually a decrease in jobs paying below the new minimum wage but that number is offset by the increase in jobs paying above the new minimum wage. This shows an over all improvement in quality with minimum wage increases.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tiple-studies-suggest/?utm_term=.d122461c018a


So your answer is no.

Did you read where the investment can pay off in just 2 years? it says "Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!"
Not a bad investment.


A person who "supports" the Union doesn't have his employees picketing all winter to get representation. A person who supports his employees gives them a living wage.

Provide a basis for your numbers. The link that "YOU" provided said "The entire Inventory, equipment, fixtures and furniture are included in the price totaling $435,000.
Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!
The owner Must sell, it is his loss at this price."

Now, I don't know why he must sell, and neither do you but you sure like to assume. \

With every change in economic conditions businesses close and businesses open. Some were close to closing and the increase may have tipped the scale but as the data I've already provided you shows there is an increase in jobs which pay above the new minimum wage which offsets any decrease in those below.

Click to expand...

They publish estimates based on facts. They looked at data collected over the past 40+ years to give estimates

Right. They published estimates, which is clearly written in the document you posted.

I posted direct factual results of the minimum wage. You posted an estimate. You are correct.

If facts are present he provides no references which we can check.

The video posted facts throughout the entire thing. You can check them. I have. They were true.

If I can check the facts given, you can to. It's not that hard for anyone intellectually honest about it.

There were some interviews but some were cut off in mid sentence showing he just wanted you to hear that portion, which could be out of context.

Prove it. Show the rest. Go there, and interview the people, and ask them what else they wish to say. By all means, prove your claim.

Prove they had legal jobs. Provide employment records showing they were actually legally employed.

I have no reason to disbelieve the people who are saying they are now unemployed and working on the street illegally.

If you wish to prove they were never legally employed, by all means do so and then sue Reason.tv. You could make a lot of money.

The German Minimum Wage Is Not A Job Killer

This article, and the dozens of others like it, are all crap. Every single article talking about how the German minimum wage is great, all end their data in 2015, or 2016. This law, according to the people who put it in place, is phased in over 2 years.

So you have a law that phases in over 2 years, and before even 12 months are finished, you want to use that data to claim it has no negative impacts?

The second problem is, the Germany economy was in an upswing. When the economy is in an upswing, the affects of a minimum wage can be lost in the data.

Say you raised the minimum wage on McDonald's, during an upswing in the economy, and you look at employment at McDonald's. So the minimum wage hits, and my store lays off 3 workers. However, McDonald's over all opens another store, that hires 20 people. So you look at employment, and say employment increased by 17! So the minimum wage increases employment!

No it didn't. The minimum wage eliminated 3 jobs. You didn't see it because they opened another store in a growing economy. But without the minimum wage, employment would have gone up by 20, or even more, because maybe the new store would have hired 23 people without the minimum wage there.

And here's the real crusher. During a recession, the way you get people back to work is by lowering wages. During a recession, employers can't afford to pay wages they were before.... because it's a recession. If employers can lower wages, they can hire on all those people who lost their jobs due to the recession.

So, you show me what happens in Germany after a recession, or at least what happens in 2018 after the new minimum wage is fully implemented. If Germany still shows lower and lower unemployment.... AND show me that the lower unemployment isn't due to people joining the shadow economy.... then I'll agree you have a point. Until then, these articles prove nothing.

Did you read where the investment can pay off in just 2 years? it says "Make your entire investment back in less than 2 years!!!"
Not a bad investment.

Well except it obviously was his opinion, and it was obviously not true. If that was true, the new owners would have kept it open for two years, and earned back their investment. Instead it is closed.

Now, I don't know why he must sell, and neither do you but you sure like to assume.

I've worked with business owners my whole life. People who own a business, are a pretty dedicated bunch. It's like a member of the family to them. It is their hopes, and dreams.

They do not close their business, if it is making money, especially after 6 years of operation.

Now if you believe otherwise, his name was listed in the article. Go find him, and ask. By all means prove me wrong. Owner Marat Leshehinsky. There, I'm even helping you out.

By all means. Track him down and ask. I'm sure if you are correct and all the claims about why the car wash closed are false, you can make a hit story disproving the claims. But until you provide solid evidence to support your argument, I'm sticking with my views. You need evidence to convince me, not opinion.

Also, raising the minimum wages in the US hasn't harmed those cities.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-didnt-impact-jobs-in-6-us-cities-study-shows

Right, and when the economy is doing well, and most of the people in the city already earn more than the minimum wage, I wouldn't expect them to do badly.

Just like I said before. If McDonald's opens another store because the economy doing well, you won't notice 3 people lost their jobs because of the minimum wage. That doesn't mean those three people didn't lose their jobs because of the minimum wage.

Another study done over a long period shows that there is usually a decrease in jobs paying below the new minimum wage but that number is offset by the increase in jobs paying above the new minimum wage. This shows an over all improvement in quality with minimum wage increases.

And I would agree with that. The problem is you are connecting the increase in jobs paying above the minimum wage, with the minimum wage.

I connect more jobs paying above the minimum wage, with an improving economy.

Every time you look directly at the situations involved, the effects are negative, not positive.




The experience in Canada should be clear enough for anyone. Cutting back hours, to reduce labor costs, is another typical result of minimum wage hikes.

Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. The amount of money for labor, is not infinite. It is finite. When the cost of labor exceeds available money, you have to cut the labor.

Again, other than people with political motivations that over look reality, no one doubts the negative effects of the minimum wage. If there really was no negative effect, then why not just make the minimum wage $100/hour and we can all retire will millions?

If everyone agrees that would cause problems, then why not $50/hour? Or $25? Or $20, or any other number? At what 'magical point' does the minimum wage go from having negative effects to having positive, and why? Well of course there is no answer to that.

The only time the minimum wage does not appear to have a negative effect, is when the increase in the minimum wage is so small, or is implemented in a location where so few are employed at that wage, that the negative effects are obstructed by the over all growth in the economy. Like when you lay off 3 part time workers, but open a new store hiring 20. The negative effects are swallowed up by the overall growth in the economy.