Raising the minimum wage to $15 has not worked in California's favor

[Celebrity]

Bull hockey. The rich will raise prices enough where they will make the same amount as they did before and "hoard" the same amount as they did before. Liberals always think that like the rape fallacy, business owners will just sit there and let themselves be raped. They won't.

You know, the funny thing about capitalist systems emerging from socialist systems is that criminals are more successful than legitimate business owners. I wonder if the same is true about tax evasion in America, like the bratva in Russia.

There is little hoarding. you don't know what you are talking about.

I know, it's all "reinvested," right? The one with the biggest anthill wins.

 

[Moderate Right]

Can a business just raises prices without losing market share?

Of course a business can. Doesn't the minimum wage go up for everyone? I shouldn't have to debate economics with a first grader.

 

[Kushinator]

Of course a business can. Doesn't the minimum wage go up for everyone? I shouldn't have to debate economics with a first grader.

That the minimum wage increases does not equate to a broad increase in prices. Firms who depend on low wage labor can maintain their current price structure and gain market share.

Please don't pretend that you are debating economics.

 

[laska]

$15 minimum wage would work better under my tax plan:

No deductions on net income.

0%-first $100,000 of net income
20%-any additional net income between $100,000-1 mil
30%-any additional net income above 1 mil

0% corporate rate
eliminate as best as possible outdated and poorly designed regulations that add unneeded costs to business
eliminate health insurance costs for business by going to single payer catastrophic/cash for minor health issues
eliminate payroll taxes
basically eliminate all direct and indirect taxes on business ie job creation


tax capital gains at above 0/20/30% rates except when companies offer stock to raise money and then at a 15% rate for net capital gains income above $100,000



high tax on luxury goods and services
tax carbon at real cost
tax unhealthy food, beverages, and other harmful products at real cost
tax gambling where legal at real cost

Match tariffs for nations not willing to have complete and open access to their markets. Ideally elimination of tariffs on all sides.


State/Local:
Fund government solely through sales and property taxes. No value added taxes as it raises costs of exports, no property taxes on business. No sales taxes on nutritious whole foods or low income rent.

 

[Moderate Right]

That the minimum wage increases does not equate to a broad increase in prices. Firms who depend on low wage labor can maintain their current price structure and gain market share.

Please don't pretend that you are debating economics.

You know nothing about business, other than biased liberal fantasies. It's common sense that if a business owner bottom lines $200,000 per year and labor goes up $150,000 per year, the business owner will raise prices to get back the $150,000 so that he is still bottom lining $200,000 per year. That's just as true if you are talking about companies with CEO's and a board of directors or are publicly traded corporations. Any other thought process is nothing but liberal fantasy.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

They haven't even gotten to 15 an hour yet and it is already having negative affects on the economy.
the same thing is happening in seattle.

Businesses that you need to grow aren't. if anything they are cutting job, working people less hours
and raising prices.

you can't raise the floor on people without consequences.

Because California's economic platform was strong and solid until this idea was presented? . . . lol. California's been going steadily down the economic crapper for years. They cannot point fingers to this and blame this for their existing and ongoing problems.

In fact, people being severely underpaid in one of the most costly areas of the country is WHY they're struggling so much.

Will some business be able to cope? No. Why is that? Because they were poorly designed, relying on underpaying employees to barely stay afloat. They weren't thriving to begin with and destined for failure if the economy was strangled ever so slightly - yet again.

 

[Moderate Right]

Because California's economic platform was strong and solid until this idea was presented? . . . lol. California's been going steadily down the economic crapper for years. They cannot point fingers to this and blame this for their existing and ongoing problems.

In fact, people being severely underpaid in one of the most costly areas of the country is WHY they're struggling so much.

Will some business be able to cope? No. Why is that? Because they were poorly designed, relying on underpaying employees to barely stay afloat. They weren't thriving to begin with and destined for failure if the economy was strangled ever so slightly - yet again.

