This kind of runs against the philosophical ideal of the limited workweek though. The idea is that people should never have to work more than 40 hours to make ends meet, and so when working 40 hours is not enough, the government will close the gap.
Sure, we could probably reduce welfare dependence by allowing people to work 60h a week, but that would be abandoning one of the most important principles of the fair labor standards act and greatest achievements of the labor movement.
You can survive on 40h a week, but that's about it. I don't think it's worth limiting people who want to do better than that just to try and get people to work less on average. So I guess their achievement just doesn't go far enough in my mind because it hinders economic mobility. If it were possible to succeed on 40h a week of minimum wage, then it might be different. I don't think that's really possible to achieve universally though federal policy, though. I'd prefer to just get rid of the overtime pay requirement and health care requirements included in the ACA (or probably most of the ACA. The mandate and tax is really terrible for young working people.)
Edit: Just to clarify a bit, when I was working 2 minimum wage jobs it was because I wanted to be able to build some savings. I could have actually lived more comfortably (and had health insurance) had I opted to only work one job and apply for benefits, but then I just would have been getting by. Had I not had the extra money saved up I wouldn't have been able to replace my car when it's transmission went out, or be able to take the risk to work at a startup which is how I started my career as a software engineer.
If a full time job at minimum wage with benefits isn't enough to get out of poverty, then changing the definition of 'full time' seems like an odd solution. Raising minimum wage or benefits seems much more reasonable alternatives.
Incorrect - raising the price of labor does not decrease the demand for labor. It's a movement along the demand curve, not a shift. Ultimately, what will influence the amount of jobs available at Walmart will be the demand for Walmart's products, macro economic trends, technological innovation, etc. They're obviously not doing this out of a goodness of their heart - their doing it because their stores are a mess and sales have been slumping. By increasing worker's wages, their betting that the increase in productivity will spur demand for Walmart's products.
Remarkable that simple application of the yet-to-be-disproven (or even seriously contested) theory of supply and demand to the price of labor is downvoted where you'd expect to find rational people.
That's what my second point was alluding to - I should have been more clear:
Since the premise is that the demand for Wal-Mart's products has fallen due to worker unproductivity, their bet is that there will be a new demand curve altogether by increasing their productivity, one that is shifted to the "right" of the original one. The price of labor is counteracted by the new demand for it.
nine_k's remark was about the general effect of raising the minimum wage. You seem to be talking about Walmart deciding to pay more to their workers, a completely different issue.
But that raising the work-time per worker reduces the number of jobs available is not a myth, it's mathematical inevitability (unless work-hours needed not only will grow to compensate, but also grow more than if the per worker work-time had remained fixed).
The most needy who barely survive on minimum wage? That's not compassion for the most needy, it's exploitation of the most needy and government safety nets.
Obviously some jobs might become unviable if you raise the minimum wage. However unless society fails catastrophically there will always be demand to fulfil everyone's basic needs, which should supply enough jobs to fulfil those needs.
>You can survive on 40h a week, but that's about it.
We could thrive on 20h a week.
We just don't have a rational allotment of resources, but rely on busy-work, antiquated (pre software and pre-automation) work ethics and timelines, and squeeze them extra too so that enterprises and employers can get that extra profit margin out of employees.
I've heard this before about busy work (aka "bullshit jobs") but I'm not sure why we have them. Isn't it in the company's best interest to not have them?
> Isn't it in the company's best interest to not have them?
Usually, yes. But the company might not necessarily only make decisions in their own best interest.
Sometimes, executives/owners just like to see lots of people head-down "hard at work". Sometimes, execs/owners adamantly believe work has to be done, that doesn't actually need to be done. Sometimes, the customer demands busy work be done and pays the company for it. (every Enterprise or Government contract I've ever seen has some amount of this) Sometimes, people just can't agree on what work is busy work in the first place.
I'm sure there are more reasons. Those four come to mind because I have personally experienced all of them at some point in the last decade.
Do managers generally have any incentive to recommend laying off subordinates when they're no longer required? They certainly have incentive to keep them around doing bullshit work -- the higher your headcount the more prestige you have as a manager.
Sure, we could probably reduce welfare dependence by allowing people to work 60h a week, but that would be abandoning one of the most important principles of the fair labor standards act and greatest achievements of the labor movement.