Backintheday544 Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: you’re exactly correct when labor costs become too high there are a few outcomes: 1) go out of business 2) automate /force self service 3) outsource I challenge everyone in favor of $15 to boycott an establishment that pays minimum wage. Put your money where you mouth is and be part of the solution. Apply that to any cost. Say you’re in a business of selling soap for $1. The costs of goods to make soap increase and selling soap for a $1 now generates a loss. Due to an outside influence your current business structure is no longer sustainable. What do you? Like you said, you either adjust your business or go out of business. Now circling it back to wages. Instead of a shortage of goods increasing the price of goods, we’ve had cost of living increase. As such, we have an external pressure to raise wages. Unlike a good that goes into our product, we’re now talking about people and there is now a moral issue that comes into play as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Apply that to any cost. Say you’re in a business of selling soap for $1. The costs of goods to make soap increase and selling soap for a $1 now generates a loss. Due to an outside influence your current business structure is no longer sustainable. What do you? Like you said, you either adjust your business or go out of business. Now circling it back to wages. Instead of a shortage of goods increasing the price of goods, we’ve had cost of living increase. As such, we have an external pressure to raise wages. Unlike a good that goes into our product, we’re now talking about people and there is now a moral issue that comes into play as well. If you've ever been caught up in any kind of corporate downsizing or budget crunch and lost your job then you know there is absolutely no moral issue here. You are an input cost that needs to be eliminated. Plain and simple. You're gone. Its stylish now for businesses to preach the "team" concept and all the diversity concepts but when push comes to shove that all is going to fly out the window with a lot of your fellow employees as the bottom line is the bottom line. This is reality. Like it or not. It happened to me a few times and it sucks. But I dealt with it and did what I had to do to move on to other ventures. Most others in the same situation did the same. Labor is like any other cost input. And when you raise the cost of labor or business conditions worsen there needs to be some sort of adjustments. Just what those specific adjustment are and in what combination or composition is not always clear. If you raise labor costs to any business they'll need to adjust in some way. There's no avoiding that and morality has little to do with the outcome. The fundamental problem with a lot of people's thinking is that your cost of living has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to generate income or be productive. Your cost of living and maintenance of your lifestyle is not your employers problem to solve. You own it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: I’m saying businesses that require people to work at a pay level that is less than the poverty line in order to be profitable are poor business structures and as a country should re-evaluate their place in the US. For example, if you run a business and your net income is $100,000 a year. However, you’re net income is subsidized by paying you’re employees less than a living wage by $120,000. So if you were actually paying a living wage you’d have a $20,000 loss. Does a business like that actually belong in the US anymore and shouldn’t we re-allocate resources your business is using to businesses that can pay a living wage? Should businesses, even small businesses, be able to profit because they pay a minimum wage that is less than a living wage. I will answer with one real example that I worked for- I came on after the initial 5 year period- the company started with 6 employees of whom the owner was independently wealthy already and the company lost over $100,000 each of it's first 4 years. I know that each person who started those years was working for around 30k but working 60 hour weeks. By year ten each of the 5 was still there making 100k and happy they survived the begining. In your world this company that now employs 80 people would not exist because the known risk at the time of early losses would not have been worth it. I will ask you though why do you prefer removing a persons option to work for less and get some experience than allowing them to make the choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: I will answer with one real example that I worked for- I came on after the initial 5 year period- the company started with 6 employees of whom the owner was independently wealthy already and the company lost over $100,000 each of it's first 4 years. I know that each person who started those years was working for around 30k but working 60 hour weeks. By year ten each of the 5 was still there making 100k and happy they survived the begining. In your world this company that now employs 80 people would not exist because the known risk at the time of early losses would not have been worth it. I will ask you though why do you prefer removing a persons option to work for less and get some experience than allowing them to make the choice? That’s not at all what I’m saying. In your situation the owners are taking a calculated risk and investment in the company. They’re taking the risks of starting up the company for the reward that the company can grow. A person they hire off the street at a wage below living wages, doesn’t share in that risk/reward calculation. If in year 10 when they were able to grow off their work and now have plenty of net income to increase pay people a livable wage, then they should. If they don’t they’re subsidizing their own wealth by paying a wage that is morally disingenuous. The company not paying a livable wage takes money from taxpayers because now taxpayers need to fund things like SNAP. 