Let's not forget though that consumers demand low priced products and there are business that fill that need by having low prices through low wages. It's not that they were badly designed businesses.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Let's not forget though that consumers demand low priced products and there are business that fill that need by having low prices through low wages. It's not that they were badly designed businesses.

Such business can continue to do so without falling into the category of businesses that would be impacted by this. The new standard they're pushing toward has written in flexibility to allow mom and pop and other small businesses to continue as they are now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course a business can. Doesn't the minimum wage go up for everyone? I shouldn't have to debate economics with a first grader.

No. The minimum wage doesn't go up for everyone.

I did the math about 20 years ago for what I knew at the time of the cost percentage of an employee from the selling price of goods and services. I don't recall the specifics, but in a closed system, you can generally double an employees wages and benefits, and only charge 25% more. Now this seems like a plus, but the system is too dynamic to look at such simplicity.

Like I said, in a closed system.

What is especially bad, is we live in a global market now. We have lost so many jobs due to cheaper labor already, and when we raise our costs again, we will lose more jobs.

 

[ludin]

Because California's economic platform was strong and solid until this idea was presented? . . . lol. California's been going steadily down the economic crapper for years. They cannot point fingers to this and blame this for their existing and ongoing problems.

Isn't really what I was address. The fact is that low skill labor has a job because their pay is cheap when you raise their pay to experience/entry level pay for
degree educated students then that becomes an issue. yes CA has major issues with their economy mostly because of all the social spending they do, However
this is not going to help them as people lose their jobs it means that they will require more social services to foot the bill. if anything this will add
cost to the state not take away from it.

In fact, people being severely underpaid in one of the most costly areas of the country is WHY they're struggling so much.

that is not a business issue that is a personal issue. Business can only pay labor what it worth.

Will some business be able to cope? No. Why is that? Because they were poorly designed, relying on underpaying employees to barely stay afloat. They weren't thriving to begin with and destined for failure if the economy was strangled ever so slightly - yet again.

It has nothing to do with any of that. If my business is selling hamburgers and I am selling 10 dollar burgers but my costs per burger is 6 dollars to make
I am only making 4 dollar profit a burger. Why? because I know that most people are not going to pay more than 10 dollars for a burger.

a bag boy isn't worth 15 dollars an hour.

It has nothing to do with business design but it has everything to do with markets.
they were doing ok for themselves but now you have shifted a huge cost on them.

What people don't understand it is more than just pay that goes up.
Taxes on those employee's goes up insurance on those employee's goes up
workman's comp on those employee's goes up. everything on that employee increases.

the average person making 10 dollars an hour costs a company 13 dollars an hour.
if they are making 15 that means they are costing the company 18 -20 dollars an hour.

if they can't produce 25 dollars an hour then they are not making money for the company.
a person can only cook so many burgers and a bag boy can only put so many groceries in a bag.

there is limitation on how much these low skill wages can produce.

this also doesn't include the fact that the supervisor that was making 15 an hour now wants 20 because
why should he have to work for minimum wage with more responsibility.

it isn't just raising the cost on a few low wage workers. it is raising the cost on everyone.
if that super was making less than 15 then he makes 15 with everyone else and to bad so sad for him.

 

[ludin]

Such business can continue to do so without falling into the category of businesses that would be impacted by this. The new standard they're pushing toward has written in flexibility to allow mom and pop and other small businesses to continue as they are now.

yep they will it is called this.
Dear Striking Fast-Food Workers: Meet The Machine That Just Put You Out Of A Job | Zero Hedge

sorry you no longer have a job.

 

[Kushinator]

It's common sense that if a business owner bottom lines $200,000 per year and labor goes up $150,000 per year, the business owner will raise prices to get back the $150,000 so that he is still bottom lining $200,000 per year. That's just as true if you are talking about companies with CEO's and a board of directors or are publicly traded corporations. Any other thought process is nothing but liberal fantasy.

