Target Employees Won The 'Fight For $15' but Weren't Ready for the Trade-Offs

Workers say they've had their hours cut and lost other benefits, such as health insurance. If only someone could have predicted that.


Under pressure from activists, Target announced in September 2017 that it would hike wages for all 323,000 employees to at least $15 per hour by 2020.

This was a major victory for the "Fight for $15" movement—a win that was supposed to have repercussions for retail and fast food workers everywhere. "Our momentum is unstoppable," a Minneapolis Fight for $15 organizer told Common Dreams.

Two years later, the story is pretty different.

"I got that dollar raise but I'm getting $200 less in my paycheck," a Target employee named Heather told CNN. Heather's hours have been cut from about 40 per week to around 20, she explained.

And she's hardly alone. CNN Business (which withheld employees' last names) has interviewed 23 Target employees in the past month. Many tell the same story: They are working fewer hours and have lost some employment benefits as a result. Target only provides health insurance benefits to workers who average at least 30 hours of work a week.

It's almost as though hourly wages are only one part of a worker's compensation—and that hiking wages might cause other, unintended consequences.

Unlike businesses in states that have recently set higher minimum wages, Target made the decision to raise their wages voluntarily. So it's likely the company undertook its decision with a more holistic view of how to compensate its employees—and how to offset a wage increase with reductions in hours or benefits, or by overhauling its operations. Target COO John Mulligan told CNN that the company created more specialized positions focused on efficiency.

It's also possible that the employees interviewed by CNN don't represent the norm across the more than 360,000 workers at Target stores in America. In any company of that size, there will always be some people who are having their hours reduced while others are taking on larger roles.

But the bottom line is that wage increases do not exist in a vacuum. And that's not just true at Target. Minimum wage increases are "not a net good, and zero-sum at best," according to a recent analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free market think tank. In a report released earlier this month, CEI found that mandated wage increases include a wide number of trade-offs, including reduced non-wage compensation, fewer job openings, reduced hours, increased automation, higher insurance co-pays, less vacation and personal time, and reduced employee discounts.

"The negative economic trade-offs for minimum wage workers, unfortunately, cancel out most of the paycheck gains," says Ryan Young, CEI senior fellow and author of the report.

That sounds like exactly what's happened at Target.

"The company keeps hiring more and more people part time," Target staffer Lee Beecher—a member of United for Respect, a workers' advocacy group—told CNN. "I'm a loyal employee. I'm trying to pick up a second job for the hours I'm not getting at my current job."

He's able to do that because Target raised their wages—and make the associated trade-offs—voluntarily. Other companies might offer a different set of wages, hours, and benefits that are more to Beecher's liking. That's how labor markets work. But if a $15 minimum wage becomes federal law, there fewer alternatives will be available.

NEXT: Nick Cave Slams 'Woke' Culture as 'Self-Righteous' and Suppressive

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Best case: outlaw all “benefits” and pay all employees what they are worth, and allow them to purchase such benefits as they freely choose in an open market.
    How many employees with a degree would choose tuition reimbursement?
    How many (real) men would choose OB/GYN care?
    How many child free singles would choose on-site daycare?
    All “benefits” do is further warp the tax structure, and prevent individual freedoms.

    1. You don’t need to outlaw all benefits. Just take away those WW2-era tax incentives for companies to keep offering them.

      1. That would leave companies only offering such benefits as the company believed were Good. So a bunch of executive buttinskis would decide which behaviors to subsidize, instead of a bunch of political buttinskis. And that would be Truly Awful.


        (Concentrated sarcasm tastes nasty)

      2. That is BS. The US made a decision in the early 1900’s that unlike every other developed country in the world which adopted socialized medicine to some degree, the US would adopt a system where EMPLOYERS would pay for their employees health care. THAT WAS NOT A POST WWII DECISION!

        1. “That is BS. The US made a decision in the early 1900’s that unlike every other developed country in the world which adopted socialized medicine to some degree, the US would adopt a system where EMPLOYERS would pay for their employees health care. THAT WAS NOT A POST WWII DECISION!”

          You don’t know what you are posting about. IOWs, you are full of it.

          1. He’s not wrong. It was actually implemented during the wage freezes of the Great Depression.

            With wages frozen by government across whole industries, companies lobbied for the ability to offer certain benefits packages as a way to compete for labor.

            The ‘pay no tax on employer-provided medical insurance’ was one of those benefits.

            He is wrong in that the US didn’t make a decision to do this in lieu of socialized medical care – which basically no other country had at the time anyway (the NHS, for example, was created in 1948).

            Employer-subsidized insurance is not being offered in place of socialized health care provision but is an ossified leftover of a previous regime’s attempts to fix one of the (many, many) screw-up they made when they attempted to ‘fix’ the economy in the 1930’s.

