economy

Amazon's Minimum Wage Increase: Big Business Still Puts Money Before People

Business Insider

Amazon recently made headlines by raising its minimum wage for workers to $15 an hour.

The company had previously come under fire for "exploitative employment practices," so many people felt the raise was long overdue. But despite making $178 billion in 2017, Amazon appears to be unwilling to take the fiscal hit to ensure fair wages for their employees. Many Amazon workers have now said that the raise will actually decrease their total compensation because Amazon will no longer give employees new stock grants and monthly bonuses.

Unfortunately, Amazon is not an isolated example of the negative effects a higher minimum wage can have on employees due to employers unwillingness to lose money. Professor Jon Meer, one of the authors of a new paper that explores the effects of higher minimum wages, said, "[Higher minimum wages] impact other forms of compensation like benefits and possibly other things that aren't picked up in the data, like flexibility and free-parking."

A study done by researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research seems to confirm Meer's findings. The study looked at employee pay data from 2011 to 2016, and found "robust evidence" that companies who raised minimum hourly wages also reduced the amount they paid for their employees' health-care benefits in order to make up for the added expense. The study found that workers whose minimum wage was increased by $1 found that 9% to 57% of their wage gains were offset by a decline in their employer's health insurance coverage. So, while workers were technically making more money, they had to spend a larger portion of that raise on health insurance previously provided by their employer.

Recode

In some cases of government-mandated minimum wage increase, workers actually end up with smaller paychecks because of employers unwillingness to cut profit in order to pay employees better wages. In Seattle, a 2016 increase to $13 an hour for minimum wage workers ended up meaning that many workers were scheduled for fewer hours in response to the change. A study by the University of Washington found that after the increase, Seattle workers clocked 9% fewer hours on average, and earned $125 less each month.

Considering Jeff Bezos once made $6 billion in 20 minutes, large companies like Amazon have little excuse not to pay workers enough to live without cutting their benefits. But for smaller businesses — often already fighting a losing battle against companies like Amazon — an increase in state mandated minimum wage can have dire consequences. According to the Employment Policies Institute, many small businesses are forced to close their doors when faced with minimum wage increases.

But then, it's important to consider, how viable is a small business that can't afford to pay workers enough to live? Does America need or want more companies that can't or won't meet minimum wage standards? Perhaps the ability to pay workers a fair minimum wage should be a standard by which we measure the quality of an American company. Unfortunately, the only way we are likely to see widespread progress in the minimum wage conversation is if the culture of American business changes, and companies like Amazon stop valuing money more than people.

Brooke Ivey Johnson is a Brooklyn based writer, playwright, and human woman. To read more of her work visit her blog or follow her twitter @BrookeIJohnson.

Related Articles Around the Web
minimum wage
PayPath
Follow Us on

GeistM Ranks High On Inc. 5000's Fastest Growing Company List

GeistM has ranked #433 on Inc.5000 elite list of America's fastest growing private companies. The annual index, which has previously honored current leaders in their fields like Microsoft, Dell & LinkedIn, gives you a glimpse at the fastest growing independent small businesses taking the US economy by storm.

GeistM, the #1 Performance MarTech Platform powering digital marketing for a portfolio of top class brands and innovative startups, has reported 3 year revenue growth of 1,157%.

Kevin Fortuna, Founder and CEO of GeistM remarked: "Our momentum is building, and we expect our explosive growth to continue. GeistM's performance-driven, partner-friendly business model -- together with our best-in-class technology, our close relationships with network partners and the top-notch work from our talented staff -- are creating a 'virtuous cycle' for our business" .

GeistM is a part of a prominent group of companies featured on the list, who are not only competitive, but have collectively achieved an astounding three-year average growth of 538.2 percent. The Inc. 5000's mass revenue was $206.1 billion, and is responsible for creating 664,095 jobs.

"Our data-driven model enables us to identify and scale winning combinations of content elements, offer dynamics, networks and targeting strategies. At GeistM, we don't think of ourselves as an ad agency or a "vendor" – we're an extension of the marketing teams of our partners. We look for category-leading companies with complex or unique value propositions and the capacity and commitment to scale spend in proven channels of customer acquisition. Our best-of-breed MarTech platform, BlackFire, and our obsessive focus on performance-driven results for our clients, have been the driving factors of our success."

GeistM has exhibited staggering growth in recent years, and it can be attributed to its winning combination of talented staff and innovative approach to marketing technology. The measure of GeistM's worth is clearly evident by not only its skyrocketing success, but by the glowing customer testimonies they receive. "The team at Geist has knowledge and insight unlike any other platform and partner I've worked with. Their passion for product marketing, ability to optimize and propose new ideas makes them the ideal partners to work with."

If their astronomical growth so far is anything to go by, GeistM shows no signs of slowing down and will continue to rise above the rest.

Related Articles Around the Web
digital marketing

Why Video Games Should Actually be More Expensive

Pexels

Gaming is one of the most expensive hobbies out there. Not only do you have to drop hundreds of dollars on a console or a quality PC, you also need to pay up to $60 for any top tier games. Even with membership discounts and sales, those numbers can add up quickly. But the sad truth is, economically, video games should cost way more than they already do.