Unless the demand for a business is heavily inelastic, which seems like quite the assumption for industries bound by low-wage labor, a business cannot expect to raise prices and maintain previous levels of revenue. Only in your fantasy does a business owner magically raise prices to overcome a $150k shortfall from an increase in the MW.

In reality, firms are competitive, and adapt to changing environments.

 

[Visbek]

Isn't really what I was address. The fact is that low skill labor has a job because their pay is cheap when you raise their pay to experience/entry level pay for
degree educated students then that becomes an issue.

First, CA's MW law won't hit $15/hour until 2021. With mild inflation, that's equal to $14 today, and is mostly about catching up to years of mild inflation without any adjustment to MWs.

Second, perhaps I'm out of the loop, but $30k sounds low for entry-level positions for a college graduate. If that is an accurate figure, they won't stay at that income level for long, whereas MW workers without college degrees don't have good prospects for future salary increases or career advancement.

yes CA has major issues with their economy mostly because of all the social spending they do, However this is not going to help them as people lose their jobs it means that they will require more social services to foot the bill.

There is quite a bit of evidence that increasing minimum wages does not increase low-wage unemployment.

One reason is that employers these days are already running as lean as possible; there's no fat left to cut. Employment is already at a point of inelasticity. Unless you think that a typical restaurant or hotel is overstaffing by 3%?

And again: There is this pesky thing called inflation, so every year that minimum wages don't increase, the employer is actually enjoying a 2-3% cut in their labor costs. If a company can't survive without cutting its payroll costs by 3% a year, they're doing it wrong, and will be completely screwed in the slightest downturn in business.

It has nothing to do with any of that. If my business is selling hamburgers and I am selling 10 dollar burgers but my costs per burger is 6 dollars to make
I am only making 4 dollar profit a burger. Why? because I know that most people are not going to pay more than 10 dollars for a burger.

So if the cost of the food for the burgers goes up by 50¢ per burger, how should the restaurant react? Why is that any different than an increase in labor costs?

Why should the rank and file workers bear the burden here?

Not to mention that if we did have inflation (which, by the way, we do not in fact often see with MW hikes), then the people patronizing the business will have a little more cash in their pockets, as they are earning more. After all, increases in MW tend to bump up more than just MW workers, and inflation typically results in wage increases as well.

I also have to reiterate that any business that cannot tolerate any increases in costs, or are structurally incapable of changing prices to keep pace with inflation, are in very serious trouble. That's exactly the kind of business that will capsize in the smallest of economic downturns.

It has nothing to do with business design but it has everything to do with markets.
they were doing ok for themselves but now you have shifted a huge cost on them.

As opposed to giving them a free 3% annual savings in labor costs?

What people don't understand it is more than just pay that goes up....
the average person making 10 dollars an hour costs a company 13 dollars an hour.
if they are making 15 that means they are costing the company 18 -20 dollars an hour.
if they can't produce 25 dollars an hour then they are not making money for the company.

Uh huh

At labor-intensive businesses, labor is usually around 30% of total revenues. Meaning that the burger-flipper currently costing the business $15/hour all in is generating around $45/hour in economic value.

And yet, we don't see thousands of businesses capsizing every time there is a minimum wage hike. In fact, none of the disasters predicted by the restaurant industry and fellow travelers don't happen when we have MW hikes. I wonder why...?

 

[ludin]

First, CA's MW law won't hit $15/hour until 2021. With mild inflation, that's equal to $14 today, and is mostly about catching up to years of mild inflation without any adjustment to MWs.

Second, perhaps I'm out of the loop, but $30k sounds low for entry-level positions for a college graduate. If that is an accurate figure, they won't stay at that income level for long, whereas MW workers without college degrees don't have good prospects for future salary increases or career advancement.

