$15 Minimum Wage Battle Moves To Other Industries

[KD in CA]

 

Not only that, but from the employee's point of view, there's tremendous job security since there's always other restaurants where they can work (most don't last a year before they move on to another restaurant), while the number of restaurants that actually survive as a business beyond 4 or 5 years drops dramatically. Owners have by far the greatest risk in the business. Another point often forgotten is that the owners are the last people to make any money from their effort and investment, since they have to pay the cost of labor, overhead, taxes, licenses, maintenance, etc before they earn a nickel for themselves.

 

Oh sure, you're just trying to protect rich, greedy owners and their windfall profits!

[birdog1960]

i'm interested in your response to hanauaer ccontention on stock buy backs and how it relates to lower wages and the falling middle class that i linked earlier:

 

Between 2003 and 2012, the companies that make up the S&P 500 spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks. Last year alone, U.S. corporations spent about $700 billion, roughly 4 percent of GDP, simply propping up their share prices by repurchasing their own stock. And much of the rest of these profits has been paid to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Over the past 10 years, according to data compiled from its public filings, Wal-Mart has spent more than $65.4 billion on stock buybacks — about 47 percent of its profits. That’s an average of more than $6.5 billion a year in stock buybacks, enough to give each of its 1.4 million U.S. workers a $4,670-a-year raise.

In the past, this money flowed through the broader economy in the form of higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment. But today, trillions of dollars of windfall profits are being sucked out of the real economy and into a paper asset bubble, inflating share prices while producing nothing of tangible value

[Tiberius]

i'm interested in your response to hanauaer ccontention on stock buy backs and how it relates to lower wages and the falling middle class that i linked earlier:

 

Between 2003 and 2012, the companies that make up the S&P 500 spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks. Last year alone, U.S. corporations spent about $700 billion, roughly 4 percent of GDP, simply propping up their share prices by repurchasing their own stock. And much of the rest of these profits has been paid to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Over the past 10 years, according to data compiled from its public filings, Wal-Mart has spent more than $65.4 billion on stock buybacks — about 47 percent of its profits. That’s an average of more than $6.5 billion a year in stock buybacks, enough to give each of its 1.4 million U.S. workers a $4,670-a-year raise.

In the past, this money flowed through the broader economy in the form of higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment. But today, trillions of dollars of windfall profits are being sucked out of the real economy and into a paper asset bubble, inflating share prices while producing nothing of tangible value

People like me benefit from that though. So many investors, retirees and pension funds are all helped by the inflation of stock prices. Yes, the weathly own most of the stocks but a lot does flow downward, just saying

[KD in CA]

it takes time to sort itself out. if everyone made at least $15/hour there'd be more people able to afford to eat out at a $15 buffet on a more frequent basis and a lot less never able to afford a $10 one. i doubt c level execs that have seen billions diverted to them from the middle class make up much of these places biz.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/10/25/cheat-sheet-middle-class-cant-afford/17730223/

 

And what happens when the buffet and movie ticket cost $20 instead of $15, since the busboy, dishwasher and popcorn kid need to be paid $15/hour now? Prosperity through inflation?

i'm interested in your response to hanauaer ccontention on stock buy backs and how it relates to lower wages and the falling middle class that i linked earlier:

 

Between 2003 and 2012, the companies that make up the S&P 500 spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks. Last year alone, U.S. corporations spent about $700 billion, roughly 4 percent of GDP, simply propping up their share prices by repurchasing their own stock. And much of the rest of these profits has been paid to shareholders in the form of dividends.

Over the past 10 years, according to data compiled from its public filings, Wal-Mart has spent more than $65.4 billion on stock buybacks — about 47 percent of its profits. That’s an average of more than $6.5 billion a year in stock buybacks, enough to give each of its 1.4 million U.S. workers a $4,670-a-year raise.

In the past, this money flowed through the broader economy in the form of higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment. But today, trillions of dollars of windfall profits are being sucked out of the real economy and into a paper asset bubble, inflating share prices while producing nothing of tangible value

 

I've always thought stock repurchases are a short-sighted strategy. But trying to lump dividends into the same pot is idiotic. I gave them my money in exchange for a virtual piece of paper. Now they've generated extra cash. Of course it should go to me if they don't have anything better to spend it on.

