« First « Previous Comments 11 - 50 of 76 Next » Last » Search these comments
Raising minimum wage by 50% will increase the cost by 50%. You want to pay 50% more for food, and all other stuff that is cheap now? That means you will buy less, and you'll pay more for it all. Get fucking real people, get off the moon for once!
Was that meant as a joke? I'm curious.
The closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.
Shocking that Forbes would be against $15/hour. But their accuracy is as unquestionable as their pumping of the internet bubble was back in the day.
I dined at a decent Italian restaurant in Seattle last might, and the place was jam packed, as was the city itself. Any restaurant that closes will quickly be replaced by another. Restaurant closures are not news.
Whining early today, are we??
Sorry, I'm just not a big fan of my hard earned money paying taxes to support cheap, lazy corporate owners.
What if that cup of coffee cost $1 to make due to higher wages/employee costs. Should the company still charge 50 cents because that's what you want to pay? I know, they'll just make it up on volume, right??
You are really a complete moron. Read Dan's post again and this time try to understand it.
Price is NOT a function of cost. Let me say it again--Price is NOT a function of cost.
This is basic, Econ 101 stuff. Price is set in the market by supply and demand. This can clearly be proven by looking at corporate profits-some companies make 100% gross profits, some make 50% gross profits, some make 20% gross profits, some even less. There is no relation to cost.
Price is set in the market by supply and demand.
If the market doesn't support pricing at a profitable level, then the market will disappear. This is what is going to happen in the fast food businesses unless automation displaces increased labor costs. It's just like when the UAW negotiates higher pay, and then the automakers automate and or move factories to Mexico.
If the market doesn't support pricing at a profitable level, then the market will disappear. This is what is going to happen in the fast food businesses unless automation displaces increased labor costs. It's just like when the UAW negotiates higher pay, and then the automakers automate and or move factories to Mexico.
That's going to happen eventually anyway. All we're doing now is subsidizing corporate profits with our tax dollars.
Sure I can see your point.
Are you really that obtuse that you cannot even address the concept of "starter jobs', their place in society over the past century, and how they've been virtually retired due to the competence of our education system and the politically correct policies forcefucked upon the populace which directly affect the ability of today's student to compete in the world marketplace?
That was the point of my post.
Are you really that slow that you can't see the connection? Letting employers pay slave wages so the stockholders can get even larger dividends forces society to pay higher taxes to support those earning the slave wages.
Honey, that's not how capitalism works. The price of a product is determined entirely by what the traffic will pay, not by the cost of the product. If a company can get $5 from you for a cup of coffee, why would they charge 50 cents for it even if it only costs 10 cents to make?
Sweetheart, darling, you really don't understand how capitalism works.
The corporation makes money by selling franchises to regular Joe's. I doubt they really care about how much "Joe" must spend paying his employees to make donuts and coffee. What they do care about is how much they can sell franchises for. If the return to the franchisee is crap because he has to pay higher minimum wages to his employees... and there's only so much the public would pay for a donut... Then franchise sales themselves will go down unless they reduce the buy-in to reflect the reduced return on investment for the franchisee. The fact that this CEO is making $15 million a year is a little ridiculous... And an increase to the minimum wage would likely have a negative affect on his ability to "earn" so much money, at least in the short run.
The problem with raising the minimum wage, however, is the effect it has on pricing. The people who get screwed are those who are solidly in the middle and upper middle income brackets. They don't get a raise... Yet, their costs go up as a result of a rise to the minimum wage, of which they get no direct benefit. The middle and upper-middle don't make so much money that a 30% increase to the price of groceries wouldn't hurt them. So this kind of policy only helps to exacerbate the problem of a disappearing middle class. You will still have your people on top. But the people sitting solidly on the bottom will increase as the catchment of who qualifies for the bottom continues to widen. Raising the minimum wage without cost controls will not achieve a lessened burden to anyone... and it will have all kinds of unintended consequences.
The problem isn't the minimum wage. The problem is in our taxation system. There's no excuse for a person who makes $60,000/year to pay a higher percentage of taxes than a person who makes $60 million/year. By focusing the tax policy on those people (through a flatter, but still progressive tax policy) who are making so much more than everyone else, you place the burden on those who can afford to absorb it most with the least affect on their standard of living. In this case, the only people benefiting wouldn't just be the people at the bottom. The middle and upper-middle would also benefit. Lest we forget, the important role the middle-folks play to a thriving economy.