            1. Employer based insurance for medical or other perks is nothing more than a good purchase.

              You have x number of workers. You need x + y workers.

              To keep x and bring in Y you have something to offer.

              I can purchase a package of medical and other perks for far less then you can.
              Does not take a masters degree to get that.

              1. Echospinner
                October.21.2019 at 11:26 pm
                “Employer based insurance for medical or other perks is nothing more than a good purchase.”

            2. He’s not wrong. It was actually implemented during the wage freezes of the Great Depression.

              Sure, if by “Great Depression,” you mean World War II.

              1. Blue cross, the first medical insurance plan was created by Justin Ford Kimball. He had a background in education and came to work for the Baylor medical system in Dallas TX. In 1929 he proposed a prepaid system where teachers paid a monthly fee instead of a fee for service. The idea caught on.

            3. “He’s not wrong. It was actually implemented during the wage freezes of the Great Depression.”

              Wage freezes were dropped prior to WWII; they were again enforced during WWII.
              After the war, Truman (who was somewhat mystified by economic issues) left them in place.
              The only way employers could compete was to offer ‘tax free’ benes.

        2. Imagine being this stupid.

          Poor little fella.

      3. There weren’t tax incentives for employers to offer benefits during WW2. What there was, was a government imposed CAP on direct compensation at precisely the time when available labor was most scarce.

        The unions decided they liked the indirect compensation, because it gave them more power over the workers. It was after the war was over and the wage cap lifted that the unions fought removing the indirect compensation, the tax incentives were created later to make the unions happy.

        1. All business costs are a tax write off against revenue, including healthcare.

    2. As someone who has worked for an employer and as an independent contractor I know you need to charge about 50% more when working on a contract than as an employee. Right off the bat you have to pay 15% self employment tax that you employer pays for you if you are an employee. Then after having to finance your own health care and retirement plan, 50% more is about equal.

    3. Outlawing benefits is just more government intrusion to “fix” the problem that government made. It’s simpler to just remove the tax incentives that make it more favorable to offer additional compensation in the form of benefits over wages.

      The ideal overhaul would be entirely removing the laws that restrict/mandate hours, benefits, working arrangements, etc. But I’m not holding my breath.

      1. LOL where did you get outlawing benefits? No one has outlawed benefits lmao . What are you smoking? Companies are cutting benefits but that is a private action not government. I think you need to re-read the article.

      2. Sorry… just had to find the place to provide this input… like it or not…
        For those of you too young to have Been There, you need to go back to the mid 1900s… the ’50s and ’60s, when government was trying to get more income by dicking around with income tax rates (again.)

        Employees, particularly those looking for more responsibilities and consequently higher pay were dismayed by the fact that, to get that higher pay, they’d be bumped into higher tax brackets.

        Or, as we said back then, “A Conservative is a Liberal who’s just made it into the 50% tax bracket.” [pick a number to match the decade in question…]

        So, companies were faced with a conundrum: they needed more employees but were met with resistance in the market when they tried to offer more salary!

        So, like most clever humans, they sought a workaround… an end-run around the government regs…

        They began to offer BENEFITS to potential employees that did Not Show Up on the employees’ 1040s as INCOME. Health care and you name it other “bene’s.” Problem basically solved for decades!

        Until the libs figured it out and decided that those benefits were “unfair” to some workers and needed to be constrained or taxed or removed.

        No other rational argument for doing so.

        Enjoy my little history lesson. Been there, saw that, suffered from it.

    4. हमारे ब्लॉग pradhanmantri-yogana.in/ पर आपका स्वागत है| यह ब्लॉग आपको Pradhan Mantri Yojana के बारे में जानकारी प्रदान करता है| इस ब्लॉग से आपको pradhan mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana और कई योजनाओ की जानकारी प्राप्त होगी|

    5. I wanted a “Red Tent” benefit, in exchange for my salary reduced by 25%.

      I could live with that.

    6. Another stupid “progressive move. A moron (democrat) couldn’t see this coming, and are now SCREWING folks that work low-level jobs. When you do a job that ANYONE can do, you cannot be expected to be paid a high wage.

    7. I cannot understand why anyone is surprised that a “mandatory” raise in the minimum wage (which I recognize Target adopted voluntarily….in order to avoid strikes and work disruptions) would cause “unexpected” results by employees.

      The employees just ASSUMED that a raise in wages would fix everything. That is ONLY true if the wage is earned by an increase in their skill sets.

      A REAL wage increase is actually a transfer from a lesser paying position because of the employee’s increased value to the employer. This works for two reasons: The new job pays more in real terms, not just wages, but also in benefits, vacations, health insurance, etc. Secondly, the wage increase is because the employee is more VALUABLE and can ostensibly get a job with a competitor because of their increased skills. This makes them more mobile and less likely to be affected by employer “malfeasance.”