They are already seeing declines and price increases for what it has gone up.
30k depending on the field of study is entry level pay. No they won't stay at that income at long it will increase as they get more skills.
that is their own fault not business.

There is quite a bit of evidence that increasing minimum wages does not increase low-wage unemployment.

Only if you ignore the articles I posted then yea it wouldn't.

One reason is that employers these days are already running as lean as possible; there's no fat left to cut. Employment is already at a point of inelasticity. Unless you think that a typical restaurant or hotel is overstaffing by 3%?

They will always find places to cut. That is what we are seeing in seattle and even in CA.

And again: There is this pesky thing called inflation, so every year that minimum wages don't increase, the employer is actually enjoying a 2-3% cut in their labor costs.

Inflation only affects what people buy if anything the buisnesses costs go up as their products they buy increase in price.
The employer doesn't see any cut in labor costs. if he is paying 7.25 and next year inflation goes up 3% and he is still paying 7.25
then he won't see a difference. His employee's will.

So if the cost of the food for the burgers goes up by 50¢ per burger, how should the restaurant react? Why is that any different than an increase in labor costs?

He will probably raise the cost of his burger by 1 dollar to offset the amount.

Why should the rank and file workers bear the burden here?

They don't suffer as much with itemized cost increases, however when they want more than what the job and the skill calls
for then it becomes a problem.

Not to mention that if we did have inflation (which, by the way, we do not in fact often see with MW hikes), then the people patronizing the business will have a little more cash in their pockets, as they are earning more.

Your not talking natural growth inflation. you are talking about artificially induction of floor raises which affect everyone and actually hurts the business when they see a 100% increase in their
payroll. something they haven't accounted for or predicted. if they did they have already cut the costs enough to break even. where it hits home are small businesses and mom and pop places.

I also have to reiterate that any business that cannot tolerate any increases in costs, or are structurally incapable of changing prices to keep pace with inflation, are in very serious trouble. That's exactly the kind of business that will capsize in the smallest of economic downturns.

Ol they can tolerate cost increases but not 100% jump in payroll for jobs that don't qualify for that pay.
That is why they are looking into automation to replace those workers. Government has priced these people out of a job.

As opposed to giving them a free 3% annual savings in labor costs?

No one is giving them anything you don't know what you are talking about.

At labor-intensive businesses, labor is usually around 30% of total revenues. Meaning that the burger-flipper currently costing the business $15/hour all in is generating around $45/hour in economic value.
And yet, we don't see thousands of businesses capsizing every time there is a minimum wage hike. In fact, none of the disasters predicted by the restaurant industry and fellow travelers don't happen when we have MW hikes. I wonder why...?

That is because previous minimum wage increases have been 1 dollar here or 50 cents there. nominal but has cost people jobs and has eliminated other positions.
now these states are demanding 15 an hour for people that don't have the qualifications for it.

you will see 4 trends.

1. jobs that would be created aren't.
2. jobs will be eliminated with more people asked to do more things.
3. automation will be brought in and the workers gone completely.
4. Prices will increase to offset costs. Businesses are not going to eat it.

What you and other people don't seem to get is that the people that are already making 15 an hour will want a wage increase.
the person that was making 12 an hour will want more than minimum wage since he is making minimum wage now.

 

[Visbek]

They are already seeing declines....

Or not. CA only raised MW by $1 in January, and there's no solid data -- just a lot of conservatives and business lobbying agencies squawking.

The employer doesn't see any cut in labor costs. if he is paying 7.25 and next year inflation goes up 3% and he is still paying 7.25 then he won't see a difference. His employee's will.

Uh, hello? Do you not understand how inflation works?

Let's say I put aside $100 in cash on January 1, 2011. On January 1, 2012, that $100 bill hasn't changed -- but due to inflation, its purchasing power has dropped, and on average I can only buy the equivalent of what $97 bought a year earlier.

In nominal dollars, I still have $100.
In real dollars, I now have $97.