Trace it all back to being PC...
No more discipline at home, check!
No more discipline in schools, check!
Send your kids to school all doped up on mom's legal stash. check!
Bonk! Gen X and Y are less criminal than the Boomers by a country mile. Crime in this country went into free fall once the oldest boomer passed the prime crime age (35, in 1994).
true, but what does that have to do with the topic of minimum wage and the destruction of entry level jobs designed to put money in the pocket of the up and coming while they are living at home, or to supplement the income of the main wage earner in a household?
Bonk! Gen X and Y are less criminal than the Boomers by a country mile.
So go start your own business so YOU can become one of those "lazy corporate owners"!!
Oh wait, you won't, you rather whine why someone else won't give you THEIR money, instead of YOU earning it, just like the true socialist that you are!!
Well done---basic trolling. Don't address the point, but instead make it about the poster. And throw an insult in there for good measure.
Are you capable of having an adult discussion?
How about the companies that make -100% GP, -50% GP or -20% GP... They still around??
Nope--that's the point. Bad businesses die so that new, better ones can take their place. I thought you were against government propping up bad businesses? That's all allowing government to pay slave wages does.
Spoken like a person with ZERO business experience... You can only lower your price to equal your costs, any lower and the business disappears!!
No kidding. Bad businesses should fail. Better ones will take their place.
This is basic, Econ 101 stuff.
It certainly is, which you are clueless about!!
Great---please explain to me where I'm wrong then.
Are you really that obtuse that you cannot even address the concept of "starter jobs', their place in society over the past century, and how they've been virtually retired due to the competence of our education system and the politically correct policies forcefucked upon the populace which directly affect the ability of today's student to compete in the world marketplace?
That was the point of my post.
I like starter jobs---they should pay $15/hour. Because I don't like subsidizing corporate profits with my taxes.
Cheap lazy company owners give cheap lazy bastards like me, an alternative to an even cheaper social net system.
There is no point... that's life in grown up world... Put on your big boy pants and experience it!
What's the matter?? Does the truth hurt??
Oh, that's right, you're a liberal, it does..
Clearly you're too slow to get the point. Let me try again:
When we allow corporations to pay less than living wages, we all subsidize their profits with our tax dollars. Do you think that's a good use of your tax dollars?
And, rather than "experiencing" it, I'd prefer to try and make it better.
What's that got to do with anything. Where was anything said about Government propping up bad business?
You were, even if you're too slow to realize it. By allowing companies to pay too little on wages, you're forcing the government to prop them up by paying their workers welfare.
If you really understood business, you would know how pricing works, the market may determine part of it, but at the end of the day, a business CAN'T sell for below their costs, no matter what the "market" wants...
No shit. If they can't afford to pay their workers a living wage, they shouldn't be in business. You think I don't understand that?
What the fuck are you talking about? What tax dollars are subsidizing the local small businesses in your town who hire the locals at minimum wage?
It's called welfare. Are you really this clueless??
It's been discussed here before. If you moved every minimum wage employee up to $15/hr, every employee between minimum and $15/hr. has to be moved up too. Plus, add in all the other costs (which you're clueless to) that the business has to pay (Payroll taxes, Workman's comp, Liability, etc.) that are tied to payroll.
lol--yep, I'm well aware of fringe benefits and their cost. Doesn't change my point.
Now, every business in town does the same thing and has to add these additional business costs to their products and services. So, everything they offer goes up in price, otherwise they go out of business.
Really? So, every business in town is making basically no profits? What town do you live in??
What's the end result? All those employees that got bumped up are now paying higher prices for all the products/services in town. It ends up being no gain for the employee.
The end result is lower government spending on welfare. More consumers. Likely lower inequality. Potentially slightly higher prices, but only potentially. Many, many companies have plenty of room to raise wages without raising prices.
Yeah, this is how it works:
"I want the burger for a nickle."
YOU... want... burger... with ... NO ... Pickles.
"I want the nickle burger, with pickles."
"I'm sorry, you want the Pickle Burger with more pickles."
"No."
"Hold on while I connect you to a live operator. The average waittime is Fif-teen minutes ... and ... twenty ... two... seconds."
true, but what does that have to do with the topic of minimum wage and the destruction of entry level jobs designed to put money in the pocket of the up and coming while they are living at home, or to supplement the income of the main wage earner in a household?
You mentioned "No Discipline".
Potentially slightly higher prices, but only potentially. Many, many companies have plenty of room to raise wages without raising prices.
*
OK, I give up... Here's your payment!
I should have known that even this simple concept was above your comprehension level.
Profits are revenue minus expenses. Profits are at an all time high. So, there is actually lots of room to increase wages before companies have to raise prices or risk going out of business.
You are soooo clueless on what's going on in the real world....
Actually I posted data showing what's going on in the real world. You countered with nothing. Well, save your usual dumb troll dollars picture.
I like starter jobs---they should pay $15/hour. Because I don't like subsidizing corporate profits with my taxes.
You don't want to subsidize, tell government to cut off welfare and all other hand outs. Property taxes are a tax write off, lets cut that off? But if you love welfare, than love to pay for it.
Plenty of people abuse that welfare system too, It's easier to have a part time cash gig on a side and a welfare (minimum wage from government) instead of actually getting a job...
Liberals are the usual hand out crowd. They all want hand outs, they want to feel good about themselves by voting to help the "poor", they just want someone else to pay for it. Because when it comes to them paying for it, boy they don't like that one!
Liberals are the usual hand out crowd. They all want hand outs, they want to feel good about themselves by voting to help the "poor", they just want someone else to pay for it. Because when it comes to them paying for it, boy they don't like that one!
Leave to you to completely miss the point again. My tax dollars are subsidizing large corporations. I thought you conservative folks were against corporate welfare, right?
Profits are revenue minus expenses. Profits are at an all time high. So, there is actually lots of room to increase wages before companies have to raise prices or risk going out of business.
1. Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.
2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk. The low cost of capital promoted by the FED gives businesses, especially the bigger businesses, the incentive to replace labor input factor with capital investment. Raising minimum wage will further exacerbate the problem.
When you are at the grocery store, I'm sure you shop based on what you need/want and what's a good deal. You don't go in there with the goal of spending all the money you have on you. Likewise, businesses make hiring decisions based on profitability. Raising the price of beef may well lead to you buying chicken instead. It would be silly to argue that because you have more money in your pocket, you should just give that money to the beef counter. LOL. When was the last time you tipped the checkout girl $20 just because you have that money in your pocket? Why should you expect employers to do that?
Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.
Leave to you to completely miss the point again. My tax dollars are subsidizing large corporations. I thought you conservative folks were against corporate welfare, right?
I get it, the liberal "anti-corporation" thing is quite common these days. Everyone who hasn't passed puberty yet these days thinks that everyone who makes above minimum wage is an asshole who needs to pay more taxes. I've heard it all.
If you are anti subsidies as you say, ask Obama to raise interest rates so that savers actually get to earn something on their money, instead of money being pushed into non productive assets such as real estate.
If you are anti subsidies as you say, ask Obama to raise interest rates so that savers actually get to earn something on their money, instead of money being pushed into non productive assets such as real estate.
Wow--so many things wrong with this statement.
1. Obama doesn't control the Federal Reserve which is who I expect you believe controls interest rates
2. Interest rates are set by the market, not the Federal Reserve
3. Savings rates are different than interest rates and are also set by supply and demand.
If you want interest rates to go up, do something about wealth disparity. That is the cause.
Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.
And you have data to back up this assertion? Something? Anything?
2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk.
Exactly my point. Businesses are run to make profits, period. They will do whatever they can to increase profits. If it is cheaper to kill a few people and pay off the families, they'll do it. Or pollute the environment. Or pay slave wages to their employees. Whatever maximizes profits.
That is why it is up to the government to fight for societies best interest--in this case a higher minimum wage. It will reduce profits, so companies will fight it tooth and nail. They will put out propaganda designed to fool the Ft. Waynes and CallitCrazys of the world. But, make no mistake. It IS needed.
It would be silly to argue that because you have more money in your pocket, you should just give that money to the beef counter. LOL. When was the last time you tipped the checkout girl $20 just because you have that money in your pocket? Why should you expect employers to do that?