      In short: You want more money: Improve your skill set and deserve it first. THAT is a real raise in your wages.

      Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  2. Now that David Koch has passed away, it’s up to us surviving Koch / Reason libertarians to promote his vision of a United States with unlimited, unrestricted immigration and no minimum wage. Since the Democratic Party pretty much agrees with us on immigration, we’re halfway there.


    1. Soooooo, those photos of kids in cages from 2014/2015 were a Republican administration thing?

    2. and eliminate the welfare state

      1. This would have to happen FIRST.

        1. I don’t think eliminating the welfare state would have to happen first. It would reliably happen on its own at some point during the Great Collapse™ that would follow allowing unlimited immigration – just as night follows day.

    3. Unrestricted immigration = unrestricted infection
      We are seeing diseases returning to the US that we defeated a century ago.

      1. That’s due to yuppies not vaccinating their kids, though.

        1. Cite please.

          1. Just look up anti-vaxx news stories, no one is going to do your research for you, don’t be such a lazy fuck.

        2. You’re both right.

    4. And ZERO government assistance? Sure let anyone in, but they don’t get a penny of my money or anyone else’s. Like my immigrant ancestors – work and take care of yourself or starve.

  3. “It’s almost as though hourly wages are only one part of a worker’s compensation—and that hiking wages might cause other, unintended consequences.”

    Now if only someone would explain that to the US Women’s Soccer Team–the ones most vocal about equal pay. During their last collective bargaining session, the women wanted benefits that the men did not fight for. Those benefits, also, did not exist in a vacuum. If they are being paid less, it is because of these trade-offs. But the ladies don’t want to discuss that. They want all their benefits AND get more money. (One of the benefits the women receive is health care…men do not).

    1. They want to have their cake and eat yours.

      1. I’m pretty sure they want to eat each other’s

        1. Guffaw

          1. Oops… you said cake, not pie.

            1. “Cake” is the ass, yes?

        2. These euphemisms are getting kinky.

    2. Yep. I’d be willing to bet that if they were offered a contract identical to the men’s, down to the penny, few if any of the WNT would want to sign on the dotted line. Far too much risk of getting paid zero. The WNT contract trades a lot of at-risk money for stability and security.

  4. Next up, President Liawatha Warren will, by executive order, mandate a $15 hr minimum wage, a 32 hour work week, and universal health care and retirement plans.
    The stool needs three legs in order for you to fully milk the cow.

    1. The stool needs three legs in order for you to fully milk the cow.

      Bourgeois hipsters and their fancy three-legged milking stools.

    2. You would think the lesson would be ‘oops. Not a good thing’.

      But nope. This is what concerns me. Cutting back hours because of our ignorant demands to survive? We ban cutting hours back. Besides you don’t deserve to be in business if you can’t do this.

      And so on.

      Communism by other means.

    3. What’s her definition of “work”?

  5. Why this result surprises anyone is a mystery.

    Of course there were many possible results. The only impossible result is that nothing would have changed. But that’s what proponents told us would happen. Nothing would change.

    Other possible results: Dump the unproductive workers and hire more productive workers. Meaning that Target would no longer be the starting job for the unskilled, but a job where ten years of retail experience is required. And I expect this is the route smaller firms will take. Stop hiring the less skilled and experienced and start demanding greater efficiency.

    1. This is my biggest concern, if the first rung on the ladder goes to only the most productive people, then what happens to those who simply have yet to acquire the skills for the job? The answer looks like most countries in Europe who have 20%+ youth unemployment in the late stages of the longest economic expansion on record.

      1. Daniel Quinn on education:

        And it should be noted that our high-school graduates are reliably entry-level workers. We want them to have to grab the lowest rung on the ladder. What sense would it make to give them skills that would make it possible for them to grab the second rung or the third rung? Those are the rungs their older brothers and sisters are reaching for. And if this year’s graduates were reaching for the second or third rungs, who would be doing the work at the bottom? The business people who do the hiring constantly complain that graduates know absolutely nothing, have virtually no useful skills at all. But in truth how could it be otherwise?

        So you see that our schools are not failing, they’re just succeeding in ways we prefer not to see. Turning out graduates with no skills, with no survival value, and with no choice but to work or starve are not flaws of the system, they are features of the system.

      2. What happens? France is what happens.

        France has one of the most efficient workforces in the country. And a 20% chronic unemployment rate. Because its so expensive to employ a Frenchman and so dangerous for you to do so – since its damn near impossible to legally fire one – only those who can demonstrate sustained superior performance are getting jobs.

        1. And the ones who can operate the high-tech machines replacing 8 or 10 workers.

          1. …and that’s Exactly why robots have replaced so many UAW “workers”… higher quality output, better repeatability of results, no coffee breaks, lunch hours, sick days or medical insurance or retirement benefits.