The same principle applies when minimum wages don't change. Due to inflation, it costs the employer less in purchasing power to pay an employee $7.25 on 1/1/2012 than it did on 1/1/2011. So when minimum wages are not indexed to inflation, the nominal amount does not change, but the real amount does.

Thus: A failure to increase minimum wages at pace with inflation is, in fact, a cost savings for employers.

Your not talking natural growth inflation. you are talking about artificially induction of floor raises which affect everyone and actually hurts the business when they see a 100% increase in their payroll.

Try again, my friend. Minimum wages have not kept up with inflation, yet again providing employers huge breaks over the years. Most of the MW laws are slowly phasing in increases to get low wages back on track. And keep in mind that the few areas going up to $15 already have much higher costs of living than most of the nation.

Nor have MWs kept up with productivity:

Ol they can tolerate cost increases but not 100% jump in payroll for jobs that don't qualify for that pay.
That is why they are looking into automation to replace those workers. Government has priced these people out of a job.

Please.

Business lobbyists and conservative trot out these objections for any increase in minimum wages; we've been hearing this kind of kvetching and moaning for years, even as wages fail to keep up with inflation.

Plus, businesses have spent decades automating everything they can, from the lowest-paying to highest-paying jobs. That process has nothing to do with minimum wages, except in the fevered rhetoric of lobbyists.

That claim also reminds me of an old lawyer's joke. One attorney tells another that his client can't afford to pay for something, yet somehow he can afford to pay his lawyer $350/hour. Pleading poverty, when you're threatening to spend huge sums to automate away a few MW jobs, does not pass the smell test.

That is because previous minimum wage increases have been 1 dollar here or 50 cents there. nominal but has cost people jobs and has eliminated other positions.
now these states are demanding 15 an hour for people that don't have the qualifications for it.

They are slowly increasing to $15/hour, in areas that have high costs of living.

Another issue is that those $7.25/hour jobs? They're subsidized by the taxpayer. Those workers qualify for food stamps and other benefits; Walmart alone is costing the taxpayer over $6 billion a year in safety net spending.

Thus, employers are not truly paying what the market will bear, because their low wages are subsidized by the government.

you will see 4 trends.

1. jobs that would be created aren't.

No indication of that in the research

2. jobs will be eliminated with more people asked to do more things.

There doesn't seem to be any slack in the labor market for that to be possible.

3. automation will be brought in and the workers gone completely.

See above

4. Prices will increase to offset costs. Businesses are not going to eat it.

Yes, prices will go up; as will the ability of workers to pay more, since they have a little more income.

Given that inflation is dangerously low, and at risk of sliding into deflation? A little inflation is a good idea.

And again, in those areas where minimum wages are indexed to inflation, it's not going to cause a major issue.

What you and other people don't seem to get is that the people that are already making 15 an hour will want a wage increase.

Utterly incorrect.

There is a broad understanding that increasing minimum wages results in small increases for low-wage employees.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Isn't really what I was address. The fact is that low skill labor has a job because their pay is cheap when you raise their pay to experience/entry level pay for
degree educated students then that becomes an issue. yes CA has major issues with their economy mostly because of all the social spending they do, However
this is not going to help them as people lose their jobs it means that they will require more social services to foot the bill. if anything this will add
cost to the state not take away from it.



that is not a business issue that is a personal issue. Business can only pay labor what it worth.



It has nothing to do with any of that. If my business is selling hamburgers and I am selling 10 dollar burgers but my costs per burger is 6 dollars to make
I am only making 4 dollar profit a burger. Why? because I know that most people are not going to pay more than 10 dollars for a burger.

a bag boy isn't worth 15 dollars an hour.

It has nothing to do with business design but it has everything to do with markets.
they were doing ok for themselves but now you have shifted a huge cost on them.

