Should minimum wage be variable?

[Indy Texas]

The solution to this is not fiddling around with things like minimum wage but enacting a guaranteed basic income provided by the government.

I think both should exist, with the minimum wage being higher than the guaranteed income so as to avoid unemployment traps.

But as for the question, no. There's no point in having a minimum wage if it's not universal.

Most minimum-wage jobs aren't particularly mobile. I don't think location arbitrage would be an issue except with, say, a very small town with a higher minimum wage leading to businesses locating immediately on the town's outskirts (though the town could simply annex that surrounding area, depending on what the laws on that are).

If you're running a McDonald's and the minimum wage is lower 20 miles away, that doesn't matter. There's probably already a McDonald's in that area. People where you are aren't going to drive 20 miles to eat at McDonald's and vice versa. If the minimum wage was high enough to where you were losing money, you'd simply close. (Your workers would now be unemployed and getting zero dollars an hour, but you'd find some other investment venture).

[Indy Texas]

There should be no minimum wage period. 

RAHAHA WORKERS DON'T DESERVE A LIVING INCOME!!!!

 your country is so backward.

Why should employers bear the burden alone?  There are far better methods than minimum wage to provide for a living income.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

[Indy Texas]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

[Indy Texas]

Why should employers bear the burden alone?

Because, generally speaking, "employers" are the people who reap the most benefits from modern economy, and asking them to give something back makes perfect sense if you're concerned about common good.

Then tax them in other ways that don't discourage them from hiring people as the minimum wage does.  Economically, that's all the minimum wage is, a tax linked to a welfare benefit.  Of course, it has the advantage (from a politician's POV) of not showing up on the budget.

So you're perfectly okay with Wal-Mart helping its employees fill out food stamp, HUD and Medicaid applications to supplement the inadequate wages they are being paid?

Yup.  I'm not against there being a social safety net.  I just think that the minimum wage is not a particularly good net.

Do you see the problem here?

1. Local government gives Wal-Mart enormous tax abatement and/or incentive package to locate in their jurisdiction.
2. Wal-Mart opens. People working there make minimum wage.
3. Wal-Mart workers cannot pay for housing, food or healthcare with these wages and require public assistance.
4. Government must provide public assistance.
5. Since Wal-Mart got major tax break, Wal-Mart is not contributing much to this public assistance. Instead, that burden falls on small businesses and on individual citizens.

The problem is right there at the start, with government granting Wal-Mart (or any other business) large rebates for doing ordinary business.  That would be a problem regardless of whether there is a minimum wage or not.

It is standard practice. If you're a podunk town on a stretch of Interstate, you are competing against the towns neighboring you for the privilege of having a Wal-Mart/Home Depot/Dick's/etc and getting to tell your constituents you helped create jobs. It creates an arms race where each town has to offer a more generous package. And how savvy do you think the city council in a town with only 2,000 people is? Most of them are going to listen to the company's pitch and be taken in out of a combination of fear, desperation and lack of background in cost-benefit analysis.