 

Also, you haven't drawn any conclusive link to wages. Please provide the study that shows the wage growth vs stock repurchases by company. Comparing the relatively small # of companies who repurchase stock against economy-wide wage stats is meaningless.

Edited March 16, 2015 by KD in CT

[birdog1960]

People like me benefit from that though. So many investors, retirees and pension funds are all helped by the inflation of stock prices. Yes, the weathly own most of the stocks but a lot does flow downward, just saying

not when it's artificially propped up. it, as usual, greatly benefits a few at the cost of the many. and it used to be illegal for this very reason. it should be again.

[TakeYouToTasker]

not when it's artificially propped up. it, as usual, greatly benefits a few at the cost of the many. and it used to be illegal for this very reason. it should be again.

Market conditions aren't dictating expansive investment because of the uncertainty surrounding federal policy given an Executive hostile towards business, shown a propensity for ham handed regulatory policy and a unique willingness to act unilaterally. They market also does not dictate an increase in wages, given the unusually high supply of labor.

 

Given a cash excess, under these circumstances, it often makes the most business sense to repurchase it's own equity.

[Chef Jim]

 

Not only that, but from the employee's point of view, there's tremendous job security since there's always other restaurants where they can work (most don't last a year before they move on to another restaurant), while the number of restaurants that actually survive as a business beyond 4 or 5 years drops dramatically. Owners have by far the greatest risk in the business. Another point often forgotten is that the owners are the last people to make any money from their effort and investment, since they have to pay the cost of labor, overhead, taxes, licenses, maintenance, etc before they earn a nickel for themselves.

 

My wife and I were looking at buying a restaurant probably 20 years ago. Good thing we didn't. We'd be broke and most likely divorced. What made us change our minds was the fear we'd be working 7 days a week for little or no money.

[Azalin]

 

My wife and I were looking at buying a restaurant probably 20 years ago. Good thing we didn't. We'd be broke and most likely divorced. What made us change our minds was the fear we'd be working 7 days a week for little or no money.

 

That was probably a very wise decision, though it must have been tempting considering your culinary skills. It's a much tougher business than most people realize.

[DC Tom]

not when it's artificially propped up. it, as usual, greatly benefits a few at the cost of the many. and it used to be illegal for this very reason. it should be again.

 

It was never illegal for corporations to buy back equity.

[birdog1960]

 

It was never illegal for corporations to buy back equity.

ot was illegal to do it to this extreme:

 

So what’s changed? Stock buybacks were once considered a form of illegal stock manipulation, until 1982, when President Ronald Reagan’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair John Shad (a former Wall Street CEO) loosened the rules. It was this rule change that made possible the shift toward stock-based compensation that has driven the dramatic rise in the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay, from 20-to-one in 1965 to about 300-to-one today. Before 1982, such massive stock grants would have diluted the number of shares outstanding, causing both EPS and share prices to tumble. But armed with the SEC’s seal of approval, CEOs can now prop up EPS by diverting profits into stock buybacks, making their own previously unimaginable compensation packages possible.

[DC Tom]

ot was illegal to do it to this extreme:

 

So what’s changed? Stock buybacks were once considered a form of illegal stock manipulation, until 1982, when President Ronald Reagan’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair John Shad (a former Wall Street CEO) loosened the rules. It was this rule change that made possible the shift toward stock-based compensation that has driven the dramatic rise in the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay, from 20-to-one in 1965 to about 300-to-one today. Before 1982, such massive stock grants would have diluted the number of shares outstanding, causing both EPS and share prices to tumble. But armed with the SEC’s seal of approval, CEOs can now prop up EPS by diverting profits into stock buybacks, making their own previously unimaginable compensation packages possible.

 

It was illegal because CEO's to make "too much" money?

 

You're an idiot.

[birdog1960]

 

It was illegal because CEO's to make "too much" money?

 

You're an idiot.

why isn't the question posed by your statement that it wasn't illegal. the expert in the pbs piece disagrees with you on the question of legality. sine he was invited and does TEDS talks on economic issues and you don't, i favor his version of the facts.