What people don't understand it is more than just pay that goes up.
Taxes on those employee's goes up insurance on those employee's goes up
workman's comp on those employee's goes up. everything on that employee increases.

the average person making 10 dollars an hour costs a company 13 dollars an hour.
if they are making 15 that means they are costing the company 18 -20 dollars an hour.

if they can't produce 25 dollars an hour then they are not making money for the company.
a person can only cook so many burgers and a bag boy can only put so many groceries in a bag.

there is limitation on how much these low skill wages can produce.

this also doesn't include the fact that the supervisor that was making 15 an hour now wants 20 because
why should he have to work for minimum wage with more responsibility.

it isn't just raising the cost on a few low wage workers. it is raising the cost on everyone.
if that super was making less than 15 then he makes 15 with everyone else and to bad so sad for him.

Full time baggers and fast food cooks? You're trying to make up something that doesn't exist.

Long story short - before I focused myself ON business (namely entrepreneurship), I held your view. Now that I've come to understand more of how businesses work VS how they COULD work (more efficiently), I just see numerous businesses that only need to re-prioritize and strengthen their business models.

There is a lot of wiggle room and flexibility. A good business will find the flexibility if they are unable to function otherwise.

Beside that... your argument is commonly held and is why our country has employees working full time AND YET ARE ON WELFARE.

So you can support full time working moms and dads getting welfare support... and continue to nurture a failing economy which is forever reliant on government assistance to make ends meet if it pleases you.

Some of us interested in seeing our country grow, economically, don't support stagnant, stale policies and values that only keep people rooted in squalor and unable to advance in life.

 

[Moderate Right]

Such business can continue to do so without falling into the category of businesses that would be impacted by this. The new standard they're pushing toward has written in flexibility to allow mom and pop and other small businesses to continue as they are now.

I lost you in there somewhere. What new standard are they pushing that has written in flexibility to allow mom and pop and other small businesses to continue as they are now?

 

[Moderate Right]

Isn't really what I was address. The fact is that low skill labor has a job because their pay is cheap when you raise their pay to experience/entry level pay for
degree educated students then that becomes an issue. yes CA has major issues with their economy mostly because of all the social spending they do, However
this is not going to help them as people lose their jobs it means that they will require more social services to foot the bill. if anything this will add
cost to the state not take away from it.



that is not a business issue that is a personal issue. Business can only pay labor what it worth.



It has nothing to do with any of that. If my business is selling hamburgers and I am selling 10 dollar burgers but my costs per burger is 6 dollars to make
I am only making 4 dollar profit a burger. Why? because I know that most people are not going to pay more than 10 dollars for a burger.

a bag boy isn't worth 15 dollars an hour.

It has nothing to do with business design but it has everything to do with markets.
they were doing ok for themselves but now you have shifted a huge cost on them.

What people don't understand it is more than just pay that goes up.
Taxes on those employee's goes up insurance on those employee's goes up
workman's comp on those employee's goes up. everything on that employee increases.

the average person making 10 dollars an hour costs a company 13 dollars an hour.
if they are making 15 that means they are costing the company 18 -20 dollars an hour.

if they can't produce 25 dollars an hour then they are not making money for the company.
a person can only cook so many burgers and a bag boy can only put so many groceries in a bag.

there is limitation on how much these low skill wages can produce.

this also doesn't include the fact that the supervisor that was making 15 an hour now wants 20 because
why should he have to work for minimum wage with more responsibility.

it isn't just raising the cost on a few low wage workers. it is raising the cost on everyone.
if that super was making less than 15 then he makes 15 with everyone else and to bad so sad for him.

Another thing that is not considered is weekly (or whatever) payroll costs. For example: If a business makes X amount of dollars and their weekly payroll cost is $10,000 then if the weekly payroll cost goes up to $15,000 per week and the business still makes the same X amount of dollars because they raised their prices, there is a one time charge of $5,000 to get up to the increased weekly payroll figure. The money doesn't just pop in out of thin air. Instead of the employer having to carry a weekly payroll account balance of $10,000 they now have to have a weekly payroll account balance of $15,000 and they don't make a dime more in profit. Even though they are making the same amount of profit as before, they have lost $5,000 due to this one time charge.

 

[Moderate Right]

Unless the demand for a business is heavily inelastic, which seems like quite the assumption for industries bound by low-wage labor, a business cannot expect to raise prices and maintain previous levels of revenue. Only in your fantasy does a business owner magically raise prices to overcome a $150k shortfall from an increase in the MW.

In reality, firms are competitive, and adapt to changing environments.

But the environment is changing for everyone equally.

 

[Moderate Right]

First, CA's MW law won't hit $15/hour until 2021. With mild inflation, that's equal to $14 today, and is mostly about catching up to years of mild inflation without any adjustment to MWs.

Second, perhaps I'm out of the loop, but $30k sounds low for entry-level positions for a college graduate. If that is an accurate figure, they won't stay at that income level for long, whereas MW workers without college degrees don't have good prospects for future salary increases or career advancement.



There is quite a bit of evidence that increasing minimum wages does not increase low-wage unemployment.

One reason is that employers these days are already running as lean as possible; there's no fat left to cut. Employment is already at a point of inelasticity. Unless you think that a typical restaurant or hotel is overstaffing by 3%?

And again: There is this pesky thing called inflation, so every year that minimum wages don't increase, the employer is actually enjoying a 2-3% cut in their labor costs. If a company can't survive without cutting its payroll costs by 3% a year, they're doing it wrong, and will be completely screwed in the slightest downturn in business.



So if the cost of the food for the burgers goes up by 50¢ per burger, how should the restaurant react? Why is that any different than an increase in labor costs?

Why should the rank and file workers bear the burden here?

Not to mention that if we did have inflation (which, by the way, we do not in fact often see with MW hikes), then the people patronizing the business will have a little more cash in their pockets, as they are earning more. After all, increases in MW tend to bump up more than just MW workers, and inflation typically results in wage increases as well.

I also have to reiterate that any business that cannot tolerate any increases in costs, or are structurally incapable of changing prices to keep pace with inflation, are in very serious trouble. That's exactly the kind of business that will capsize in the smallest of economic downturns.



As opposed to giving them a free 3% annual savings in labor costs?



Uh huh

At labor-intensive businesses, labor is usually around 30% of total revenues. Meaning that the burger-flipper currently costing the business $15/hour all in is generating around $45/hour in economic value.

And yet, we don't see thousands of businesses capsizing every time there is a minimum wage hike. In fact, none of the disasters predicted by the restaurant industry and fellow travelers don't happen when we have MW hikes. I wonder why...?

There have never ever been minimum wage raises before of this magnitude. And, there is evidence that small minimum wage increases do result in a small loss of jobs. Common sense dictates that large increases in the minimum wage, even over time, will result in larger decreases in the loss of jobs.

 

[Kiwimac]

There have never ever been minimum wage raises before of this magnitude. And, there is evidence that small minimum wage increases do result in a small loss of jobs. Common sense dictates that large increases in the minimum wage, even over time, will result in larger decreases in the loss of jobs.

The world wide evidence does not appear to support this conclusion

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thought. With our thoughts we make the world.

 

[Moderate Right]

The world wide evidence does not appear to support this conclusion

We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thought. With our thoughts we make the world.

Liberals thoughts are in a fantasy world. Facts abound everywhere that there is a small loss of jobs whenever the minimum wage rises. Only those blindly following liberal gospel are too blind to read nonpartisan facts on the subject.

 

[ludin]

Full time baggers and fast food cooks? You're trying to make up something that doesn't exist.

Long story short - before I focused myself ON business (namely entrepreneurship), I held your view. Now that I've come to understand more of how businesses work VS how they COULD work (more efficiently), I just see numerous businesses that only need to re-prioritize and strengthen their business models.

