Drunkard Posted March 12, 2017 Posted March 12, 2017 What the Papa John's guy didn't factor in, is that those are what his costs will be if the market remained the same and only his company participated. A system wide increase in wages affects the costs of everything, and he would no longer be given that original price. (So how much more would he have to raise his pizza prices if healthcare also doubled in price overnight? It won't be 14 cents.) If Walmart decides to increase their wages, their employees would benefit in the current marketplace. If every company did the same, then there would be a flood of capital vying for the same finite amount of products prompting a rise in prices. So Walmart gives it's employess 10$ more, but suddenly the cost of a Happy Meal is also 10$ more. What exactly changed? It's simple economics. Easy math. The problem is that people will ignore the numbers because they want to feel good about themselves. That's all the minimum wage argument really is. Decades of examples show us that it changes practically NOTHING locally, -until outside communities start preying on the imbalance (like moving manufacturing to satellite cities; or mexico). For simple economics and easy math your example figures are sure wrong, and they happen to be conveniently wrong in the same direction that supports your argument and makes the problem seem way worse than it would be (funny how that works). It wouldn't be anywhere close to the dollar for dollar price increases that you're stipulating. The only case that would get dollar for dollar increases would be in an industry where 100% percent of costs are accounted for by labor and even that would only be dollar for dollar in a business that is 100% labor and the service takes exactly an hour. Raw materials, equipment, land, buildings, and other capital make up a pretty large portion as well so doubling the cost of labor would only increase prices by a fraction of that amount. The inflation records before and after minimum wage raises bears this out as well. So yes prices would increase but by less than their paychecks would go up by.
B-Man Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Seattle.........................concerned that some small businesses may still survive their $15/hr law, prepare for the final blow. Seattle plan would require all workers get paid family leave 3/23/2017 KIRO 7 News ^ The plan would: Require all employers in Seattle to offer employees up to 26 weeks of paid family leave in the event of birth, adoption, or caring for a sick family member. Require that employees would get 100 percent of their wages up to $1,000 a week. Mandate up to 12 weeks of paid sick leave for workers. The plan would be paid for by contributions from the employer and employees..................(NO REALLY)
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 12 weeks of paid sick leave? Annually? That's an expectancy of almost 3 months a year of illness severe enough that it prevents you from working.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 12 weeks of paid sick leave? Annually? That's an expectancy of almost 3 months a year of illness severe enough that it prevents you from working. Yeah, something is not right there. That had to be a misprint. 12 weeks UNpaid is the the law w/Fed workers under FMLA. If that is what they are trying to copy. Been that way since Slick Willy. https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/ Honestly, I know You Guys bust my balls on the Asian carp thing, simply everything you read in the "news" is so effed up... Sloppy, and flat out wrong! Yet, we have our wonderful news source, B-Man, going out of his way to deliver the newspaper to us promptly every morning, noon, and night! God bless his wittle customer service driven goal!
boyst Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 Yeah, something is not right there. That had to be a misprint. 12 weeks UNpaid is the the law w/Fed workers under FMLA. If that is what they are trying to copy. Been that way since Slick Willy. https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/ Honestly, I know You Guys bust my balls on the Asian carp thing, simply everything you read in the "news" is so effed up... Sloppy, and flat out wrong! Yet, we have our wonderful news source, B-Man, going out of his way to deliver the newspaper to us promptly every morning, noon, and night! God bless his wittle customer service driven goal! it's not just for fed workers, it's all workers.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 it's not just for fed workers, it's all workers. Yep. Oops. There is "Family Friendly Leave" Policy in the Fed. Anyway, like TYTT brought up, something is not right with the 12 weeks paid thing a year. That can't be right? There is this though written in: "The FMLA entitles ELIGIBLE employees." Maybe many aren't "eligible?" On another note... About disinformation, media, news source, gov't... There is so much disinformation out there, hard to tell what is going on. Now we can't even trust the POTUS to convey any kind of reasonable information worse then ever before!
