S. F. bookstore closes. Why? Minimum wages.

[DJofSD]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/if-you-support-higher-minimum-wages-you-hate-bookstores/

Now, book stores are a dying breed in general thanks to stiff competition (read: low prices) from Amazon, the digitization of books, and the revitalization of urban centers, which has caused rents to climb in recent years. They’re operating on pretty tight budgets as it is. So what happens to a book store when, on top of genuine market pressures, the government foists a costly—and entirely artificial—mandate on it?

Gee, you’ll never guess:

Liberals won't care any ways -- they don't read.

[boxcar]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/if-you-support-higher-minimum-wages-you-hate-bookstores/



Liberals won't care any ways -- they don't read.

That's not entirely true. I'm sure community organizers pass out plenty of reading material to the political illiterates to read. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Did mopo approve this?

[jballscalls]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/if-you-support-higher-minimum-wages-you-hate-bookstores/



Liberals won't care any ways -- they don't read.

They just read different stuff than you do.

[davew]

I wonder how many other industries are not compatible with $15 / hr labor.

[thaskalos]

Anyone who checks out Amazon's book prices would have to wonder how the bookstores have managed to hold on for as long as they have.

[FantasticDan]

Here's a quote from the bookstore's owner:

“Overall I think [the minimum wage increase] may be very good for San Francisco,” said Beatts. “We’re a subset of a subset that are having negative effects from this.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/borderlands-books-in-sf-announces-closure-cites-minimum-wage-increase/Content?oid=2918723

[Steve 'StatMan']

This is just going to decreased the number of jobs available, and turn $15 into that $8.25 buys today. For San Franciscans, and everywhere this happens.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Of course, I understand that the living expenses are already outrageous in San Francisco, and can understand how anyone affords the cost of housing there, let alone on a non-professional income.

[Robert Fischer]

we should get rid of minimum wage.
And liberals.

[Clocker]

This is just going to decreased the number of jobs available, and turn $15 into that $8.25 buys today. For San Franciscans, and everywhere this happens.

This is the part the do-gooders don't understand. The owner of the book store said he also runs a cafe next door. He said he had to close the book store because the market would not let him increase prices on books, and that he can keep the cafe open because he can increase prices there.

I would bet that folks in cities like SF and Seattle will soon begin seeing touch screen ordering at fast food restaurants, and won't have a clue why.

[horses4courses]

That certainly looks like a nice, balanced, media source
from which to obtain an article. Nice touch with the Nazis. :rolleyes:

How quickly they seem to forget that those men were
as Right as Right can be.

[Robert Fischer]

The herd has it too good.

[DJofSD]

That certainly looks like a nice, balanced, media source
from which to obtain an article. Nice touch with the Nazis. :rolleyes:

How quickly they seem to forget that those men were
as Right as Right can be.
Here's another source for those too lazy, ignorant or whatever to find another on there own:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/minimum-wage-hike-closes-san-213700882.html

[thaskalos]

This is the part the do-gooders don't understand. The owner of the book store said he also runs a cafe next door. He said he had to close the book store because the market would not let him increase prices on books, and that he can keep the cafe open because he can increase prices there.

I would bet that folks in cities like SF and Seattle will soon begin seeing touch screen ordering at fast food restaurants, and won't have a clue why.
I remember when Reagan kept the minimum wage at $3.25 an hour throughout his presidency...because of similar concerns. It didn't really pan out that way...

[Robert Fischer]

pretty soon these savages will want $10/ hour for their labor.

and '10' is a BIG, SIGNIFICANT number.

Have you seen it? '10'

It's intimidating. And those people don't deserve that much!


Employers ought to be able to FULLY leverage their upper-hand in the economic power dynamics.
(because after all, that is what this min wage garbage is all about - these animals want an artificial protection from those power dynamics because otherwise they'd be working for what they deserve = $2/hour)

This artificial protection stuff is giving them too much money.

We should open the system up, and see how they feel then!

The one thing I don't want however is for those thugs to work together in union when they have actual skills to try use power dynamics of their own. It should just be the right of the employers.