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: If you've ever been caught up in any kind of corporate downsizing or budget crunch and lost your job then you know there is absolutely no moral issue here. You are an input cost that needs to be eliminated. Plain and simple. You're gone. Its stylish now for businesses to preach the "team" concept and all the diversity concepts but when push comes to shove that all is going to fly out the window with a lot of your fellow employees as the bottom line is the bottom line. This is reality. Like it or not. It happened to me a few times and it sucks. But I dealt with it and did what I had to do to move on to other ventures. Most others in the same situation did the same. Labor is like any other cost input. And when you raise the cost of labor or business conditions worsen there needs to be some sort of adjustments. Just what those specific adjustment are and in what combination or composition is not always clear. If you raise labor costs to any business they'll need to adjust in some way. There's no avoiding that and morality has little to do with the outcome. The fundamental problem with a lot of people's thinking is that your cost of living has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to generate income or be productive. Your cost of living and maintenance of your lifestyle is not your employers problem to solve. You own it. I think you’re confused on what a living wage is. Per Wikipedia: A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet his or her basic needs.[3] This is not the same as a subsistence wage, which refers to a biological minimum. Needs are defined to include food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living through employment without government subsidies. Were not talking about paying a wage that allows people to take even a vacation a year, but a wage that allows people to meet their basic needs without government subsidies. Edited February 23, 2021 by Backintheday544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 23, 2021 Share Posted February 23, 2021 18 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: That’s not at all what I’m saying. In your situation the owners are taking a calculated risk and investment in the company. They’re taking the risks of starting up the company for the reward that the company can grow. A person they hire off the street at a wage below living wages, doesn’t share in that risk/reward calculation. If in year 10 when they were able to grow off their work and now have plenty of net income to increase pay people a livable wage, then they should. If they don’t they’re subsidizing their own wealth by paying a wage that is morally disingenuous. The company not paying a livable wage takes money from taxpayers because now taxpayers need to fund things like SNAP. I think you’re confused on what a living wage is. Per Wikipedia: A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet his or her basic needs.[3] This is not the same as a subsistence wage, which refers to a biological minimum. Needs are defined to include food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living through employment without government subsidies. Were not talking about paying a wage that allows people to take even a vacation a year, but a wage that allows people to meet their basic needs without government subsidies. That is not who you are talking about but that is who you are effecting. By the time we finish who you don't mean we will be discussing 12 people. But you believe something that is antithetical to liberal government workers- they want to get these people off of assistance. If minimum wage goes up to $25 an hour poverty level will simply be raised to make sure a certain segment is below it and government is still needed by them. I know I am cynical but if you think leftist want to lose their government control you are being naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 "We are deeply disappointed in this decision. We are not going to give up the fight to raise the minimum wage to $15 to help millions of struggling American workers..." "... and their families. The American people deserve it, and we are committed to making it a reality." https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/02/we-are-deeply-disappointed-in-this.html Said Chuck Schumer, quoted in "Biden’s minimum wage increase runs afoul of budget rules/The Senate parliamentarian has issued a ruling that could jeopardize the rest of the president’s $1.9 trillion Covid relief package" (Politico). Speaking of reality, do you think he's really disappointed? I imagine he's relieved. He and his party have the benefit of looking as though they tried and the benefit of not having the potentially deleterious policy actually imposed on us. Who are you kidding Chuck ? The Democrats can introduce a stand-alone bill to raise the minimum wage to $15. They can do it later today, if they really want to do so. They want the issue, not the responsibility. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted March 6, 2021 Author Share Posted March 6, 2021 (edited) Twitter fake trending support for Kelly's vote......this is how they "trended" it. Look how awesome he is! Look at his support! ... Guess how they portrayed the fake #1 trend Yep. She's evil...... Edited March 6, 2021 by Big Blitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The Senate Dems who voted against an effort to advance a federal minimum wage hike to $15 per hour: Manchin, King, Sinema, Carper, *****, Tester, Hassan, Shaheen. So, they are all AntiAmerican, racist, turncoats...........That's how this works right ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blitz Posted March 6, 2021 Author Share Posted March 6, 2021 Where is my $2000??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 10 hours ago, Big Blitz said: Twitter fake trending support for Kelly's vote......this is how they "trended" it. Look how awesome he is! Look at his support! ... Guess how they portrayed the fake #1 trend Yep. She's evil...... She's not evil but she's a liar. Also, given an estimated 27 million Americans wages would go up if they went up to $15 an hour her dramatic "thumbs down" was incredibly tone deaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Every State and City has a different cost of living , no one size fits all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 11 hours ago, B-Man said: The Senate Dems who voted against an effort to advance a federal minimum wage hike to $15 per hour: Manchin, King, Sinema, Carper, *****, Tester, Hassan, Shaheen. So, they are all AntiAmerican, racist, turncoats...........That's how this works right ? Maybe they should be censured? Thats how the GQP works - right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niagara Bill Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 In Western Society in 2021 the disappearance of the middle class is problematic to continued economic success and democracy. Too many of rich of this century make nothing except marks on a piece of paper or a key stroke. There are few Elons and too many Wall Streeters. The push for minimum wage is a result not a