Let's get some perspective here. In 1990, NES cartridges were selling for $50. And in 1998, N64 games went for $70. If we adjust these prices for inflation, you would pay about $100 for these games today. One-hundred dollars. This means that your current games are underpriced by at least $40. However, the shortage is probably much more than that.

In the '90s, video games had very basic graphics and simple gameplay. Producing one of those games today probably wouldn't cost quite as much. However, as our technology has advanced, the gaming industry has had to keep up. Gamers expect more content, HD (and even 4K) graphics, involved storylines, voice acting and high-quality animations. Not to mention support and updates after launch. That's not even touching marketing budgets. It costs more to produce a game now than it ever has in the past.

But if games should cost more, why are they still $60 a pop? The market is keeping the price artificially low. Customers aren't likely to pay more than $60 for a game, even if it actually costs more money to produce one. This situation is why pre-order bonuses, DLC, and micro-transactions have become so popular and widespread. It is becoming increasingly harder to make a profit in the gaming industry. Developers have had to supplement their base game purchases with add-on content just to scrape by.

Pre-order bonuses give gamers a little something extra in-game on day one when they buy ahead of time. This often boosts profits slightly ahead of launch. They also lock in a certain percentage of sales. It gives publishers an indication of how many copies to manufacture and how many people will be downloading a digital copy.

Nowadays, almost every AAA game features some kind of extra downloadable content. Sometimes this is new weapons or maps for a shooter. Other times, it's an extended story piece. Creating DLC takes much less investment and allows developers to earn more cash on an existing property.

However, what is relatively new and unsettled territory is micro-transactions in a full-priced retail game. In the mobile market, free-to-play games that feature some kind of in-game shop are a dime a dozen. But this kind of model in a $60 game is still pretty controversial.

One example of a successful AAA game with micro-transactions is Overwatch. Players can enjoy the full cast of vibrant characters and maps with no additional charge. But to support future updates and server loads, players can purchase loot crates full of goodies. These goodies ultimately have no real impact on gameplay. They are mostly aesthetic skins and items for bragging rights. You can also slowly earn enough in-game currency to open loot crates by playing normally.

The gaming industry is struggling to keep up with constantly evolving technology and consumer purchasing habits. Developers and publishers have to sell more and more of each new title just to make a profit. This situation might explain why so many publishers re-cycle franchises into sequels so often, rather than taking the time and effort to develop new titles.

Related Articles Around the Web

How much can the president really affect the national economy?

Pexels

By Lauren Aguirre

Often the health and vitality of the economy is used as a measure of a president's success. If the economy is healthy, the president is doing a good job. If it's not, then there are some things to work on. Many people will blame the state of the economy on the current president. It's always his fault. But is it really? How much impact does the president really have on the national economy?

The truth is: not much. At least not in terms of practical, concrete means. The federal government has some tangible controls on the economy, but these are usually not enough to prevent a huge disaster like the Great Recession in 2008. And many of them are out of the president's direct control anyway. The economy functions on a natural cycle. An entire and flow of growth and recession. A recession is inevitable in a modern economy, but there are a few tools that can be used to control how bad it can get.

The first tool you're probably thinking of is a stimulus package. A stimulus is often an injection of money into a slowing or floundering economy. The goal is to reinvigorate the economy or reverse a recession. The injection of cash is meant to boost employment and spending on the short term to get the economy back on track. A stimulus package is often negotiated in Congress. Once it's passed, the president signs it. The president is often involved in the negotiations, but he has no real control over what the final bill would look like or whether it will pass.

Another less abstract federal tool is controlling the interest rate. The Federal Reserve, which controls American currency, can raise or lower the interest rate through manipulation of federal bonds. Right now, the interest rate is historically low. It has stayed that way since the Great Recession. This is the rate that banks use to borrow money from each other. And in turn, affects the rates on your savings account and on personal loans. The national interest rate also controls the rate of inflation, or how fast the value of a single dollar depreciates. Low rates encourage borrowing money. High rates discourage it. The Federal Reserve is a part of the executive branch, but it is an independent agency — even though the chairman is appointed by the president. It does heed advice from the president, it ultimately makes decisions outside of the day's political contentions.

However, the president may have more control in terms of the country's morale. Often, the president is the leader of our country and is often looked to for solace or encouragement when times are tough. He can offer hope in a trying time. In fact, the main reason presidents announce plans to fix the economy is to appear strong and in control in the face of a crisis. This image can give comfort to people who are struggling. This can be just as, if not more, important than having tangible controls over the economy.

Overall, the perception that the president sits at the knobs of the economy just isn't accurate. The president doesn't really have much concrete control over the current economic climate. He can offer comfort and some solutions to those suffering in a bad economy. There are a few tools the federal government can use to help the economy along, but no president can make a recession disappear overnight.

Related Articles Around the Web