[Clocker]

Here's a quote from the bookstore's owner:

“Overall I think [the minimum wage increase] may be very good for San Francisco,” said Beatts. “We’re a subset of a subset that are having negative effects from this.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/borderlands-books-in-sf-announces-closure-cites-minimum-wage-increase/Content?oid=2918723

That guy is nuts, and his way of thinking is a big part of the problem. His store is closing, he laid off 6 people, he lost $28K in annual income, and he is raising prices in his cafe. How is that "very good" for the city?

Minimum wages there are increasing from $11.08 an hour to $15. That money has to come from some place, it doesn't just fall out of bay area fog. The people of SF pay for that. Their money now buys less. Or they spend it elsewhere. How is that "very good" for the city?

[thaskalos]

That guy is nuts, and his way of thinking is a big part of the problem. His store is closing, he laid off 6 people, he lost $28K in annual income, and he is raising prices in his cafe. How is that "very good" for the city?

Minimum wages there are increasing from $11.08 an hour to $15. That money has to come from some place, it doesn't just fall out of bay area fog. The people of SF pay for that. Their money now buys less. Or they spend it elsewhere. How is that "very good" for the city?

You sound more irate about this, than the guy who was just put out of business because of it.

[Tom]

Raising the minimum wage doesn't increase the size of the pie.

[Robert Fischer]

If a minimum wage increase is going to ruin your company, you were lucky as hell to have been in business for as long as you were.

No amount of propaganda is going to change that.

Go back to the drawing board and find an undervalued investment other than human labor.

[Clocker]

You sound more irate about this, than the guy who was just put out of business because of it.

I am not irate. I am annoyed by people that don't understand reality, because their actions often eventually affect me. And I get perverse joy out of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

[Dave Schwartz]

I wonder how many other industries are not compatible with $15 / hr labor.

I have a son who lives on the street in San Francisco. In the last year he has worked very hard to overcome his addiction and this very week got his first job in (perhaps) a decade. He is working for park maintenance. Starting wage is just under $14 per hour, with an automatic five dollar per hour raise in six months.

It is logical that the cost of living must drive minimum-wage. As he put it, $14 an hour still leaves him living on the street. A worthwhile note is that "GA" in California gives him a base income of $444 per month. He has been living in a shelter and the shelter takes $375.

Life in California is simply out of control.

[Robert Fischer]

I have a son who lives on the street in San Francisco. In the last year he has worked very hard to overcome his addiction and this very week got his first job in (perhaps) a decade. He is working for park maintenance. Starting wage is just under $14 per hour, with an automatic five dollar per hour raise in six months.

It is logical that the cost of living must drive minimum-wage. As he put it, $14 an hour still leaves him living on the street. A worthwhile note is that "GA" in California gives him a base income of $444 per month. He has been living in a shelter and the shelter takes $375.

Life in California is simply out of control.

Congrats that your son has found work again.

That must be very difficult. I have a cousin that has successfully overcome addiction problems and turned his life around, but I can't relate on such a personal level.

As far as the minimum wage being $14 or $15 or whatever, for some reason it seems that people who live in areas with lower cost of living perceive the $14 or $15 to be a 'large' figure, rather than a relationship to local cost of living, and even attempt to use that contrast bias to bolster their argument.

[Tom]

It is a large figure when it is imposed across the board.

[wisconsin]

If a minimum wage increase is going to ruin your company, you were lucky as hell to have been in business for as long as you were.

If the guy had 6 employees, and let's say they work 25 hours per week. $3.92 x 25 x 6 = $588 per week. Add 7.65% for FICA match employers are forced to pay and it's suddenly $633 per week. This is before FUTA and local UC contributions. That becomes $32,916 per year that comes from somewhere. Oh wait, the owners pocket, that's where. Suppose you are the store owner making, oh, $52,000 per year. Now what?

[Robert Fischer]

Now what?

Now you go back to the drawing board and form an actual businessplan that doesn't depend entirely on undervalued labor to be mildly successful.

Going into business takes some skill.

It's not just an entitlement that anyone with the means to cover overhead is going to be given a free ride.

You have to actually have something going for you.

[JustRalph]

Now you go back to the drawing board and form an actual businessplan that doesn't depend entirely on undervalued labor to be mildly successful.

Going into business takes some skill.

It's not just an entitlement that anyone with the means to cover overhead is going to be given a free ride.

You have to actually have something going for you.

