from the unlikely-headline dept.

October 25, 2005 9:02 PM

Wal-Mart urges Congress to raise minimum wageand "unveiled a series of initiatives designed to present a kinder, gentler face for the world's biggest retailer... exploring ways to use the company's heft and resources to have a more positive impact on society." In its bid to turn over a new leaf, Wal-Mart also announced it's going green and lowering health care costs for its workers. Is this a new sign of rethinking the social responsibility of business where the kind of growth matters as much as the amount? Or is it right to be skeptical of it as a ploy to help open more stores like its critics charge?
posted by kliuless (60 comments total)

Could it be both?
posted by wakko at 9:15 PM on October 25, 2005

The minimum wage thing is kind of brilliantly evil. Walmart already pays the wage they're advocating, so it wouldn't hurt them. OTOH, it would hurt any competitors who pay minimum wage, so they come out ahead there. And any customers who make minimum wage would now have extra spending money to use at their favorite supercenter.
posted by smackfu at 9:17 PM on October 25, 2005

What smackfu said. It's in the first link, too:

Though Wal-Mart pays above the current $5.15 an hour minimum wage -- the average hourly wage among its 1.3 million U.S. workers is just under $10 an hour -- some of its smaller competitors don't pay as much. As a result, a boost in the minimum wage could pressure the profitability of Wal-Mart competitors.
posted by mediareport at 9:17 PM on October 25, 2005

Posted less than two hours ago, as fortune would have it... Wal-Mart: Discriminate to Save Health Care Costs
posted by VulcanMike at 9:23 PM on October 25, 2005

from the link...

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, [the memo] suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."...

"It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one," the memo said. "These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."
posted by VulcanMike at 9:24 PM on October 25, 2005

this is more likely about trying to recover from years of almos universally bad press. and driving out competitors.

did you know that the walmartians (the family that owns wal-mart) actually have mechanical replacements where they once had hearts? It's true.
posted by shmegegge at 9:30 PM on October 25, 2005

It's a ploy to woo the intelligent consumer.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:35 PM on October 25, 2005

It's about time minimum wage goes up. Seriously. It means prices go up as well so all business owners (myself included, also WalMart) will benefit greatly.

Oh wait, we all forgot that general wage increases like that(*) increase the wages of those who own the stores, and those who own the stores, well... they make money from the prices charged! And if prices go up... minimum wage increases don't look so juicy.

Sucks but it's true. I think this is what WalMart is really looking for. A little bit of an inflation boost before the economy recesses for a while again.

* - I'm pretty sure the owners of ANY store look at their salary and say to themselves "I want to be making at least $X more than the lowest paid employee" at times. I know I have. Too bad my $X works out negative... ho hum. Man I can't wait for some serious inflation...
posted by shepd at 9:38 PM on October 25, 2005

as someone who several months ago recieved an out-of-the-blue email from someone at WalMart asking if I was interested in working for the company in a PR capacity, I would tend to assume that these are the fruits of that hiring initiative.
posted by mwhybark at 9:44 PM on October 25, 2005

Walmart is the face of the America I fear. I vow to stay away as long as possible. If Big is required, I opt for Costco, which, apparently pays its employees well. However anything that makes Walmart less odious is to be encouraged; just remember, though, that less odious is still odious.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:55 PM on October 25, 2005

One of the best suggestions I've heard for setting the miniumum wage is to base it on whatever the average wage is each year, like I'm not sure what the exact numbers would be but the miniumum wage could be set as, say, 60% of the average wage. It would put less stress on businesses since you would probably just have an incremental increase each year instead of a big jump every several years.
posted by bobo123 at 10:10 PM on October 25, 2005

bobo123. That would be a great idea, except that it's too obvious to be a great idea. I'm not taking a dig at you, but rather politics as usual: why index something when politicians can take the credit every few years of helping to struggling worker?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:19 PM on October 25, 2005

This could very well be a PR move, given that Wal-Mart lost a case a few years ago in which they forced employees to work unpaid overtime. But I also think they want to seize the moment, given that it's possible that the two houses might shift back to the Democrats in the midterm elections.