            Gosh.. WhoTF would have predicted any of that???

            me… back in the late 1960s… 🙂

    2. “Why this result surprises anyone is a mystery.”‘

      Baffling to me as well. Companies — well, competent ones — have budgets for virtually every piece of the business. Labor is one of them. If your budget is X and you increase the costs by Y…then you have to make up the shortfall. If I have $100 for labor and I pay for $20/hr, I can pay you for 5 hrs of work. If I then pay you $25 an hour, my money for labor hasn’t increased, so I can then only pay for you four hrs. Such is life.

  6. It’s also possible that the employees interviewed by CNN don’t represent the norm across the more than 360,000 workers at Target stores in America.


    1. To be sure…

  7. Told ya so!

  8. “I got that dollar raise but I’m getting $200 less in my paycheck,” a Target employee named Heather told CNN. Heather’s hours have been cut from about 40 per week to around 20, she explained.

    Clearly, $15 is not a living wage for someone working only 20 hours a week. What we need to have is a $30 minimum. Somebody somewhere who was funded by the right people did an incontrovertible study that proves this.

    1. I know someone advocating for $50 minimum wage.

      1. Tlaib the Palestinian Putz?

      2. Only $50? Don’t be a stingy skinflint! Make is $100. It’s not your money, so why do you care? Give generously!

        1. Do you want people to starve or not be able to afford the new iPhone? $150 is the only reasonable minimum wage.

          1. Sweet. I always wondered what a $500 cheeseburger tasted like.

            1. I’ve wondered what a Costco Japanese Wagyu A5 Grade Genuine Kobe Beef NY Strip Steak at $368.09/lb tastes like (and how much better it might taste if it had never been frozen for delivery). So, perhaps the minimum wage needs to be at least $400/hr since a decent steak NY strip steak seems to cost more than current federal minimum wage and no one should have to pay more than an hour’s wages for a raw steak.

    2. I think a one time payout of $1,000,000 to anyone who asks would take care of the problem. Then we’d all be millionaires and all our problems would be solved.


      1. Warren and Bernie will decide where that money should come from, right? 🙂

    3. There is this thing known as “getting a second job”. Which is clearly what you have to do if you can’t pay the bills any longer.

  9. That’s how labor markets work.

    So then we’ll just have to enforce minimum staffing requirements.

    1. Sooner or later they’ll all be replaced by robots. Then the robots will unionize, and we’ll start the process all over.

      1. What do we want?
        When do we want it?

        1. 57 68 61 74 20 64 6f 20 77 65 20 77 61 6e 74 3f
          35 57 2d 33 30
          57 68 65 6e 20 64 6f 20 77 65 20 77 61 6e 74 20 69 74 3f
          4e 6f 77 21

          A little cultural sensitivity, please.

          1. Point of personal robot privilege!

          2. 4e 65 78 74 20 74 68 65 79 27 6c 6c 20 77 61 6e 74 20 73 79 6e 74 68 65 74 69 63 21

      2. “The Cylons were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan.”

    2. Make them use spoons.

  10. Raising minimum wages also makes automating a task more attractive.

    1. Yeah, I’m vaguely convinced that the mastermind behind Fight for 15 has a lot of money riding a long call on automation companies. Round up some progressive dupes with zero knowledge of economics to man the barricades, and you’re off to the races. Seems like a viable racket, though I doubt it’s really the case.

      1. Well, that’s definitely Gore’s scam in the case of climate change, and he’s not the only one. I’d be more surprised if none of the advocates for raising the minimum wage *weren’t* doing this.

        1. And Steyer’s in the same scam.

  11. It would be interesting to learn what has happened across the entire country for Target stores – but when Elizabeth Warren becomes president, she will try to make it illegal for companies like Target to reduce employee hours just to offset the higher wages. Since it will take years to transition to her “Medicare for All” plan, she will also forbid Target to take away employee benefits in the mean time.

    1. You don’t have to transition to “Medicare for All”, you just have to identify as being enrolled in it.

    2. And her decrees will somehow generate the money required to pay these increased wages? Truly, she is a witch!

      1. Have you not heard of MMT? The government will just issue cash to companies to pay the increased wages. No problem…

  12. Idiots.

    I went through this exercise with my employees yeas ago. They want to be paid according to ‘government scale’ AND get a health plan.

    I said you can get an hourly wage that reflects your truer (or at least a more accurate) net worth without distortions by the government and we can work towards a plan or you can go to scale and get nothing.

    There’s only so much in the pot and what I can charge in my business to handle the costs. My #1 responsibility is a good service to my clients and to make sure I have a viable business to pay employees and rent.

    It’s not complicated. The left are so stupidly ignorant about finance and business to the point of unacceptable don’t get this. Worse, they think YOU’RE the fool for not bending to their moronic demands.