So you're saying his business model isn't viable?

[Tom]

It's not just an entitlement that anyone with the means to cover overhead is going to be given a free ride.

But you have no problem giving a free ride to employees that are NOT worth the mandated pay? :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

Now you go back to the drawing board and form an actual businessplan that doesn't depend entirely on undervalued labor to be mildly successful.

Going into business takes some skill.

It's not just an entitlement that anyone with the means to cover overhead is going to be given a free ride.

You have to actually have something going for you.
There's something here I'm not getting.

First, he's already in business.

Next, he's operating in a manner that is not any different than any other retail business.

If you read the article, you'd know already he has "run the numbers" and can not see where he can stay in business.

The skill is to know when to call it quits. But then, if you follow the example of government at all levels, you just kick the can down the road and paper over debts.

[Robert Fischer]

we're not on the same page, lets forget about it. I'm sure you have good points. I'm having a bad day. :ThmbUp:

[AndyC]

Now you go back to the drawing board and form an actual businessplan that doesn't depend entirely on undervalued labor to be mildly successful.

Going into business takes some skill.

It's not just an entitlement that anyone with the means to cover overhead is going to be given a free ride.

You have to actually have something going for you.

How do you determine what labor is undervalued? Some people who make minimum wage are way overpaid. For those people the minimum wage is a subsidy dictated by the government and paid by the employer who gets no quid pro quo.

[Tom]

What they need to do is go back to the table and figure out a government model that works.

Stealing from one group to get votes from another is not good government.

[delayjf]

It's not just wages that's driving businesses out of SF. They also have mandatory healthcare which charges (if I remember right) @ 2.00 per hour and mandatory sick leave.

[Robert Goren]

This is the part the do-gooders don't understand. The owner of the book store said he also runs a cafe next door. He said he had to close the book store because the market would not let him increase prices on books, and that he can keep the cafe open because he can increase prices there.

I would bet that folks in cities like SF and Seattle will soon begin seeing touch screen ordering at fast food restaurants, and won't have a clue why.If only that were the case. Please let that be case. Some people should be on welfare because when they are "working", all they do is screw things up and add a little bit of unnesecessary misery to everybody who has to deal with them. Fast Food workers are at the top of that list. If you can not fill an fast food order correctly, you should not be working.

[mostpost]

If the guy had 6 employees, and let's say they work 25 hours per week. $3.92 x 25 x 6 = $588 per week. Add 7.65% for FICA match employers are forced to pay and it's suddenly $633 per week. This is before FUTA and local UC contributions. That becomes $32,916 per year that comes from somewhere. Oh wait, the owners pocket, that's where. Suppose you are the store owner making, oh, $52,000 per year. Now what?
I am always amazed at how you conservatives are so protective of business owners yet have so little feeling for the workers. Your example employee who works 25 hours a week at $11.08 an hour is earning $14,404.00 a year. You complain about the the 7.65% FICA match. Well the employee pays that too, which cuts his take home down to $13,302.00. Who can live on that-especially in San Francisco?

The employers will figure out a way to pay the extra and they will do it without cutting jobs. They always have. Absent a recession, a raise in the minimum wage has NEVER coincided with a rise in unemployment.

Let's not forget this is being phased in over three years and does not start until November. Most businesses will figure it out. For those that don't, well there is no right to run a business guaranteed in the Constitution.

By the way, I have not noticed you posting much lately. Good to hear from you. I wonder if we will be doing an Arlington trip this summer???

[mostpost]

It's not just wages that's driving businesses out of SF. They also have mandatory healthcare which charges (if I remember right) @ 2.00 per hour and mandatory sick leave.

God forbid we should treat employees like human beings. :mad:

[Tom]

Many human beings are not worth $10 an hour.
Deal with it.

[mostpost]

Many human beings are not worth $10 an hour.
Deal with it.
You are right, but amazingly, someone is paying you more than that. :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

H4C been tutoring you in mindless replies?

[Clocker]

The employers will figure out a way to pay the extra and they will do it without cutting jobs.

Did you read the OP? That guy cut 6 jobs.

And yes, most employers do not immediately cut jobs when the minimum wage goes up. The impact takes longer than that as employers do not fill vacancies, do not create new jobs, and figure out ways to replace workers with capital.