cause. Henry Ford knew people who produced needed to be able to afford the product they produced. While I abhore higher min wages, something in our western economic system has to happen. You already have food stamps, meals at schools, welfare, subsidized rent, tax avoidance, free Healthcare, Fanny May, Freddy Mac, indigenous exceptions, etc etc, so the USA is already a socialist country without admitting it. What % of people work for government? Local, county, state, federal, fire,police,teachers, armed forces. Are they mostly good paying jobs (teachers is some locales excluded) Are these not subsidized high paying jobs. Does more unionization need to happen. Are unions the Robinhood solution. I hope not, but the present hate politics, the present rich get richer situation and the poor being better off doing nothing is not working. IMHO. PS Canada is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, ALF said: Every State and City has a different cost of living , no one size fits all. This!!! If NYC wants a min wage, fine. A living wage there is completely different then in Hornell, NY. Each economic region has its own cost structure. Mr money mustache claims he lives like a king on 25k a year just by cutting out some of the frivolous things in life. Edited March 6, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 9, 2021 Share Posted June 9, 2021 Chipotle Raised Its Minimum Wage to $15 and Now It's Biting Customers in the Burrito Basic economics doesn’t change because a political movement wants it to. It’s a finite world with finite resources, and when you move one number, it affects other numbers. This simple rule of economics cannot be overcome. In order to put more money into one thing, you first have to give it up, and in order to balance the sheets, more money has to come in from somewhere to compensate. It’s a simple rule the Left misses far too often. The phrase “money doesn’t grow on trees” is factual but unheaded. This is why no one should be surprised that Chipotle is now raising its prices as its caves to demands to raise its minimum wage to $15/hr. According to Fox Business, the burrito chain is raising its prices by four percent in order to compensate for its wage hikes. “It made sense in this scenario to invest in our employees and get these restaurants staffed and make sure that we have the pipeline of people to support our growth,” Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol said. “And then with that, we’ve taken some pricing to cover some of that investment.” This could push some burritos into the $8 range that many already thought was overpriced. The price hike might not truly affect many customers’ decision to eat there, but a nearly .50 cent price hike for some items is steep when you consider that, over time, you may very well find the company being pressured to do more than just hike wages. Increased health benefits for minimum wage workers isn’t a far-off demand for people who just convinced a corporation to pay them a lot more. And who’s to say that Chipotle won’t be pressured to raise wages again? This isn’t the first time this has happened for Chipotle. Next thing you know, Chiptole will be forced to hire fewer people and/or give its employees fewer hours in order to stay in the black. When the vast majority of economists tell you that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a bad idea, and then myriad examples as to why show you that it’s a bad idea, then demanding a wage hike is a bad idea. It sounds great on paper, but you cannot escape the fact that a business has to compensate for its loss somewhere, and that somewhere is usually us. https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2021/06/09/chipotle-raised-their-minimum-wage-to-15-and-now-its-biting-customers-in-the-burrito-n393843 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted June 9, 2021 Share Posted June 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Chipotle Raised Its Minimum Wage to $15 and Now It's Biting Customers in the Burrito Basic economics doesn’t change because a political movement wants it to. It’s a finite world with finite resources, and when you move one number, it affects other numbers. This simple rule of economics cannot be overcome. In order to put more money into one thing, you first have to give it up, and in order to balance the sheets, more money has to come in from somewhere to compensate. It’s a simple rule the Left misses far too often. The phrase “money doesn’t grow on trees” is factual but unheaded. This is why no one should be surprised that Chipotle is now raising its prices as its caves to demands to raise its minimum wage to $15/hr. According to Fox Business, the burrito chain is raising its prices by four percent in order to compensate for its wage hikes. “It made sense in this scenario to invest in our employees and get these restaurants staffed and make sure that we have the pipeline of people to support our growth,” Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol said. “And then with that, we’ve taken some pricing to cover some of that investment.” This could push some burritos into the $8 range that many already thought was overpriced. The price hike might not truly affect many customers’ decision to eat there, but a nearly .50 cent price hike for some items is steep when you consider that, over time, you may very well find the company being pressured to do more than just hike wages. Increased health benefits for minimum wage workers isn’t a far-off demand for people who just convinced a corporation to pay them a lot more. And who’s to say that Chipotle won’t be pressured to raise wages again? This isn’t the first time this has happened for Chipotle. Next thing you know, Chiptole will be forced to hire fewer people and/or give its employees fewer hours in order to stay in the black. When the vast majority of economists tell you that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a bad idea, and then myriad examples as to why show you that it’s a bad idea, then demanding a wage hike is a bad idea. It sounds great on paper, but you cannot escape the fact that a business has to compensate for its loss somewhere, and that somewhere is usually us. https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2021/06/09/chipotle-raised-their-minimum-wage-to-15-and-now-its-biting-customers-in-the-burrito-n393843 A steak burrito at Chipotle cost $7.30 last year. Now after the hike it costs $7.50 in exchange for paying their more than 50,000 retail workers $15 an hour and some people want to complain about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts