View Full Version : The cost of WalMart Nation
Casual Observer
03-27-2005, 05:48 PM
I've missed this thread somehow and couldn't possibly address all the living wage fantasy/globalism-is-bad/corporate-profiteering-is-evil nonsense that's been bandied about, but Melonie has really hit the bulk of the high points in this regard and PC has noted some trends that show progression of our economic base rather than the oft-touted regression, though for the interested, I'll point you back to another more definitive post I made regarding the fallacy of the living wage and how labor markets really work. (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=467854&postcount=16)
Melonie
03-27-2005, 07:13 PM
Oh, just in passing, those high tech firms which make the California economic 'anomaly' possible aren't above exploiting 3rd world business principles either, and are arguably even worse than the relocated manufacturing operations (who are at least nominally following local 3rd world country laws)!
madmaxine
03-27-2005, 07:22 PM
I live in a ghetto segment of California, and yeah, we have a Wal-Mart that clears at least million in sales a week. Due to urban sprawl, we also have several competing comparable stores that are pulling business away from that Wal-Mart.
My family doesn't shop at that Wal-Mart because it's too "downmarket." Wal-Marts are susceptible to the same business rules that any other business is. The company may be too big for its own good someday. I'm sure no one ever envisioned Sears and K-Mart having to merge to survive. Well, it happened.
discretedancer
03-27-2005, 09:14 PM
Mel, for the life of me I don't see what point
http://www.economist.com/markets/bigmac/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3503641
is out to prove.
The point seems to still stand that if it costs X to live at a base standard in America, and people need to live in order to work for any company, then those people need to have X in income. Otherwise, we're deciding some people don't get to live at a base standard OR that the government will supply the base. If we don't want (I sure don't) the government underwriting our workforce, then the company has to pay THE FULL COST OF THE LABOR FORCE IT REQURES FOR PROFIT.
Mr Hyde
03-27-2005, 09:18 PM
I agree..but the challenge is they are an EASY solution for people. Everything in 1 place, cheap, cheery, colorful, it becomes easy to ignore the underlying issues.
Holy crap, cheery and colorful? Have you been in a Wal-Mart? It's a frigging eyesore, inside and out.
Casual Observer
03-27-2005, 09:31 PM
Mel, for the life of me I don't see what point
http://www.economist.com/markets/bi...tory_id=3503641
is out to prove.
We see this in your continued efforts to promote the fallacious living wage theory.
The point seems to still stand that if it costs X to live at a base standard in America, and people need to live in order to work for any company, then those people need to have X in income.
Again, I direct you to a presentation that simply and accurately illustrates how real labor markets work. (http://econ.bu.edu/gilchrist/teaching/ec102fall04/lectures/pdfs/labormarkets2.pdf)
Melonie
03-28-2005, 04:49 AM
then the company has to pay THE FULL COST OF THE LABOR FORCE IT REQURES FOR PROFIT
That's exactly what the Big Mac Index was meant to illustrate - that companies ARE paying the full cost fo the labor force it requires for the company to be able to make a profit, and also paying enough to provide a justifiable standard of living for those employees compared to the value added those employees actually produce - in China an Singapore and Korea - but no longer in the USA!
This has already been the result of the direct taxes, indirect gov't mandated costs (i.e. everything from OSHA to HR to Environmental Compliance), and artificially high labor rates (i.e. competing against the labor rates the gov't effectively pays to people who choose to sit at home), which companies employing unskilled workers have been forced to pay within US borders. The only significant difference is that, in the retail sector, it's much more difficult to relocate the point of sale to US customers than it has been to relocate the point of manufacture.
Two bottom line points. First, companies who cannot turn a reasonable profit do not stay in business and their employees wind up out of a job. You can ask the ex-Sears and ex-KMart employees after the last gasp merger is completed ! Gov't can mandate that companies continue to operate at a loss until they go broke (as would be the case with your proposal), but when the company is broke it is gone. Most prudent managers would choose to shut down or relocate the company before it goes broke if faced with such a burdensome gov't madate !
Second, a subsidy is still a subsidy whether it is collected from US citizens in the form of taxes and handed to low income employees directly by gov't agencies, or whether it is collected from US citizens in the form of inflated prices and then handed to medium income employees through the company's payroll system. The only significant difference between the two approaches is that the gov't tax and benefit scenario is 'honest' and sustainable and arguably shares the costs equitably between rich and poor, whereas the inflated prices scenario is 'dishonest', unsustainable in the long term, and disproportionately passes the costs onto the poor rather than the rich. Both approaches are bad IMHO, but the former is perhaps not quite as bad as the latter because at least the 'subsidy' is implemented in a somewhat 'open' and equitable manner.