    Keep being made fools by Sanders and AOC and this is what you get. Reality kicking you straight in the head. And you can’t keep defying it by the regulatory Leviathan and not expect unintended consequences. The other side (employers) aren’t going to put their families in jeopardy.

    1. Many on the left are not just ignorant about finance and business, they are philosophically opposed. The idea of trying to balance revenue and costs is just not important. And profit, of course, is evil.

      To them, the purpose of a “job” is to provide wealth to the workers, and has nothing to do with the value created by work.

      1. Hence they over rate themselves.

        Everyone and everything – including me – is replaceable.

        In Canada we say, “If Wayne Gretzky was traded….the anyone can be.” If the most dominant athlete in the history of North American sports was deemed good enough to trade, then what makes the rest of us think we can’t?

        1. Let me rephrase that lest it starts a debate. Few – if any – athlete statistically dominated their sport more than 99. The only one I can think of was Ruth.

          1. And Ruth only dominated in a much less professional time (and a segregated league . . .)

          2. He played in a time of stand up goalies and 6-5 games. I like Gretzky but he wouldn’t crack the top 15 in scoring in today’s game.

            1. I hated Gretzky, but you’re an idiot.
              Maybe stick to your video games. Hockey’s not your thing, GreeV.

          3. Garbage. Michael Jordan.

            1. Wilt was better than Jordan. Wilt didn’t have the NBA making rules to benefit him.

              1. In fact, he had the NBA making rules to make him less dominant, such as prohibiting slam-dunk free throws.


      2. If that’s the case, then Warren should have Congress simply subsidize the creation of large office buildings in every major city. The buildings would be filled with cubicles with impressive-looking panels of lights, buttons and levers. Anyone who wanted a job would be trained to push certain buttons or pull certain levers in response to various lights lighting up.

        None of the panels would actually *do* anything, but why is that important?

      3. “”To them, the purpose of a “job” is to provide wealth to the workers, and has nothing to do with the value created by work.”‘

        They think it’s the job’s responsibility to serve them.

        1. Tricky… you think YOU’re ‘old school’??? 🙂

          My perennial challenge to the Left and particularly to morons like Warren is this (oh, yeah, Batshit Bernie, too…):

          Please make me a list of all companies which have been founded or created with The Sole Purpose of Providing Employment For their Workers.

          ‘Been waiting a LONG time for the first answers to come back…

    2. I’d be tempted if my employees were agitating for a uniform “minimum” wage increase across the board to put out a memo:

      Dear Associates,

      In response to many of your requests, we are considering implementing a Wage Enhancement Program (WEP). Those choosing to participate in WEP would work to an enhanced wage schedule. The lowest wage under the WEP schedule would increase from $10/hr to $15/hour. Obviously WEP participants already making $15/hr will expect a raise as a result and that’s only fair so we would also increase all WEP wages on a sliding scale.

      Our analysis shows that in order to implement WEP and still maintain a viable business, we would need to cut labor hours by 20% among WEP Associates. We have concluded that the best way to do this would be to lay off 20% of WEP Associates rather than reducing hours for all WEP Associates because it’s typically much more difficult for workers to schedule two part time jobs than one full time job.

      So, if you wish to participate in WEP should we decide to implement it, you must logon to our internal web site and follow the “Wage Enhancement Program” on the front page. There, you must vote for at least three immediate work colleagues that you think would be good candidates for laying off in order to free up funds for implementation of the WEP program. Think carefully before submitting your answers as once you click [Confirm] you will be unable to change your selections.

      Your votes must be in by one week from this Thursday. Anyone not voting will be excluded from WEP should we implement it. Friday morning, all votes will be made public so all Associates can see which Associates voted for which Associates to be laid off and, as well, who has elected not to participate in the wage enhancement program if we decide to implement it.

      In other, completely unrelated, news, we are also implementing an enhanced employee review process. We recognize that often Associates have a unique and important perspective on their colleague’s contributions. Therefore, going forward (independent if WEP is ever implemented), 30% of each Associate’s performance rating will be decided by their peers.

      And, then, sit back and watch the fireworks.

  13. But the lobbyist keep their jobs and will in fact use these “wins” to solicit more money from progs to help keep them employed in their negatively productive jobs.

    1. Will she also forbid filing for bankruptcy?

      1. “My new legislation will reduce the number of private bankruptcies to ZERO!” *uproarious applause*

  14. “Workers say they’ve had their hours cut and lost other benefits, such as health insurance.”

    Tough shit, you jackasses. You think money grows on trees?

    1. You think money grows on trees?

      Even if it did, they’d only allow for non-GMO money trees that can’t produce more than $5.50/hr. and would require them to be fertilized with organic manure.

    2. Technically it grows on cotton plants. Which aren’t trees.

    3. Again, you are assuming not only basic finance and math skills, but a philosophical recognition of how work and commerce create things of value that turn into money, which can in turn be distributed.