Obviously--which is why nobody is making that stupid argument. I know you like to build strawmen, but let's not waste our time with them.
Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.
Nope--actually it doesn't. And it's easy to see why. Lower income folks spend a much higher percentage of their income than do the rich. So, paying higher minimum wage and the money will get spent back into the economy quickly creating more demand, and necessitating more hiring.
Remember--as you said, companies don't hire (or fire) based on profits. They do so to meet demand.
I've counter with a ton so far. You think your FRED graph is indicative of the "real world" and what's happening on "main street" and the tens of thousands of small businesses...
You don't know what you don't know, so I'm not wasting any more electrons on your cluelessness... No more Troll dollars for you!!
OK, please point me to where you showed data from what is going on in the "real" world. And why the FRED graph showing corporate profitability is incorrect. I'm assuming you have something showing why their data is flawed?
Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.
And you have data to back up this assertion? Something? Anything?
You were the one conflating S&P500 profitability with overall business profitability. You can see the difficulties faced by small businesses from the high commercial vacancy rate for locations suitable for small businesses, usually result of small businesses that closed without new small businesses taking up the space.
2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk.
Exactly my point. Businesses are run to make profits, period. They will do whatever they can to increase profits. If it is cheaper to kill a few people and pay off the families, they'll do it. Or pollute the environment. Or pay slave wages to their employees. Whatever maximizes profits.
Utter nonsense. Getting away with paying only "slave wages" requires a government depriving the employees all other opportunities. Otherwise, the employees would simply find an employer who is willing to pay just a little more, then another still a little more. Its just like you as the consumer would like to pay as little as possible for your beef, and the store would like to charge as much as possible; not having government price control allows the market place to discover the price of beef based on supply and demand. If the government imposed a maximum price on beef, there would be empty shelves like in the soviet union; if the government imposed a minimum price on beef, you would not buy it if you don't find that attractive.
That is why it is up to the government to fight for societies best interest--in this case a higher minimum wage. It will reduce profits, so companies will fight it tooth and nail. They will put out propaganda designed to fool the Ft. Waynes and CallitCrazys of the world. But, make no mistake. It IS needed.
Utter nonsense. government bureaucrats and politicians fight for their own self-interest, which includes armies of unemployed on welfare in order to justify the government officials' own existence and privilege to leach on the society. You are regurgitating the propagandas put out by the communist revolutionaries a century ago.
Socialist paradises like North Korea and Cuba are where you find real slave wages, like $20/mo for professionals. It is the market place' competitive bidding that ensure each employee get what his/her labor and skills are worth.
When laissez-faire was running in 19th Century America, little kids were turned away from the mines, and every miner and textile worker made big bank as dozens of factories and mines competed for their labor.
It was only when Commie-Socialist child labor laws were passed that the mines and factories shut down, putting millions penniless on the streets and creating a wave of Child Idleness.
Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.
Nope--actually it doesn't. And it's easy to see why. Lower income folks spend a much higher percentage of their income than do the rich. So, paying higher minimum wage and the money will get spent back into the economy quickly creating more demand, and necessitating more hiring.
What a load of nonsense! Can you grow by eating your own flesh and drinking your own blood?
Lower income folks spending higher percentage of their income on consumables and therefore save less is precisely the reason why in the long run transferring wealth from savers/reinvestment class to the net consumers will lead to lower productivity and lower wages: it takes capital investment to improve worker productivity, which is the ultimate source of higher standards of living. It takes capital accumulation to make capital investment.
Remember--as you said, companies don't hire (or fire) based on profits. They do so to meet demand.
What are you talking about? Please don't put words in my mouth. Companies hire and fire based on profit potential. Demand is meaningless if the higher minimum wage makes it unprofitable to produce and meet the demand. Minimum wage simply makes certain types of labor intensive hiring impossible. That drives down the total wage earned by the working class. Even from the Keynesian aggregate view, minimum wage reduces aggregate demand, not increasing it.
You were the one conflating S&P500 profitability with overall business profitability. You can see the difficulties faced by small businesses from the high commercial vacancy rate for locations suitable for small businesses, usually result of small businesses that closed without new small businesses taking up the space.
I wasn't conflating anything. I posted a graph of corporate profitability to show that corporations were making lots of profits. I thought it was self explanatory.
