More on minimum wage

A Seattle Times article today addresses the gubernatorial candidates' stances on minimum wage -- particularly the merits of a "stair-step training wage." One candidate favors the idea, another one opposes any cuts to the minimum wage no matter the experience level of the employee. (WPC Vice President for Research Paul Guppy blogged on the minimum wage yesterday)

At a recent gubernatorial debate, a small business owner asked the candidates about the stair-step training wage. She spoke with the Times reporter after the debate.

In a phone interview this week, Mercy said her theaters employ 100 people, mostly teenagers earning minimum wage. She said she was interested in a training wage for the first 30 days or so for new teen workers, who often arrive for their first job with few skills.

"These kids come here and they don't know diddly squat," Mercy said, yet they get paid the same as other teens who have already been trained.

But still, some proponents of the minimum wage (or "living wage") continue to assert that the minimum wage should not be tinkered with -- unless it's raising the wage. In other words, raising the cost to the employer. So, what happens when the cost to the employer becomes more than the benefit of the good or service being provided by the employee?

Mercy said the profit margins of theaters are already thin, and because of the increases in the minimum wage, she is now considering whether she can raise ticket or concession prices without losing customers. Mercy said she may have to consider layoffs or hiring fewer teens in the next year.

Either we all pay more in the end or the employee now has no income.