Minimum wage increases do not kill jobs. No one that understands the private sector ever said that. They kill job creation and growth.

[wisconsin]

I am always amazed at how you conservatives are so protective of business owners yet have so little feeling for the workers. Your example employee who works 25 hours a week at $11.08 an hour is earning $14,404.00 a year. You complain about the the 7.65% FICA match. Well the employee pays that too, which cuts his take home down to $13,302.00. Who can live on that-especially in San Francisco?

The employers will figure out a way to pay the extra and they will do it without cutting jobs. They always have. Absent a recession, a raise in the minimum wage has NEVER coincided with a rise in unemployment.

Let's not forget this is being phased in over three years and does not start until November. Most businesses will figure it out. For those that don't, well there is no right to run a business guaranteed in the Constitution.

By the way, I have not noticed you posting much lately. Good to hear from you. I wonder if we will be doing an Arlington trip this summer???

The guy has 6 employees. Some businesses cannot absorb the cost. I provided a glaring example by reducing it to the ridiculous. There is nothing to figure out in a bookstore where pricing is already set by the publisher. The book store owner can't live on his new reduced income, either.

Yes, I hope to see you at Arlington. We put differences aside in that atmosphere ;)

[GaryG]

Many human beings are not worth $10 an hour.
Deal with it.And some of them are not worth $10....period.

[mostpost]

Did you read the OP? That guy cut 6 jobs.

And yes, most employers do not immediately cut jobs when the minimum wage goes up. The impact takes longer than that as employers do not fill vacancies, do not create new jobs, and figure out ways to replace workers with capital.

Minimum wage increases do not kill jobs. No one that understands the private sector ever said that. They kill job creation and growth.
So how long does it take? Six months? A year? Two years? Ten years?
I understand that presenting you with the facts is not going to change your opinion. You are far too rigid for that. Nevertheless, I will do it anyway.

The first thing I did was find a list of all the increases in the minimum wage since 1950. Then I eliminated those which occurred during or very near to the start of a recession. That left me with sixteen times that the minimum wage has been raised. Using data from bls.gov, I calculated the number of jobs created in the twelve months following the increase. That data is presented below. The first column is the date of the increase. The second column is the number of jobs created in the subsequent twelve months.

1/25/50.......................................3,350,000
3/1/56.........................................930,000
9/3/61........................................1,540,00 0
9/3/63........................................1,679,00 0
9/3/64........................................2,609,00 0
9/3/65........................................3,279,00 0
2/1/67........................................1,398,00 0
2/1/68........................................2,633,00 0
2/1/69........................................1,738,00 0
1/1/76........................................2,430,00 0
1/1/77........................................3,960,00 0
1/1/78........................................4,265,00 0
1/1/79........................................2,000,00 0
4/1/91........................................negative 314,000*
10/1/96......................................3,177,000
9/1/97........................................3,958,00 0

*this was the one outlier in the group. The only time we lost jobs after a hike in the minimum wage. Unless there was a coinciding recession.)

[davew]

for some reason when you present 'facts', I think snowjob...

The bookstore owner said the raising wages was final straw that made him decide to close up shop. Bookstores are a dying breed, just like video rental stores 5-10 years ago. It does not say how many years they operated, or how many thousands of dollars are tied up in necessary inventory, or they had a bad business model when they started.

To feel that anyone who has a 'job' should be able to raise a family of 4 must be dem thing - unless of course you don't have a job, and you should still be able to raise a family of 4 from gov't handouts.

I have seen disabled/challenged people working at fast food joints, and get the impression they would rather be there working than sitting at home doing nothing colleting welfare.

[Clocker]

I understand that presenting you with the facts is not going to change your opinion. You are far too rigid for that. Nevertheless, I will do it anyway.


You are right. I am so rigid that I understand that the raw data you present is totally meaningless as far as being able to show anything about the impact of the increase in the minimum wage. I would insist on a statistically significant test of the data. At the risk of extreme repetition, you cannot show cause and effect in economic data by eyeballing raw numbers.

Your raw data shows that after an increase in the minimum wage, jobs were still created. A miracle! Jobs were created in a non-recession economy! The data is meaningless. It says nothing about the minimum wage.