~
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 06:43 AM
, a subsidy is still a subsidy whether it is collected from US citizens in the form of taxes and handed to low income employees directly by gov't agencies, or whether it is collected from US citizens in the form of inflated prices and then handed to medium income employees through the company's payroll system.
Is it a subsidy if it's handed to big profitable corporations in the form of free roads, tax breaks, financial support to the company's employees (in order to keep kids healthy and fed)?
How about if military and political efforts are used to protect international political structures that support existing industries, tax and other laws allow companies to buy products from unsafe, polluting overseas factories and avoid most US laws and taxes..in order to lower the cost of the products sold at any cost? What about ?
that companies ARE paying the full cost fo the labor force it requires for the company to be able to make a profit, and also paying enough to provide a justifiable standard of living for those employees compared to the value added those employees actually produce - in China an Singapore and Korea - but no longer in the USA!
SO US companies should pay based on what it cost to live in Singapore and China? THat's just dumb...apples and oranges, especially since overseas workers usually don't have reasonable safety/environlmental/labor laws (the reason these companies are going there)
If your theory is fair...then US companies should charge what those products sell for in thse countries (far less than they charge here! Bye bye profits!
Tell you what, why don't you apply that rule yourslf today...charge what a dancer in China gets for the same service - would certainly change your standard of living.
ov't can mandate that companies continue to operate at a loss until they go broke (as would be the case with your proposal), but when the company is broke it is gone.
WM profits are in the 9 BILLION range, the article suggests that (at worst) the gov't is picking up a few hundred million in what should be their expenses as welfare and other programs. Wheres the going broke?
:"If revenue generated from hiring one more
unit of labor is greater than the cost, the
firm should hire the additional unit of labor."
You see I corrected this statement - the wage should not be artifically lowered (as it is now, by subsidizing with gov't programs) so profit is produced - companies should charge what it COSTS for an employee or don't hire them. If it is true no company can stay in business under those circumstances (mom and pop businesses did fine for decades, as did factories) then the market will fix the problem...but most likely, companies will innovate and solve it first.
The only significant difference between the two approaches is that the gov't tax and benefit scenario is 'honest' and sustainable and arguably shares the costs equitably between rich and poor,
So it's fair that I (as a consumer that doesn't ever shop at companies with unfair labor practices) pay to subsidize the profits of companies, not those that CHOOSE TO SHOP THERE instead of elsewhere. THat's free market?
Both approaches are bad IMHO, You keep talking about what is bad, but I've asked you for a counter solution...and all you seem to have is
Eliminate OSHA, Environmental, and Safety rules - bring us back to the labor market of the 20's and 30's and the pollution levels thereof
eliminate social programs without providing a balanced economic solution -"anything for profit" isn't balanced.
~[/QUOTE]
kitana
03-28-2005, 02:40 PM
Well I don't know about other areas of the USA, but I do know that I have quite a few friends who work at the Wal-Mart here in this area, and LOVE it!
They have awesome benifits for this area, and pay over $7 an hour. That's $1.85 move an hour than minimum wage, and they always have people waiting for new jobs when they advertise them.
I personally LOVE Wal-Mart myself. Where else can you go to get jeans, a TV, movies, food, and gas in one place?
I guess I am more of a low mantainence person. I HATE the mall with it's OVER PRICED stores and SUB-STANDARD goods. I mean really now, why in the world whould you wanna pay $150 for a purse, when you can buy one for $14.97?
I guess labels just don't intrest me as much as some of the posters on here.
*Gasp* I don't own ANY Louis Vuttion purses. I don't have any Abercrombie jeans. I haven't ever owned any designer undies.
The VERY FEW "labels" I do own are from the local thrift store. Why pay over $80 for a sweat shirt when you can buy the SAME shirt at the Goodwill for $3.50?
I guess I'm just a cheap ass. I LOVE WAL-MART!!!!!!!!!
Kitana
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 03:00 PM
K, if they didn't destroy fragile habitats, have sooo many labor issues, import 90% of the products from overseas sweatshops, purposely target local businesses and accept so many types of government subsidies...I probably would love them too!
kitana
03-28-2005, 04:44 PM
Dancer, everyone is destroying fragile habitats just by being alive. So for me, that defense doesn't fly.