unbillievable Posted March 24, 2017 Posted March 24, 2017 (edited) For simple economics and easy math your example figures are sure wrong, and they happen to be conveniently wrong in the same direction that supports your argument and makes the problem seem way worse than it would be (funny how that works). It wouldn't be anywhere close to the dollar for dollar price increases that you're stipulating. The only case that would get dollar for dollar increases would be in an industry where 100% percent of costs are accounted for by labor and even that would only be dollar for dollar in a business that is 100% labor and the service takes exactly an hour. Raw materials, equipment, land, buildings, and other capital make up a pretty large portion as well so doubling the cost of labor would only increase prices by a fraction of that amount. The inflation records before and after minimum wage raises bears this out as well. So yes prices would increase but by less than their paychecks would go up by. You do realize that the cost of the equipment, materials, etc would also go up because those industries would have increased labor costs too. The inflation records are misleading because industries adjust to the market before and after the legislation takes effect; so there isn't a sudden uptick, just an increased percentage rate over a long period of time. The easiest way to see this difference is to compare the costs of living between cities/states. Blue vs Red states. Santa Fe vs surrounding cities. -I always like to use Santa Fe as an example (as opposed to Seattle) because it's like sticking San Francisco in the middle of Cuba; the income disparity is so high compared to the surrounding towns. Edited March 24, 2017 by unbillievable
Maury Ballstein Posted March 24, 2017 Posted March 24, 2017 Seattle.........................concerned that some small businesses may still survive their $15/hr law, prepare for the final blow. Seattle plan would require all workers get paid family leave 3/23/2017 KIRO 7 News ^ The plan would: Require all employers in Seattle to offer employees up to 26 weeks of paid family leave in the event of birth, adoption, or caring for a sick family member. Require that employees would get 100 percent of their wages up to $1,000 a week. Mandate up to 12 weeks of paid sick leave for workers. The plan would be paid for by contributions from the employer and employees..................(NO REALLY) What a bunch of horseshit. My life and business would be ruined if I lived there.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 24, 2017 Posted March 24, 2017 What a bunch of horseshit. My life and business would be ruined if I lived there. And that's what the blue people want to do EVERYWHERE.
B-Man Posted March 27, 2017 Posted March 27, 2017 Baltimore Democrat mayor vetoes $15 an hour minimum wageAmerican Thinker ^ | 03/27/2017 | Rick Moran Baltimore's Democratic Mayor Catherine Pugh has vetoed a bill that would have raised the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour. The unprecedented veto of a "Fight for 15" wage bill by a Democrat points to the growing evidence from other cities that the economic damage caused by a $15 an hour minimum isn't worth the job losses and economic slowdown that results from the increase
Drunkard Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 You do realize that the cost of the equipment, materials, etc would also go up because those industries would have increased labor costs too. The inflation records are misleading because industries adjust to the market before and after the legislation takes effect; so there isn't a sudden uptick, just an increased percentage rate over a long period of time. The easiest way to see this difference is to compare the costs of living between cities/states. Blue vs Red states. Santa Fe vs surrounding cities. -I always like to use Santa Fe as an example (as opposed to Seattle) because it's like sticking San Francisco in the middle of Cuba; the income disparity is so high compared to the surrounding towns. Yes, it goes up somewhat, but not anywhere near the dollar for dollar basis you stipulated. Inflation does manage to take the before and after into account though. They track the CPI on a monthly basis. The data is all there. Raising the minimum wages does not lead to inflation on a dollar for dollar basis. Not even close. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
GoBills808 Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 A union is nothing more than multiple individuals choosing to associate for what they perceive to be their own betterment, so no, I take no issue with the concept of unions. With that said, unions should enjoy no special legal protections. It should be legal to fire an employee for organizing, and it should be legal for the wholesale replacement of a unionized labor force without closing a base of operations. Public sector unions should also be illegal. I think the Bill of Rights may contradict this view. I generally support workers unions, and while there certainly are reprehensible ones I feel they provide counterweight to the companies who would otherwise take similar advantage of their workforce.