Think about it. By introducing the issue, Wal-Mart is in the position of having other people respond to the idea, rather than having to respond themselves. Thus, expect other retailers (Wal-Mart's competition) to complain about the rampant costs of overtime, which then causes a minimum wage raise to meet a "necessary compromise" with such niceties as the forty hour workweek and eight-hour days (very likely, given what the Republicans regularly propose dismantling pivotal things like graduate student loans and the NEA). Then before you know it, we have a minimum wage increase deal brokered, at the expense of a forty hour workweek. Everybody (except the worker) wins.
posted by ed at 10:21 PM on October 25, 2005

Who is this ParisParamus and what have you done with the original?

In all seriousness, ParisParamus, bravo on following up on your pledge. I now enjoy your posts for entirely different reasons.

Sorry for the detour.
posted by sequential at 10:27 PM on October 25, 2005

Yes, yesterday's preemptive WSJ piece sure makes today's (Wednesday's) Times piece almost less damaging:

"An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits [...] The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive. [...] 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid. [...] One proposal would reduce the amount of time, from two years to one, that part-time employees would have to wait before qualifying for health insurance."
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:42 PM on October 25, 2005

To sequential, about Paris' comment:

C'mon now. There's evil, and then there's evil.
posted by JHarris at 11:04 PM on October 25, 2005

Speaking of health care, I wonder why companies like Walmart, the automakers, and the airlines aren't pushing for nationalized healthcare. Talk about saving money.
posted by MillMan at 11:11 PM on October 25, 2005

My favorite quote about Wal-Mart comes from Robert Reich, who said the reason Wal-Mart continues to thrive despite its deplorable reputation is the fact that we make choices as consumers that don't reflect our values as workers or as citizens.
posted by cribcage at 11:27 PM on October 25, 2005

I would argue that consumption reveals our true values, as opposed to those we feign.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:41 PM on October 25, 2005

The simpler insight is that we act according to the choices presented in the here and now, whereas our asserted values represent an ideal hope. One reason that such a dichotomy exists is because as single individuals, very few of us have the power to induce changes that affect societies.
posted by Gyan at 11:48 PM on October 25, 2005

eh, Gyan - is that "insight" or just an excuse?
your assertation saddens me, on the day after Rosa Parks left us... sometimes the simplest of actions make a difference.
i'm gonna have to go with with what the guy before ya said.
posted by lapolla at 12:17 AM on October 26, 2005

lapolla : "is that 'insight' or just an excuse?"

Both. An 'excuse' for idealists, an 'insight' (better term is 'reality') for realists.

lapolla : "on the day after Rosa Parks left us... sometimes the simplest of actions make a difference."

Guess the gross number of significant changes in the US in the last 20 years and divide by the average total adult population. The number will be non-zero but of very low magnitude. Now, weight it according to the individual's power and influence i.e. the US president and elected politicians have a "high mass", so do CEOs...etc. This measure will be even smaller for an 'average person'. Note that this fanciful measure accounts for serendipity (someone being at the right place and right time; slow news week and hence getting more promotion than otherwise...etc). Account for this too, now even smaller. A look at game theory might be useful here.
posted by Gyan at 12:41 AM on October 26, 2005

why index something when politicians can take the credit every few years of helping to struggling worker?

San Francisco's minimum wage is indexed off of the regional CPI, so this does happen at times.

I'm amazed that there are any increases at all, given the well-funded opposition to minimum wage hikes.
posted by I Love Tacos at 2:12 AM on October 26, 2005

Say Walmart pressure is successful and the min is increased to match almost perfectly what Walmart already gives at worst to employees.

That wouldn't surprise me, would it ? It's a good attempt at looking good, it doesn't cost them a dime more on average or if it costs more, it's insignificant or probably less then some traditional PR campaign. Plus it's an argument that can be used with unions ; aLso financially most of the money out is money back in sales. Clearly any attempt to oppose a wage hike is likely to look unpopular.

What's a secondary effect of this ? Many companies can't outsource the increased wage cost to China like Walmart or some other Big Box will do (consider most of the money is returing in sales, the cost is going to be offset by a slightly reduced profit or a little more pressure on the factory workers in China) therefore they'll have to reduce their profitability or go buy China to outsource the economic cost of the operation.