As for the other stuff, I don't know about it.
I just like to shop there. I mean I like being able to get a 27" color TV for under $250.
Kitana
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 06:29 PM
Dancer, everyone is destroying fragile habitats just by being alive. So for me, that defense doesn't fly.
1. it doesn't have to be that way...at least we don't have to be as destructive as we are. Without changing ONE THING you do in your life, but changing A LITTLE about how you do it, you could have a HUGE positive (rather than negative) ecological impact, spur on the economy, save yourself money and make a real difference.
Yes, it's nice paying only $250 for a TV, but when your taxes go up to pay for health risks due to pollution from that unregulated overseas factory that made the tv, when people die because the workers in that TV factory fight back against unfair practices, when an entire city is gassed because simple control measures weren't in place (since they impact the final price of the set) is it really that cheap?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the lowest price. I simply say we should set some standards OUTSIDE OF PRICE, and then pick the lowest price that meets those other standards. If our country, state, or town (most of this is too big for the latter two) only allowed businesses who met the standards, consumers wouldn't have to think at all - the options in the store would all meet the standards...and price could be the remaining factor.
BONUS to this would be the American workforce would have a better chance to remain employed, since at least some of the incentives to outsource (the lack of safety and environmental controls/costs) would nolonger exist.
Casual Observer
03-28-2005, 07:12 PM
I guess I am more of a low mantainence person. I HATE the mall with it's OVER PRICED stores and SUB-STANDARD goods. I mean really now, why in the world whould you wanna pay $150 for a purse, when you can buy one for $14.97?
Damn woman! Where were you a few years ago?
Last handbag I bought for a girlfriend was a $700 LV Monogram Musette.
Strippers are so much more affordable than girlfriends.
:)
Melonie
03-28-2005, 09:04 PM
In regard to this supposed economic theory that the US economy can survive the levels of (direct or indirect) taxation necessary to maintain some arbitrary minimum standard of living, 'last decimal point' pollution controls, 'closed' markets etc., as a last resort I'm going to fall back on the old adage that 'those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. My specific historical reference is to the Roman Empire from Diocletian through Justinian, which takes on more and more of an eerie similarity to todays economic and legal trends with each new regulation enacted.
chapters 2 and 21 for anybody who is remotely interested ...
"(snip)But the chief cause of the scarcity was the drain of gold to the east in exchange for the Oriental wares which the Romans required. In the first century A.D. the annual export of gold to the east is said to have amounted (at the least) to a million pounds sterling. The Emperors resorted to a depreciation of the coinage, and up to a certain point this perhaps was not particularly disadvantageous so far as internal trade was concerned, since the value of the metals had risen in consequence of the scarcity. When Diocletian came to the throne there was practically nothing in circulation but the double denarius, which ought to have been a silver coin equivalent to about 1s. 9d.), but was now made of copper, with only enough silver in it to give it a whitish appearance, and worth about a halfpenny.(snip)"
(snip)"The decay of municipal life reached a further stage in the reign of Justinian, who describes its decline; and increased interference on the part of the central government in the local finances seems to have been unavoidable. We saw how Anastasius to the supervision of the collection of taxes out of the hands of the decurions and appointed vindices, whose administration proved a failure. Justinian stigmatises them as pestilential and appears to have abolished them, though not entirely. The rates, known as politika, which were imposed for municipal purposes and used to be altogether under the control of the local authorities, had already in the time of Anastasius been aply appropriated by the fisc. They were collected along with the other taxes, and were divided into two portions, of which one went to the treasury, the other to the cities.(snip)"
(snip)"Justinian is accused of having made necessaries as well as luxuries dearer not only by exorbitant duties on merchandise — a charge which we cannot control — but also by establishing "monopolies" for the benefit of the government. The restrictions which he imposed in the silk trade were considered when we surveyed the commercial relations of the Empire with foreign lands, and we saw that, though his policy in some respects was not happy, he deserves credit for his efforts to solve a difficult problem. It is far from clear how he made an income of 300 lbs. of gold from the sale of bread in the capital, as he is alleged to have done. Whatever new regulations were introduced cannot be described as a monopoly in the proper sense of the term. It is, however, certain that in the years after the Plague the price everyone labour rose considerably, and in A.D. 544 the Emperor issued an edict to re-establish the old prices. "We have learned," he says, "that since the visitation of gold traders and artisans and husbandmen and sailors have yielded to a spirit of covetousness and are demanding prices and wages two or three times as great as they formerly received. We therefore forbid all such to demand higher wages or prices than before. We also forbid contractors for building and for agricultural and other works to pay the workmen more than was customary in old days." A fine of three times the additional profit was imposed on those who transgressed the edict. Justinian evidently assumes that there was no good reason for the higher rates. Unfortunately we have no information as to the effects of the edict, in which the interests of the customers are solely considered. That was a fall of credit even before the Plague is indicated by measures which were taken to protect the interests of the powerful corporation of bankers against their debtors.