unbillievable Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 (edited) Yes, it goes up somewhat, but not anywhere near the dollar for dollar basis you stipulated. Inflation does manage to take the before and after into account though. They track the CPI on a monthly basis. The data is all there. Raising the minimum wages does not lead to inflation on a dollar for dollar basis. Not even close. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm So you're basing your argument on my dollar for dollar metaphor? You do realize that it was an anecdote, and not a mathematical equation, right?...like explaining simple math to kids. I have one apple and give two apples to johnny... ************ * * * * * However, surprisingly, economics over the long term does generally stay close to a linear dollar for dollar inflation rate simply because the market finds the same equilibrium point. The theory is that a product will always sell for what it's worth under pure capitalist competition; so if consumers suddenly have twice as much money, the product will suddenly cost twice as much. Disagree? Then write a paper; your beautiful mind could win a Nobel Prize. Edited March 31, 2017 by unbillievable
Azalin Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 So you're basing your argument on my dollar for dollar metaphor? You know, it would be nice to just let these dickheads have their way - give all kinds of unskilled schlubs fifteen dollars an hour for completely unskilled labor based on the belief that "people who work forty hours deserve a livable wage" and see what happens. i swear, It's almost depressing how few people are able to separate ideals from reality.
bdutton Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 Lets say you increase wages for the lowest earning employees from $10 to $15. Lets look at a Mcdonalds restaurant: Now, the team leaders who were making $14 per hour are making less... to even that out they need to increase them to $18 per hour. Now the shift supervisor earning $16 per hour are making less... they need to increase their wages to $20 per hour. Then the Assistant manager making $18 per hour are underpaid... they need to be increased to $22 per hour. The Manager who was making $20 per hour needs to be increased to $24. So if there are 12 employes earning minimum, 4 team leaders, 3 supervisors, and one assistant and 1 manager before the rate increase the 40 hour workweek payroll was 10,480. After the increase the payroll is now 15,920. McDonalds will have to cut expenses or increase prices. The same theory is applied to every single business model. As prices are inevitably increased so are living expenses like food, utilities and rent. Increasing the minimum wage without thought to the true cost and skill required to perform a job is idiotic.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 I think the Bill of Rights may contradict this view. In what way does the Bill of Rights contradict free association? I generally support workers unions, and while there certainly are reprehensible ones I feel they provide counterweight to the companies who would otherwise take similar advantage of their workforce. I neither support them, nor condemn them. As I said before, they are a product of free association, and as long as they exist in a way which does not restrict that same freedom of association, they are valid. The only sector which should be forbidden from unionizing is the public sector.
Drunkard Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 You know, it would be nice to just let these dickheads have their way - give all kinds of unskilled schlubs fifteen dollars an hour for completely unskilled labor based on the belief that "people who work forty hours deserve a livable wage" and see what happens. i swear, It's almost depressing how few people are able to separate ideals from reality. Right. It's better to let the biggest company in the world (Walmart) pay many of its workers so little that the government has to subsidize them with welfare, food stamps, and heating oil subsidies right? $15 an hour may be too high for a minimum wage but it should be set at a high enough level where anyone working 40 hours a week earns enough to not qualify for government assistance. That should make conservatives happy because it means more people pulling the wagon and fewer people getting free rides. Wouldn't you rather have all these fast food workers, janitors, cashiers, and grocery shelf stockers paying into the system instead of taking way more out of it then they pay in? I know the next argument/excuse is that the welfare threshold just ends up getting raised whenever the minimum wage is raised by that's why coming up with a new living wage or whatever you want to call it should be done in conjunction with welfare reform.
Rob's House Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 The whole concept of a federal minimum wage is retarded because of the gross disparity in the value of a dollar across various locations. It's self-evident that an area with a median income of $40 would not support the same minimum wage as an area with a median income in excess of $100k. All the sanctimonious bull **** in the world can't change that simple reality that !@#$s the entire argument. But logic and reason are no match for wet kitty politics.
Drunkard Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 So you're basing your argument on my dollar for dollar metaphor? You do realize that it was an anecdote, and not a mathematical equation, right?...like explaining simple math to kids. I have one apple and give two apples to johnny... ************ * * * * * However, surprisingly, economics over the long term does generally stay close to a linear dollar for dollar inflation rate simply because the market finds the same equilibrium point. The theory is that a product will always sell for what it's worth under pure capitalist competition; so if consumers suddenly have twice as much money, the product will suddenly cost twice as much. Disagree? Then write a paper; your beautiful mind could win a Nobel Prize. I know your example was a rectal extraction. You just happened to skew your numbers in a way to make it look like raises wages doesn't help people at the bottom of the economic ladder so I clarified it. If I have said raising the minimum wage $10 would only cause prices to go up $1 you would tell me that wasn't realistic.
Recommended Posts