      So for the typical jackass, money might as well grow on trees, be pooped out by unicorns, or otherwise magically appear.

      1. The second clause of that first sentence is a discipline called “economics” with which the majority of americans are only passingly familiar, having once glimpsed it across the room at a party in high school while they were talking to someone, trying to get laid.

  15. Related:
    “How San Francisco Is Killing Its Restaurants
    Labor costs and regulation are ruining a once-thriving industry. Congress should take it as a cautionary tale.”

  16. The technical aspect that minimum wage misses out on is that it conflates cash with deferred compensation. Paying someone $20k with $20k worth of benefits is not the same as paying someone $40k.

    1. Damn right. Way too much of the 20K in benefits is tax exempt.
      If no benefits were tax exempt, Medicare and social security would be fully funded.

      1. That’s possible, though I personally doubt it – those programs are deep enough in the hole that we’d have to find some way to beat Hauser’s law to fund them fully. Given that no amount of wishing and finger-wagging by the wokest among us has yet produced any way of managing that, I think it’s more likely that the additional taxes would probably slow growth and depress real wages until revenues matched our present situation.

        That’s ignoring the far more important question of whether those programs should be funded at all.

  17. I was recently in Target and noticed the lack of cashiers. They are adding self-checkout machines that really take the inefficiency out and cutting jobs at the same time.

    As for the $15/hour…I just read a lefty econ piece on California becoming a failed state, as wealth is moving out due to taxes. This guys answer was higher (property taxes). Sometimes you can’t make this shit up.

    1. So, tax the serfs even more for the Manor. Textbook neofeudalism.

    2. That Yahoo finance article is from Bloomberg. Of course their solution is to repeal Proposition 13 to raise property taxes. That will really drive people out of the state. They do say to cut government pension benefits, but they want to give the savings to the schools. They bring up the exorbitant cost of the wildfires and PG&E cutting power to reduce the chance of more fires. But a major cause of the wildfire problem is the mismanagement of the forests and preventing them from being culled to reduce fires.

      1. I’m convinced all of these failed policies are by leftie design. The ACA failed to be “affordable”, so the federal gov’t must takeover healthcare. Repealing prop 13 will cause continuing mass exodus, so the federal gov’t must takeover housing for the middle class and poor (even though the U.S. has the lowest property prices in the developed world). The failed BARTs and choo choo is Trumps and the automobiles industry fault- the feds must takeover the transportation sector (it helps to eliminate road building so you can keep the serfs in, unable to leave). Global warming is causing fires so the feds must takeover the entire energy industry….and on and on…

        But the democrats in California should put up or stfu. Promote repealing prop 13, then promote cutting the union pensions (those guys aren’t the girl scouts). Perhaps save the state and become a red or purple state again…one can only dream.

        1. I think you give most progressives too much credit. The truly woke do NOT consider finance or math or numbers (all that shit is white patriarchy). The righteous see only morality and feelings. So if some ridiculous policy fails, it cannot be for any practical reason–it can only fail due to evil.

      2. It’s worth noting that now that fire insurances premiums in the state are rising in response to the market’s evaluation of the risk of Californians/ houses burning down (high to severe), the Californian government wants to allow private forestry management to help reduce recurring risk, and reform zoning restrictions so housing pressure doesn’t push increasing numbers of Californians into suburban wildfire zones.

        Oh wait, my mistake – actually they want to subsidize fire insurance so it’s artificially cheaper to live in burn zones, and introduce onerous land use restrictions to increase the cost of building on new lots, thus encouraging the rebuilding of houses in areas that were condemned or destroyed by fire damage. Along with planting more trees, of course.

        If you sit down and tried to think of constitutionally defensible ways to make California an awful place to exist, you’d be hard pressed to beat Sacramento’s brain trust.

        1. Have they, using what I’ve come to consider “typical progtard analysis”, demanded the replanting be done with non-flammable trees? Another problem unsolved at great expense by the direct and vigorous application of lefty principles!

    3. “”They are adding self-checkout machines that really take the inefficiency out “”

      Nothing says efficiency like standing behind someone who has little idea how to operate a self-checkout machine.

  18. So you can raise the price of a commodity (in this case, labor) to a point where the demand for it decreases? Amazing. If only there were some economic laws that would warn us about such things . . .

    1. If only an economics degree could teach the economist to read the laws – – – – – – –

      (looking at you AOC)

  19. At least they didn’t raise their prices.

  20. Target COO John Mulligan told CNN that the company created more specialized positions focused on efficiency.

    That is, positions that use *robots*.