It would probably be rash to infer from the tendency of interest on loans to rise since A.D. 472 that trade had been tending to decline. The ordinary commercial rate of interest in Justinian's reign was 8 per cent. On good securities money could be borrowed at 5 or 6 per cent. Justinian paid attention to the question of interest and reduced the maximum 12 per cent, which had hitherto been legal, to 8, except in the case of maritime ventures, where 12 was allowed. But 8 was allowed only in the case of traders, and 6 was fixed as the maximum for loans between private persons. In the case of money advanced to peasants he enacted that only 4 per cent should be charged, and have forbade senators of illustrious or higher rank to exact more than 4 per cent. (snip)"
~
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 09:26 PM
You mean the society where people used slaves for jobs there was "no added value" in, did whatever they felt like at the time (if you were rich enough) and taxed everyone to support a false sense of economic security?
Yep - I see the correlation between that and the bubble world you define.
But I still don't see your evidence for
arbitrary minimum standard of living, when rents and other costs are defined by what it costs UNSUBSIDIZED free market forces to do their work and grow
'last decimal point' pollution controls
'closed' markets etc.
Casual Observer
03-28-2005, 10:22 PM
Yep - I see the correlation between that and the bubble world you define.
You're the one continually promulgating the notion of a vacuum economy where the US can just regulate foreign competition and foreign markets out of sight and they'll not affect what goes on here. What you're continually suggesting is the further destratification of wealth and systematic anti-democratization of our economy to serve false labor wage models.
Melonie
03-28-2005, 10:24 PM
You mean the society where people used slaves for jobs there was "no added value" in, did whatever they felt like at the time (if you were rich enough) and taxed everyone to support a false sense of economic security?
I'm glad to see that you've discovered the Roman analogy as it applies to present day California (substitute illegal aliens for slave labor) !
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 10:45 PM
I do not want to destratify the economy. It would devalue the businesses I own...as I am an entrepreneur. However, I do ask:
We examine our values and decide what our basic rules for living are going to be. PROFIT at ANY COST, or do we have standards upon which that profit must be based?
Is polluting the environment we depend on for life OK if it increases profit? Do we want to assume that any product we choose to buy was made with reasonably little environmental impact?
Is abusing workers, treating them like slaves in sweatshop conditions OK, or do we want to know that EVERY worker WORLDWIDE is being treated fairly?
Should our government subsidize a workforce so profitable companies can be more profitable, or should companies survive and fail on their own merits?
Are Americans required to make "the big mac index" equivalent of Singapore, or is it OK we have a higher standard in this nation?
Do our rules equally apply to ALL products sold in the US, or only to those products/services that are made here - and companies which can outsource get to pay less (because other countries answered the above differently) AND get tax breaks to boot?
All I'm saying...and I'm getting off this circle now...is that IF we had standards like:
~All products /services sold in the US must be made in factories which meet our guiidelines for safety, environmnetal output /input and (comparatively adjusted) base pay and worker policies
~If profit is made on US Activities, then that profit must be fully taxed, not hidden.
~No profitable corporation should receive government assistance , breaks or subsidies for programs which don't directly relate to innovation of more sustainable products. Maybe no assistance AT ALL...that's fine too
And if we understood that:
~The job of making and monitoring these rules comes from ALL OF US - we all are workers as well as consumers...breathers as well as polluters - it's not the government's job to do everything for us
It would naturally follow:
~anyone who is physically and mentally able to move, think and walk should have SOME JOB - even if it's sweeping the streets. And moving ahead should be encouraged and supported.
~those unable to work (permanent or temporary) would have some basic level of survival, and be helped to get back into the mainstream. If they chose to leave it entirely...that is their option...we would not support them unless they had a CLEAR, APPROPRIATE DISABILITY. This would be a much harsher standard than it is now.
discretedancer
03-28-2005, 10:48 PM
I'm glad to see that you've discovered the Roman analogy as it applies to present day California (substitute illegal aliens for slave labor) !