Some places have full time staff like that not all but some.
Cool so how many of the people in your business are you paying 15 an hour to even if the job doesn't call
For it? I am just wondering. If you aren't paying your people that at minimum why not?

There is a lot of wiggle room and flexibility. A good business will find the flexibility if they are unable to function otherwise.

Do you know what a franchises which most fast food places are? There is very little wiggle room.

Beside that... your argument is commonly held and is why our country has employees working full time AND YET ARE ON WELFARE.

Again that is not businesses fault. You can't pay more than what labor is worth.
If you do then you are simply losing money or have to charge more for your services compared to other people.
So unless you are just that much better you will los business.

So you can support full time working moms and dads getting welfare support... and continue to nurture a failing economy which is forever reliant on government assistance to make ends meet if it pleases you.

An appeal to emotion fallacy.
No I expect that mom and dad will do something other than work minimum wage jobs.
After ten years of working and you are still making minimum wage the problem is with you
And no one else. At 15 an hour you price them out of a job.

Some of us interested in seeing our country grow, economically, don't support stagnant, stale policies and values that only keep people rooted in squalor and unable to advance in life.

The only thing keeping them in squalor is themselves.
No education and lack of meaningful job skills that could get them something better.
That is not the fault of business.

Forcing business to pay more for labor that doesn't call for it doesn't grow the economy.
It kills job growth and opportunity for people that could use those jobs.

They get replaced by machines.

 

[ludin]

Another thing that is not considered is weekly (or whatever) payroll costs. For example: If a business makes X amount of dollars and their weekly payroll cost is $10,000 then if the weekly payroll cost goes up to $15,000 per week and the business still makes the same X amount of dollars because they raised their prices, there is a one time charge of $5,000 to get up to the increased weekly payroll figure. The money doesn't just pop in out of thin air. Instead of the employer having to carry a weekly payroll account balance of $10,000 they now have to have a weekly payroll account balance of $15,000 and they don't make a dime more in profit. Even though they are making the same amount of profit as before, they have lost $5,000 due to this one time charge.

Their are other factors workmans comp and other things work on percentage of pay.
So at 15 an hour a company is really paying 18-20 an hour.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Some places have full time staff like that not all but some.
Cool so how many of the people in your business are you paying 15 an hour to even if the job doesn't call
For it? I am just wondering. If you aren't paying your people that at minimum why not?



Do you know what a franchises which most fast food places are? There is very little wiggle room.



Again that is not businesses fault. You can't pay more than what labor is worth.
If you do then you are simply losing money or have to charge more for your services compared to other people.
So unless you are just that much better you will los business.


An appeal to emotion fallacy.
No I expect that mom and dad will do something other than work minimum wage jobs.
After ten years of working and you are still making minimum wage the problem is with you
And no one else. At 15 an hour you price them out of a job.



The only thing keeping them in squalor is themselves.
No education and lack of meaningful job skills that could get them something better.
That is not the fault of business.

Forcing business to pay more for labor that doesn't call for it doesn't grow the economy.
It kills job growth and opportunity for people that could use those jobs.

They get replaced by machines.

I bet you we could be discussing a states sub-standard $6.00 / hr min wage and your responses would still be the same: they're not worth it because I feel these jobs aren't as important as other jobs.

Talk about trying to ply to emotions, your view is based on your opinion of an employment bracket and nothing more - you've decided that anyone who takes any of such a list of 'low worth' jobs are themselves worthless as a result. Being severely underpaid is never the fault of numerous businesses - it's all the individuals fault. :roll:

So other than negating any and all increases in pay - have solutions to the problem facing people now? Other than 'get a better job that pays more' (in an economy where numerous jobs PAY THE SAME pisspoor low wage, I should point out).

No one should put in 40 + hours a week and be put in the poor house as as reward for all their dedicated hard work.

If that's how you go about constructing a business plan then maybe business planning is not your cup of tea.