Consider that being so diffused on the territory lets Walmart catch most of the financial rise tide because arguably they get big number of consumers..while other boxes will benefit less, while still paying the increases.

But from a consumer point of view it will look like "Hey Walmart is paying more, they can't be that bad ! Or they're less evil"...as the economic implications and considerations are not considered by people in dire financial situation who see raise as a godsent.

Little stores already servicing low wages will have to raise the price to compensate as they'd be a lot more affected by a wage hike...similarly the companies who are more labour intensive per unit of sale will suffer more then Walmart any raise hike.
posted by elpapacito at 3:51 AM on October 26, 2005

Ops I forgot..quoting from the WSJ

"We simply believe it is time for Congress to take a look at the minimum wage and other legislation that can help working families," Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Chief Executive Lee Scott said.

Wha ? Compassionate conservatism ! You're making me laugh, first you whack employees then ask the taxpayers to help themselves out of the problems you started ? FUCK you.

Also asking for other legislation sounds like asking for more way to have the gubment finance the cost of workers..aka corporate welfare entering by the window , so that nobody can say they're receving money directly from the gub.
posted by elpapacito at 3:57 AM on October 26, 2005

It's about time minimum wage goes up. Seriously. It means prices go up as well so all business owners (myself included, also WalMart) will benefit greatly.

Your grasp of economics seems peculiar. If an increase in prices is necessary as a reflection of an increase in costs then how do profits increase? If the price goes up because costs increase then the profit per unit does not increase, however an increased price generally means less units sold so that the overall profit declines rather than increasing. As smackfu has already noted, the most likely cause for Wal-Mart's support for minimum wage is to drive up costs for its competitors, this increase in costs should mean they have to increase prices and this should result in less sales for them, and presumably Wal-Mart hopes, more sales for Wal-Mart.
posted by biffa at 4:40 AM on October 26, 2005

I despise the minimum wage. And I'm one of the poorer people in the country, by income. I chose to be a journalist in the Rust Belt.

The more the minimum wage goes up, the suckier my job will be. As New York continues to raise the minimum wage, at some point I'll seriously have to consider either getting out of journalism altogether or at least switching to a gig at Wal*Mart. At the least, the Wal*Mart gig would pay about the same, and would not be nearly as difficult.

More likely, I'll probably just leave for warmer climes and less pathetic payrates, and look for a nice comfy gig in PR.

A lot of folks in metro areas don't realize how devastating a uniform minimum wage (federal or state) is to the economy of small and medium-sized cities. The psychology of qualifying for public assistance by staying in "the noble profession" is darn near impossible to put into words.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:12 AM on October 26, 2005

bugmunch: A lot of folks in metro areas don't realize how devastating a uniform minimum wage (federal or state) is to the economy of small and medium-sized cities.

Why ?
posted by elpapacito at 5:19 AM on October 26, 2005

Walmart donating to Tom Delay ? That wouldn't surprise anybody a donation , standard legalized corruption. Not me, but surprisingly the donation allegedly happened AFTER the indictment. Coincidence or help from friendly interests ?
posted by elpapacito at 5:32 AM on October 26, 2005

so it seems I've come across a document about how WalMart wants to buy urinal cakes from Nigeria or something...? Is this all intended to deflect our attention from that?
posted by jepler at 5:38 AM on October 26, 2005

Walmart is incredibly important to our national economy...if Walmart slips, what happens to the trade balance? I'd go so far as to say "What's good for Walmart is good for America" - with a sardonic nod to the fact that the quote previously referred to General Motors, and we all see how well that's working out. Don't be suprised if they joing with the automakers when the renewed push for National Healthcare comes along as being essential. On preview, they're worried about Christmas sales and hope to get the blue-state boycotters to make up for lowered consumer confidence.
posted by rzklkng at 5:51 AM on October 26, 2005

the reason Wal-Mart continues to thrive despite its deplorable reputation is the fact that we make choices as consumers that don't reflect our values as workers or as citizens.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who are having to struggling financially to not shop at Wal-Mart. I don't shop there now, but I used to when I was unemployed. And I know if I were ever that poor again, I would do the same thing.