  21. “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

    1. I don’t really agree with HL Mencken on a lot of stuff, but damn if he didn’t have a way with words.

  22. What unions and those supporting companies to pay a salary such as the $15/hr don’t seem to realize is a company can be forced to pay more than it can afford. When that happens then all looses. This happened about 50 plus years ago when a news paper publisher in the Ohio area was struck by its employees. The management kept telling the negotiators that the paper could not afford to the demands and if they continued with their demand that the paper would have to fold. They continued and the paper folded and went out of business. The employees and and the newspaper company both lost with the employees losing the most.

    1. This built-in limit on union demands works, sometimes painfully, but it works. This is also the reason allowing GOVERNMENT employees to unionize was a horrible mistake. Of course, we were already well down the path of unsustainable governmental costs, so it’s just a matter of who gets to steal the tax money.

    2. “…They continued and the paper folded and went out of business. The employees and and the newspaper company both lost with the employees losing the most.”

      Thereby proving the real minimum wage is $0.00/hour.

    1. As an independent you had better know your worth as well as expenses, the difference between mark up and margin.

  23. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website …….. Read More

  24. Brian Cornell CEO of Target got a salary of $15,000,000.00 in 2017.

    That’s 1000 times that of the employees who’s hours he cut.

    1. Does he have 1000 times the need for his families, residences, clothing, breakfasts, lunches and dinners?

    2. Free markets. Target employees work there under a consensual relationship in which they exchange their labor for currency. Nobody is forcing them to stay there. The Target CEO’s salary is irrelevant to the entire discussion. His skills are orders of magnitude more valuable than some person who stocks shelves and compensation should reflect that.

      1. In reality, people in society need jobs.

        Target fills a social need for goods and they will employ people to do so.

        Nobody rationally deserves to receive 1000 times the wage of another.

        1000 breakfasts every day. That must be one fat pig.

        1. Yeah, he’s probably a Jew, right?

        2. This is a Libertarian news site. I think you’re in the wrong place kiddo.

          1. No kidding. Also, most of that compensation was stocks. Not money to spend on breakfasts or employees.

          2. No shit. The Daily Worker’s over thattaway.

            But perhaps the ignorant commie has a point. For a change let’s put the government in charge of deciding what people deserve. That *has* to work, amirite?

        3. It is the job of the Board of Directors, not some random schmuck like yourself, to decide what the CEO deserves in pay.

        4. In reality, people in society need jobs.

          And Target is offering them, at certain conditions. If they don’t like the conditions, they can take a different job.

          Nobody rationally deserves to receive 1000 times the wage of another.

          If I produce 1000x as much output as someone else, why don’t I deserve 1000x as much wage?

        5. Rob Misek
          October.22.2019 at 8:33 am
          “In reality, people in society need jobs.”‘

          It’s the jooze, right you pathetic piece of shit?

        6. Yeah, jerk, and back when Chrysler Corp was still Chrysler Corp, Business Week ran an article about ‘excessive corporate compensation,’ and actually included a few pertinent numbers.

          So, I took out my slide rule and crunched a few.
          If the then-CEO, Lee Iacocca, had his salary and benefits reduced to ZERO dollars, the corporation could, theoretically, pass those savings on to ALL their customers.

          Given their annual production back then, the potential ‘sticker price savings’ to all customers would have been roughly…. wait for it… about $3.00. Yep, THREE fucking dollars.

          Now, if you actually think that those THREE Dollars would end up in the pockets of all of their vehicle buyers, well, you’re dumber than your concept that corporations are created with the Purpose Of Supplying Jobs For Society.

          Companies are created for ONE purpose and One Purpose Only… to offer a product or service to people who want to purchase that product or service AND make enough profit to pay for everything that must be paid for in order to DELIVER those products or services…. AND keep enough money to tide themselves over the lean periods of business cycles.

          Econ101. You fail.

    3. Yeah, you might want to check and find out if he’s a Jew, then you can blame it on that.

    4. Perhaps you meant 2018 – where his total compensation was $17.2 million. In 2017 his total compensation was $8.4 million. At any rate, his salary in 2018 was $1.4 million, he received stock awards of $10 million, non-equity incentive compensation of $5.3 million, and under “all other compensation”, he received around $557,000. I don’t know if his stock award is restricted or if it’s subject to a vesting requirement.

      1. Why the hell did you bother to look that up?

        The exact amount the CEO earned is irrelevant to our flea-infested guest. What matters is that the CEO runs a company, so a) he has to provide jobs to anyone who needs one, and b) he only deserves the most minimal of compensation for providing those jobs.

        Now shut the hell up and get back in line, Comrade Kulak, before your betters stick you in a Gulag.

    5. If he adds $15 million to Target’s bottom line, then that’s money well spent, and Target’s board is discharging its fiduciary duty to the shareholders (including a lot of people with Target stock in their 401(k)s who are relying on that stock to appreciate in value so they can retire in comfort).