Actually it applies to any part of our economy where we see a days work as not being worth a wage on which you could eat, feed and educate your kids, and remain hopeful and able to work for a better life.
Seems the analogy equally applies to your world, where the existing industry get all the tax breaks, subsidies so they can underpay workers, loopholes to avoid environmental and safety rules (going overseas, rollback of environmental laws, etc), etc.
When in a glass house...
Melonie
03-29-2005, 01:01 PM
well it appears that some of your overseas goals are already being achieved using clandestine means by Rainforest Action Network ... however the end result isn't as idealistic as the RAN promo sounds.
(snip)"The World Health Organization reported in May 2002 that 5,500 children die every day from consumption of food and water contaminated with bacteria. The WHO painted a shockingly bleak picture for millions of third-world children: 1.3 million under the age of five die annually from diarrheal diseases caused by unsafe food and water; another 2.2 million die from respiratory infections caused or exacerbated by poor sanitation.
This death toll equates to about 40 jumbo jets filled with kids crashing every day — a death toll that can only be alleviated by economic development.
CORE’s Driessen points out that 2 billion people around the world lack electricity. A billion people live on less than $200 per year; three billion live on less than $700 per year. As an illustration of the often disturbingly confused priorities of many environmentalists, a dam project in India’s Gujarat Province was halted after eco-activists pressured lenders to withdraw financial support. The dam had to be stopped because it would “change the path of the river, kill little creatures along its banks and uproot tribal people in the area,” one eco-activist smugly intoned.
“The local ‘tribal people,’ however, don’t appear to appreciate her intervention,” wrote Driessen in his book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. “One resident angrily called the activists’ handiwork ‘a crime against humanity,’ because the project would have provided electricity for 5,000 villages; low-cost renewable power for industries and sewage treatment plants; irrigation water for crops; and clean water for 35 million people.”
discretedancer
03-29-2005, 02:21 PM
1.What goals are you referring to? I don't see anything in here supporting the US economy, lowering emissions globally or helping to change how people THINK about our environment. i see another example of companies moving in response to activist pressure...while a good move, it sends a wrong message that profit and conservation are antithetical.
2. I resent the connection between my proposals and that of RAN or any activist group. As our website clearly states "we are about action...not activism. People working to BALANCE economy, ecology, and lifestyle
3. poorly written article, from a very biased news source
kitana
03-29-2005, 02:24 PM
Damn woman! Where were you a few years ago?
Last handbag I bought for a girlfriend was a $700 LV Monogram Musette.
Strippers are so much more affordable than girlfriends.
:)
LOL, probably sitting on my back porch drinking beer and listening to Black Sabbath.
I agree we can be cheaper to maintain than GF's, you don't have to feed us.
Don't get me wrong if I were making a Mil a year or so, I wouldn't mind having a LV everything. (I really like their 2003 cherry line ;) ), but since I'm not I'm happy with what I have.
Besides, diamonds are a MUCH better investment than Louis anyday!
Kitana
Melonie
03-30-2005, 08:22 AM
in case anybody doubts the political motivations behind the WalMart attacks ...
discretedancer
03-30-2005, 08:35 AM
This particular effort by the unions is stupid, but in no way reflects on the principle of requiring companies to pay fairly, not accept government subsidies for their profitable operations, or any of the larger issues discussed about our labor/financial/environmental/moral issues.
Just because a union is taking a stand (in a wrong way..involving congress in something of this nature) doesn't poison the whole effort.
Personally, I think it's laughable and wrong that ABC would highlight WM in this way...but then I don't understand the segment. Sam Walton (whose granddaughter I went to HS with) is certainly an American Success Story......the company he built should be encouraged to improve. Workign in media, I understand that when Sales gets a client, few people in the building can $ay no to CA$H
Destiny
03-30-2005, 02:00 PM
...Just because a union is taking a stand (in a wrong way..involving congress in something of this nature) doesn't poison the whole effort...But the entire premise of your argument in this thread is a "study" done by a bunch of democratic congressional staff members. You can't acknowledge that such a "study" might have been done with an eye towards advancing unions' goals and that it might just a wee bit biased?
discretedancer
03-30-2005, 02:38 PM
first of all, there is a difference between whether the US Congress should legislate who ABC can have as a sponsor for a TV show (where in the Constitution or any federal document does the government have control over private advertising on media? Freedom of the Press comes to mind) and a study on the costs or benefits of certain public/private collaboratives. I referenced a study which outlines the costs of a certain profitable business' operation to our tax base- and extrapolated it to all businesses that operate with such a model.