It reminds me of that old saw about how one shouldn't look to the working class for revolution, because they are too busy trying to survive. It's up to those of us with more resources and power to make sure that there are such things as good labour and business practice laws.
posted by orange swan at 5:52 AM on October 26, 2005

Anyone remember shame? I believe it was Ronald Reagan who made shame irrelevant. We need to bring it back. Any decent society uses shame - not laws - to create change. There should be no laws governing how rich a person can be in America but those who take too much without giving back should be looked down upon instead of exalted.
posted by any major dude at 6:12 AM on October 26, 2005

I don't see how we can blame one person for the demise of shame - and anyway, I don't believe it's in hibernation. But I do agree that we need to bring back the old definition of good citizen. People used to think it meant actively contributing something to society at large. Now it's generally considered to mean taking care of your immediate responsibilities — such as those in your own home.

Also, we do elevate those who don't deserve it. It drives me crazy to see Donald Trump — a man who hasn't been solvent since the eighties — portrayed as some sort of iconic businessman.
posted by orange swan at 6:38 AM on October 26, 2005

Walmart is the face of the America I fear. I vow to stay away as long as possible. If Big is required, I opt for Costco, which, apparently pays its employees well. However anything that makes Walmart less odious is to be encouraged; just remember, though, that less odious is still odious.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:55 PM PST on October 25

What the hell?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:39 AM on October 26, 2005

Orange Swan, I can not only isolate the person but I can even isolate the phrase that did it:

"Are YOU better off today than YOU were four years ago" (emphasis mine).

It was that moment specifically that the health of America was to be measured by the subjective as opposed to the objective. That simple phrase made it ok to be selfish.
posted by any major dude at 6:51 AM on October 26, 2005

Speaking of health care, I wonder why companies like Walmart, the automakers, and the airlines aren't pushing for nationalized healthcare. Talk about saving money.

Exactly. They should band together and demand it--it's win-win for us.
posted by amberglow at 6:52 AM on October 26, 2005

I wonder about that too. Why do they put up with the Federal government imposing this cost on businesses which makes these businesses less competitive in the world market? We have treaties to limit tariffs and state support for businesses which have anticompetitive effects on other countries, yet we let all the other countries give their businesses one of the biggest gifts of all, limiting their healthcare expenditures. That doesn't sound pro-business to me. [Of course the counter goes something like: "We wouldn't want to have SOCIALIZED medicine though, would we? What are you some sort of communist?"]
posted by caddis at 8:31 AM on October 26, 2005

What the hell?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:39 AM EST on October 26 [!]

He's more complex than you give him credit for. Same with dios. Otherwise they could never put up with the liberal cabal here.
posted by caddis at 8:39 AM on October 26, 2005

I think everyone has missed the point so far.

But Mr. Scott, noting that minimum wage hasn't changed in almost a decade, described Wal-Mart's core customer base as finding it increasingly difficult to afford basic necessities between paychecks.

"We simply believe it is time for Congress to take a look at the minimum wage and other legislation that can help working families," he said.

Those are the two most important sentences in the article. This isn't about Walmart's employees, it's about Walmart's customers. Walmart is worried that the working poor (who don't work at Walmart) are getting too poor to shop in their stores. Raise the minimum wage and their customer base can spend more.
posted by bonehead at 8:45 AM on October 26, 2005

Speaking of health care, I wonder why companies like Walmart, the automakers, and the airlines aren't pushing for nationalized healthcare. Talk about saving money.

Exactly my thought. What would be most effective is if Wal*Mart started a business movement for this, by strongarming their suppliers into lobbying for this too. (Though if they got in that habit, it'd probably be pretty awful overall.)
posted by Aknaton at 8:58 AM on October 26, 2005

any major dude wrote :

"Are YOU better off today than YOU were four years ago" (emphasis mine).

It was that moment specifically that the health of America was to be measured by the subjective as opposed to the objective. That simple phrase made it ok to be selfish.

I doubt that ..I think it was already ok to be selfish and that we're still selfish all the time regardless of whatever is preached as the next best thing ; in other words, naaaah we still are selfish, it's part of the human nature.

But selfish is not the same as delusional ; if you ask me .."are you better off now, elpapa, then 4 years ago" I would have a number of problems answering such a deceptively simple question.

If better off means I've got more money ...well then even a dime would fit the definition of "more then before" ..that would be mathematically correct. Then I'd need to argue that even if I have a dime more (therefore mathematically better off) the buying power of my money hasn't rised (or at worse it's now less powerful then before)...and that without having considered inflation and cost of money.

But at this point the spindoctors would yell all over me telling I'm a liberal republicass screaming on top of their lungs that I've got a dime more, so I should be nitpicking and crying like a baby and yadda yadda yadda...anything but letting me argue that hell no I'm not better off even if apparently is so by some convenient standard.

More then selfishness , rapacious irrational greed is a problem if the one affected by it has the means to exploit a rather gullible population.
posted by elpapacito at 9:01 AM on October 26, 2005

Raise the minimum wage and their customer base can spend more.

You mean the customers in a job that is worth more to their employer than the newly raised minimum wage, but also less than the cost of eliminating, outsourcing or automating that job. Can we get by with one less cashier? Can we have this assembled in Vietnam cheaper now?

If the minimum wage is high enough, maybe customers can afford clothes that are made in the US at union rates. $100 t-shirts?
posted by dand at 9:11 AM on October 26, 2005

Their competition knows what to do - consolidate. In the face of fighting the Walmart beast, regular grocery chains are merging to compete with Walmart. It used to be (in my city) Vons, Albertsons, Lucky's, Smiths. Then Walmart Supercenters (regular Walmart + grocery store) started to show up. First was Lucky's/Albertsons, and then Raley's moved in but started to die off slowly, and now it looks like Kroger (who owns Smiths) will be going after Albertsons.

Soon we'll be left with the duopoly - Walmart vs everyone else.
posted by SirOmega at 9:29 AM on October 26, 2005

I'm still never setting foot in one of the overlit hellholes.
posted by fenriq at 9:36 AM on October 26, 2005

Go rent the movie "Harlan County USA" and you'll know Walmart's true business plan and how if fits in nicely with the new feudal bankruptcy laws.
posted by any major dude at 9:51 AM on October 26, 2005

It's a ploy to woo the intelligent consumer.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:35 AM EST on October 26

Don't you mean?
It's a ploy to woo the "intelligent" consumer.

Haven't bought anything at WM since 2001. It's not hard. It's a sucky store with sucky products. Every WM I have been to is depressing and smells like feet. The only thing that explains WM's success to me is that in some places in the US, there is nothing else around.
posted by a_day_late at 9:54 AM on October 26, 2005

One also wonders..where's the Walmart management ? Let's forget for a moment the top brass, highly visible ones..where are the store managers..the stock dealers ? While their number must have been reduced by informatization, I'm sure they didn't disappeared from the scene.

Have they realized they may not be paid enough for their butchering job ?
posted by elpapacito at 9:58 AM on October 26, 2005

Have they realized they may not be paid enough for their butchering job ?

In 2000 some Walmart butchers decided they wanted to form a union. Walmart fired them and went to prepackaged meat.
posted by any major dude at 10:11 AM on October 26, 2005

If there were a federal minimum wage law would it supercede state minimum wage laws? If a federal law minimum wage law were made based on the median poverty level for instance could Walmart end up making money because the average poverty level is higher? (I don't know that there is a discrepancy between the minimum and median poverty levels, I'm just looking for how Walmart is likely to win through a federal law)
posted by substrate at 10:20 AM on October 26, 2005

The more the minimum wage goes up, the suckier my job will be. As New York continues to raise the minimum wage, at some point I'll seriously have to consider either getting out of journalism altogether or at least switching to a gig at Wal*Mart.

Don't be an idiot. A high minimum wage means you can't hire people cheaply, but how is that affecting your job as a journalist? Raising the minimum wage doesn’t cause inflation unless all wages go up, which probably wouldn't happen.

The reason this makes sense for Wal-Mart: Who shops at Wal-Mart? Poor people. If poor people have more disposable income then they'll spend more at Wal-Mart, who's prices will not increase because all of it is manufactured overseas.

If the minimum wage is high enough, maybe customers can afford clothes that are made in the US at union rates. $100 t-shirts?

What US factory jobs that you know of only pay minimum wage? It would be shameful, if you ask me. Most of those jobs (from my experience) pay $10-15 an hour. The question of the minimum wage isn't 'how much can we pay before affecting the economy' It's "how little can we pay for people paid that to afford the necessities of life"

Working full time at a minimum wage job would be just $1,200 a month.
posted by delmoi at 10:27 AM on October 26, 2005

The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive...

What does that even mean? How are they defining productive? There are all sorts of creepy things about this memo they just released, and it's all between the lines. I think what they're really saying is, Older employees make more than newer employees, but the job isn't any harder, so let's find ways to get rid of older employees.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:42 AM on October 26, 2005 [1 favorite]

In 2000 some Walmart butchers decided they wanted to form a union. Walmart fired them and went to prepackaged meat.

A clear anti-union behavior, even if they'll say it's just a common business decision and there's nothing anti union about it.

Yeah right, sure. Indeed everything in business is viable for the shake of profit...you see some people harm other people because God told them to or because they feel they're God (a minor variation) some other because greed told them so..masqueraded as rationalism, yet still greed.

Well you see the prepackaged meat you were waiting for had an unfortunate accident..somehow some tire was punctured by some libera....I mean by some vandal...and now it's all spoiled. Too bad

That of course would outrage the right and peaceful people of Gulliblonia ! Such a blackmailing crime cannot go unpunished ! Unfortunately they're too busy trying to get a job they don't give a fuck about your spoiling meat and they're so selfish, oooooh so selfish they're actually trying to survive , the nerve !

So let's call up the police to beat up those miscreants, living in poverty by their OWN choice they're totally guilty !

Some old people can still remember that already happened in a recent past.
posted by elpapacito at 12:29 PM on October 26, 2005

I was surprised to hear one of the NPR programs I listen to was sponsored by Wal-Mart.
posted by 6:1 at 12:39 PM on October 26, 2005

FYI:D

Some Uncomfortable Findings for Wal-Mart
At a gathering sponsored by the retailer, economists will present studies of the giant's economic impact -- not all with flattering results

Is Wal-Mart good or bad for the U.S. economy? A group of economists is attempting to answer that question. And the surprise is that the economists' studies, which aren't all complimentary to Wal-Mart, are to be presented at a Nov. 4 conference sponsored by the giant retailer itself...

cheers!
posted by kliuless at 6:29 PM on October 26, 2005

1/2 OT:
They tore down my unbeloved Caldor, where I bought my first 45rpm, Bowie's Space Oddity, and put up a Wal-Mart and they tore down my Fifth and Sixth Grade School, and put up a Starbucks and Applebees.

He who guesses where this is wins a free ParisParamus Gift Certificate.

/ 1/2 OT
posted by ParisParamus at 7:06 PM on October 26, 2005

elpapacito and delmoi:

Both of you asked me to support my position; however I believe it is best to do so privately (since it involves hypotheticals about me, and I am not my own boss, and the Internet is a global village, and all that.)

I've e-mailed you both. If you want to hear what i think is a well-reasoned thesis for why I said what I said, write back and I'll send it your way.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:44 AM on October 27, 2005

bugmuncher: okie I'll check mail

Paris: I've got this approximation , was your school near Paramus Parking Mall and its buildings near the 17 and the Fashion Mall ? I can't get any two starbuck and applebee closer then that.
posted by elpapacito at 6:01 AM on October 27, 2005

I'm always interested in reading a well-reasoned thesis, particularly if it concerns this subject. But public discussions should remain public. I'd submit that, if you can't muster the courage to support your arguments publicly then you should probably refrain from making them.
posted by cribcage at 9:36 PM on October 27, 2005

bugmuncher: do any of the following summarize your theory?

Minimum wage laws are a breach of the free market. If somebody wants to work for $1.50/hr, that is their right.

Minimum wage laws encourage employers to increase productivity and thus eliminate jobs.

Minimum wage laws result in inflation.

Minimum wage laws encourage the use of outsourcing, to work around said laws.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:25 AM on October 29, 2005