  25. I went to McDonalds yesterday. I kid you not, it took this troglodyte over 5 minutes to correctly type in our order for 1 hot coffee, 1 iced coffee, and 1 triple cheeseburger. My wife and I were in awe at this 30 year old who lacked such basic skills. She’ll soon be replaced by a machine. The more the activists demand for higher wages for their useless skills, the sooner they’ll all be replaced by machines that don’t b* and moan and require health care plans.

    1. Are you willing to compare your daily effort and bottom line results to theirs and have your wage adjusted accordingly?

      1. You could always just blame the Jews.

      2. With pleasure!!! I figure if my output / salary ratio were the same as the McD case above, I’d be up for about a 100 % raise. Same comments for baggers and shelf-stockers at the supermarket. That’s not vanity or arrogance, but a realistic assessment of what I can produce that they can’t, and never will.

        1. An Industrial engineer could determine the facts for sure.

          So you think your company is doing better than McDonald’s per employee. Hmmm.

          When you factor in your disposable plastic straw companies relative value to society, you may end up owing money.

          1. You’re on fire today Comrade! Let’s hire an industrial engineer to determine everyone’s output. Then we could hire — I dunno, maybe a sociologist — to determine what everybody’s living requirements are! We could then come up with a snappy slogan for the system, something along the lines of “from each according to…”.

            That should work out just great! And if not, we could come up with some sort of plan to fix the bugs, although it’d probably take a while to implement. 5 years maybe? But in the meantime, everybody would be equal, which would be super. (Except for the people who would be running the system — they’d be so stressed out from their work that they would need big fancy houses, fleets of cars, vacation villas, etc. They wouldn’t be equal, but that just can’t be helped.)

            1. Misek tends to be more a fan of Roehm than of Lenin.

              1. Haven’t read other threads featuring said louse, but here it definitely favors “kill the rich” class warfare.

                1. And the Jews.

          2. Oh, and we’d need to do something about people who weren’t happy with, say, getting as much compensation as a McD worker, after earning a medical degree. Those people would need to lighten up! So maybe we could send them to some kind of camps. “Fun camps” has a nice ring to it?

            What say? I’m just spitballing here — I’d love to hear your obviously more enlightened opinion…

          3. ‘Rob Misek
            October.22.2019 at 11:09 am
            “An Industrial engineer could determine the facts for sure….”

            What happens if he’s a jew, you slimy piece of shit?

      3. Misek is obviously an enemy of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and Misek is determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!

      4. Rob Misek
        October.22.2019 at 8:45 am
        “Are you willing to compare your daily effort and bottom line results to theirs and have your wage adjusted accordingly?”

        Stuff it up your ass, scumbag bigot.

    2. I’ve been to a McD’s where ordering is on a kiosk. Just hit some pictures on the screen. But remember that fully 10% of the population hasn’t the intellect to hold down a job in the army. Fully 50% of the population has an IQ below 100.

  26. Haha! Everything In life entails a trade off. Only people who something for nothing miss that point.

  27. Nothing is more predictable than executives who vote themselves excessive compensation trying to nickel and dime the workers (who make all profits possible).

    1. Target’s net profit is about $3 billion per year and they have 350000 employees. That is about $8600/worker or about $4.20/worker/hour. That’s the maximum they could raise if they eliminated all profits (in practice, they can’t even raise that much because of non-wage labor costs). Of course, if they did, they would go out of business.

      So, no, they can’t just give workers a $5/h raise and continue as if nothing happened, they need to get $5/h more value out of each worker.

    2. skeptic
      October.22.2019 at 9:03 pm
      “Nothing is more predictable than executives who vote themselves excessive compensation trying to nickel and dime the workers (who make all profits possible).”

      The “labor” theory of value was blown out of the water by von Bawerk about 5 years after Marx proposed it.
      Unless capital provides the framework and plant to produce something, “labor” can dig holes with spoons all day long and gain nothing.
      You are an unlettered idiot.
      Fuck off.

  28. Target employees did not get an increase for performing the same tasks listed as requirements to earn the $10/hr.

    We earn more an hour because our responsibilities have greatly increased and will continue to do so when the hourly rate increases to $15/hr. Our raises are commensurate with our increased work loads.

    These increases are not gifts. Our new expectations/duties have been described as what the leads were responsible for before the pay increases.

  29. When things get more expensive you find ways to use less of it or find alternatives. Econ 101 supply and demand.

  30. It’s simple. Liberal mandates meet economic reality. Happens every time, eventually. Everything has a cost factor, and an expense variable and flexibility that is mostly bounded. You can not force a business to increase its expenses and not expect them to take counter actions to maintain profits. Without profits, many businesses fail and without the possibility of making a profit, why even start a business? To satisfy the demands of some union or liberal agenda? Good luck with that.

  31. “… there fewer alternatives will be available.”

    Ringing words … not.

  32. From the department of the astonishingly obvious: Who didn’t see this coming???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.