[DC Tom]

why isn't the question posed by your statement that it wasn't illegal. the expert in the pbs piece disagrees with you on the question of legality. sine he was invited and does TEDS talks on economic issues and you don't, i favor his version of the facts.

 

Does he do TED talks on SEC regulations?

[birdog1960]

 

Does he do TED talks on SEC regulations?

do you? there all on youtube right?

[DC Tom]

do you? there all on youtube right?

 

Does he? You said he does TED talks on economics. That's not SEC regulations.

 

On the other hand, I read the regulations and formed my own opinions. You're just borrowing the opinions of someone else who may or may not have discussed what we're talking about.

[Chef Jim]

It's so good for the economy!! It actually sounds like classic wealth redistribution to me. More money for them for doing nothing more that what they have been doing and less money for us.....just because.

 

This is an email my wife just got from her hair salon and she said they just raised their rates in the fall.

 

 

As of June 1, 2015 we will be raising our service prices slightly to help support the cost of Measure FF that was voted into effect and began on March 2 by our Oakland voters. This measure raised our minimum wage to the highest in the nation as well as implemented paid days off for each employee. Congratulations on getting this done for so many people and raising Oakland's minimum wage!

 

To our customers... we love and appreciate your support! We have a wide array of pricing tiers to choose from and would be more than happy to recommend a stylist or schedule that fits your budget should pricing be an issue. We are a team based salon and work together to take the best care of our guest's needs. Thank you for your understanding and continued support! Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

 

It's so good for the economy. Sounds like typical wealth redistribution to me. They get to spend more because they can't work their way out of a minimum wage career. This is an email I got from my wife for her hair salon. She said they just raised their rates in the fall.

 

Edited May 12, 2015 by Chef Jim

[B-Man]

Who could have seen this coming ?

 

When Minimum-Wage Hikes Hit a San Francisco Comic-Book Store.

 

“I’m hearing from a lot of customers, ‘I voted for that, and I didn’t realize it would affect you.’”

 

“My jaw dropped. Eighty-thousand a year! I didn’t know that. I thought we were talking a small amount of money, something I could absorb.”

 

 

 

Progressives don’t do the math. If they did, they wouldn’t be progressives.

 

 

"worst idea ever"

[KD in CA]

 

It's so good for the economy!! It actually sounds like classic wealth redistribution to me. More money for them for doing nothing more that what they have been doing and less money for us.....just because.

 

This is an email my wife just got from her hair salon and she said they just raised their rates in the fall.

 

So either raising the minimum wage caused prices to go up or the salon is run by a rich CEO who's just using the higher minimum wage as an excuse to push up prices and line his pockets. Or does the minimum wage law only apply to salons that service rich, white people and not the ones who service poor minorities?

 

Help me out liberals, which one is it??

Who could have seen this coming ?

 

When Minimum-Wage Hikes Hit a San Francisco Comic-Book Store.

 

“I’m hearing from a lot of customers, ‘I voted for that, and I didn’t realize it would affect you.’”

 

“My jaw dropped. Eighty-thousand a year! I didn’t know that. I thought we were talking a small amount of money, something I could absorb.”

 

 

 

Progressives don’t do the math. If they did, they wouldn’t be progressives.

 

 

"worst idea ever"

 

My favorite line was:

 

“Why,” he asks, “can’t two consenting people make arrangements for less than x dollars per hour?”

 

 

Gee Mr. Progressive, good question!

[Chef Jim]

Well I'm not sure if liberals are good or bad at math but I do know they're real bad at making money.

[Dante]

 

My wife and I were looking at buying a restaurant probably 20 years ago. Good thing we didn't. We'd be broke and most likely divorced. What made us change our minds was the fear we'd be working 7 days a week for little or no money.

We watch a fair amount of reality tv shows based on restaurants. Helping them get profitable and so on. When I watch them the entire process of making a restaurant work well is daunting to me. From maintaining service and food consistency to retaining quality people. Making sure people aren't stealing and on and on. Whenever I wasn't there I would always be thinking what is going on. Customers not being treated right. Is the bartender giving away liquor to increase his own tips? I could never get a good nights sleep. That said, I think more and more of this stuff is going to get automated. Not sure how it would apply to the restaurant industry. I know they are hamburgers in fast food joints are probably going that way.