You, on the other hand, have posted no data. If you believe that data is misleading, by all means, post some data showing it. But don't pretend that your hand waving is more convincing that actual data.
Otherwise, the employees would simply find an employer who is willing to pay just a little more, then another still a little more.
No, actually that's not at all how it works. The employer paying a little more would be driven out of business by the employer paying slave wages.
more. Its just like you as the consumer would like to pay as little as possible for your beef, and the store would like to charge as much as possible; not having government price control allows the market place to discover the price of beef based on supply and demand
Except that the employment marketplace is not the same as the market for roast beef.
Utter nonsense. government bureaucrats and politicians fight for their own self-interest, which includes armies of unemployed on welfare in order to justify the government officials' own existence and privilege to leach on the society. You are regurgitating the propagandas put out by the communist revolutionaries a century ago.
Your cynicism aside, are you seriously arguing that corporations aren't fighting increased minimum wage laws because it will reduce profits?
When laissez-faire was running in 19th Century America, little kids were turned away from the mines, and every miner and textile worker made big bank as dozens of factories and mines competed for their labor.
It was only when Commie-Socialist child labor laws were passed that the mines and factories shut down, putting millions penniless on the streets and creating a wave of Child Idleness.
Child labor was used in pre-industrial societies for thousands of years, as field hands. Child labor was still used in 20th century communist countries, some even to this day. It was only in the relatively free market capitalistic societies that improved living standards to such a high degree that child labor became largely unnecessary in the early 20th century. Then politicians decided to take credit for those changes.
"That's going to happen eventually anyway. All we're doing now is subsidizing corporate profits with our tax dollars"
"When we allow corporations to pay less than living wages, we all subsidize their profits with our tax dollars. Do you think that's a good use of your tax dollars?"
------------------
Wrt living wages, you seem to be just as confused as the next democrat, as to how the world works.
Your tax dollars don't go to subsidize corporate profits, because corporations pay too little in wages.
Your tax dollars go to prop up unaffordable housing prices. Higher wages are always absorbed by equally higher housing costs/prices.
The unaffordably high housing costs are what makes wage slaves appear to be making too low of a wage
What a load of nonsense! Can you grow by eating your own flesh and drinking your own blood?
Your analogies are getting worse and worse. Why don't you give it up.
Lower income folks spending higher percentage of their income on consumables and therefore save less is precisely the reason why in the long run transferring wealth from savers/reinvestment class to the net consumers will lead to lower productivity and lower wages: it takes capital investment to improve worker productivity, which is the ultimate source of higher standards of living. It takes capital accumulation to make capital investment.
lol---we are currently in a demand driven recession. Interest rates are near all time lows because the US is awash with money. It's not productive capital because there is no demand and no reason to invest.
Companies hire and fire based on profit potential. Demand is meaningless if the higher minimum wage makes it unprofitable to produce and meet the demand. Minimum wage simply makes certain types of labor intensive hiring impossible. That drives down the total wage earned by the working class. Even from the Keynesian aggregate view, minimum wage reduces aggregate demand, not increasing it.
Lucky that wages are so low and profits so high, that the demand will be meaningful and companies will have no problem meeting it profitably. Minimum wage makes the worse investments unprofitable, but creates other investments that are profitable. In balance, everyone is ahead. Minimum wage most certainly increases aggregate demand up to a point. And we're below that point right now.
lol---we are currently in a demand driven recession. Interest rates are near all time lows because the US is awash with money. It's not productive capital because there is no demand and no reason to invest.
YUP. Who would buy government bonds paying pitiful interest if there was all this demand for capital out there?
« First « Previous Comments 11 - 50 of 76 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dunkin Donuts CEO Nigel Travis – who previously held senior positions at Papa John's and Burger King, other low-wage employers – appeared on CNN and decried the $15 minimum wage as “absolutely outrageous.†He went on to claim that the move will prevent his company from hiring more people and would “affect small business and franchises.†"In fact, to encourage the expansion of our brand, and to increase hiring, we should drop the minimum wage to $1.00 per hour, and consider paying employees with our quality product."
http://www.alternet.org/dunkin-donuts-ceo-who-earns-10-million-claims-be-outraged-15-minimum-wage