To your question about the validity of "democratic studies"
I don't knock out any study ... though some souces are more balanced than others. Facts are facts...when presented as such (though few sources present pure facts). What I haven't seen are facts of any kind which refute the findings of this study, or show that WM-style pay structures are actually NOT costing taxpayers money.
If we're to invalidate work by one party, we must invalidate the work of both - which makes recent voted on THE REFUGE invalid, in fact most of the work being done on Terry Schiavo, social security, homeland security, etc. are invalid as they are Republican led and organized efforts in an imbalanced Congress.
Simply because a study is funded by a party or a branch of congress doesn't make it wrong or untrustworthy. If that were so, then everything we hear from GW and the Republicans about social security, should be eliminated from the debate as well...leaving us with NO sources of information (knock out both sides and what are you left with?
Again, I ask you to present a solution, not simply attack the foundation or facts you don't agree with.
Destiny
03-30-2005, 06:29 PM
First, let me say, that I'm not one of those, "truth is all relative" types. I agree, facts are facts. However, some studies are more balanced than others. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office are two groups known for putting forth facts with no attempt to "spin" them to suit a certain idealogy. Interestingly, neither of those groups authored the study in question. I would not have even mentioned it except that many pages ago I pointed out the false premise behind the democrat's "study". The assumption that every single one of the employees, at every single Wal-Mart, is the sole means of support for an entire family simply is not true. You yourself agreed that that was not the case, "(many WM workers and others are in school)". When a "study" is based on such a false assumption, it is obvious that the authors are not really searching for the truth, they are only attempting to reach a conclusion that they have already pre-determined. Despite the fact that the study is based upon a false assumption, you continue to make statements like, "until then, current studies and research stand." So a "study" you yourself agree is based on a false assumption must "stand"? What kind of sense does that make? You keep asking Melonie to support her statements with facts, well remember this post?
How many need government assistance? What percentage of workers at a typical Wal-Mart get government assistance? All I've seen is they, "might be eligible" they "could be eligible".
I never got an answer. I could go on, but arguing over the validity of studies is sort of like math and math is boring.
As far as your statement, "If we're to invalidate work by one party, we must invalidate the work of both - which makes recent voted on THE REFUGE invalid, in fact most of the work being done on Terry Schiavo, social security, homeland security, etc. are invalid as they are Republican led and organized efforts in an imbalanced Congress." There is a difference between votes in congress and studies done by one or both parties. Congress is free to allow oil drilling in THE REFUFE with or without a "study" showing it is beneficial. Now, of course, we'd all like to believe that congress makes well-informed decisions after fully comtemplating all sides of an issue. Of course, we'd like to believe in the Easter Bunny too. Congress, just like voters on election day, are free to vote in ignorance. It may not be great government, but it doesn't "invalidate" anything.
"Simply because a study is funded by a party or a branch of congress doesn't make it wrong or untrustworthy. If that were so, then everything we hear from GW and the Republicans about social security, should be eliminated from the debate as well..." No, but it does raise the issue of credibility. Let's say there were two studies done on air quality. One done for a lobbying group for the steel industry, the other done by the EPA. You mean you'd give equal credance to them both?
Lastly, you asked me, "to present a solution, not simply attack the foundation or facts you don't agree with." Okay, I'll give it a try.
First, I don't see a problem. The "study" is junk science, and you yourself agreed it doesn't reflect reality. But here goes:
Eliminate the minimum wage law. If I'm willing to work for $3.50 an hour, what business is it of the government? The government doesn't regulate the price of lettuce at the grocery store, why does it regulate the price of labor? The minimum wage law does two things. First it increases teenage unemployment. It costs money to train workers, lots of money. Businesses aren't willing to make that investment in teenagers which is why teenage unemployment is so high. Second, it distorts the marketplace for labor. Know who the Number One proponents of raising the minimum wage are? Unions. Why? Very few, if any, union workers make minimum wage. The reason unions fight for raising the minimum wage is that they know their own high wages are not reflective of what a truly free market would pay. By raising the costs of every other business, they hope that their own employers can somehow survive and continue to pay those fat union wages.