To prove your point, you have to show how many of those jobs that were created were minimum wage jobs, and you would have to show how that number compared to the number of minimum wage jobs that would have been created if the minimum wage had not increased. The first is a matter of disaggregating the data. The second is a matter of constructing a statistically significant econometric model to forecast the number of minimum wage jobs that would have been created and comparing the forecasts with the actual data. This kind of study is routine, and the methodology is standard.

[Clocker]

for some reason when you present 'facts', I think snowjob...

An appropriate metaphor. It's just a blizzard of unrelated data that obscures vision.

[davew]

.... yes he can, he just did ...

It also would be interesting how many of those minimum wage jobs were replaced with bigger machines and computers ... with each major jump in minimum wage.

[Clocker]

.... yes he can, he just did ...

It also would be interesting how many of those minimum wage jobs were replaced with bigger machines and computers ... with each major jump in minimum wage.

Or outsourced. At some point it may make sense to replace your cleaning or maintenance people with a service. Or lay off your employees and hire them as contractors.

[Robert Goren]

The guy has 6 employees. Some businesses cannot absorb the cost. I provided a glaring example by reducing it to the ridiculous. There is nothing to figure out in a bookstore where pricing is already set by the publisher. The book store owner can't live on his new reduced income, either.

Yes, I hope to see you at Arlington. We put differences aside in that atmosphere ;)When was the last time somebody paid the cover price on a book? Bookstores have been closing right and left for sometime now, because the store front business model for books no longer works. It is disingenuous for the owner to suggest that closing was do to the minimum wage. That would have closed anyhow. In Lincoln, we are down to 2 Barnes and Nobles from 8 bookstores in 2000. I suspect the B&Ns only stay open because of the Starbucks inside of them.

[Clocker]

When was the last time somebody paid the cover price on a book?

Small specialty book stores stay in business because they carry books not generally available on line or because they offer what customers consider to be value added service. Some people don't text or tweet, and some people like to browse book stores.

The owner of the store was on MSNBC today. He said that most small stores had been driven out by online sales, but the ones left, including his, had adapted and were still viable. The good folks at MSNBC of course treated him like he was Bernie Madoff trying to sell them some investments. The blonde woman was incredulous at his claim that the law would increase his labor costs by 39%, and that it was enough to make him shut down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5efpW0SQYE

[wisconsin]

Small specialty book stores stay in business because they carry books not generally available on line or because they offer what customers consider to be value added service. Some people don't text or tweet, and some people like to browse book stores.

The owner of the store was on MSNBC today. He said that most small stores had been driven out by online sales, but the ones left, including his, had adapted and were still viable. The good folks at MSNBC of course treated him like he was Bernie Madoff trying to sell them some investments. The blonde woman was incredulous at his claim that the law would increase his labor costs by 39%, and that it was enough to make him shut down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5efpW0SQYE

Some people just do not understand.

[wisconsin]

An appropriate metaphor. It's just a blizzard of unrelated data that obscures vision.


Not to mention in 1961 there was a population of 183 million compared to 316 million today. Of course there would be more jobs.

[NJ Stinks]

H4C been tutoring you in mindless replies?

This from the league leader in mindless replies. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

Mika is still an idiot

That guy was long on ears and short on tolerance for their questioning.

A 39% increase in payroll is death to his business, plain and simple.

He's smart for getting out now.

[mostpost]

You are right. I am so rigid that I understand that the raw data you present is totally meaningless as far as being able to show anything about the impact of the increase in the minimum wage. I would insist on a statistically significant test of the data. At the risk of extreme repetition, you cannot show cause and effect in economic data by eyeballing raw numbers.

Your raw data shows that after an increase in the minimum wage, jobs were still created. A miracle! Jobs were created in a non-recession economy! The data is meaningless. It says nothing about the minimum wage.

To prove your point, you have to show how many of those jobs that were created were minimum wage jobs, and you would have to show how that number compared to the number of minimum wage jobs that would have been created if the minimum wage had not increased. The first is a matter of disaggregating the data. The second is a matter of constructing a statistically significant econometric model to forecast the number of minimum wage jobs that would have been created and comparing the forecasts with the actual data. This kind of study is routine, and the methodology is standard.
Once again you use your economic professor status to confuse and obfuscate. It doesn't matter how many minimum wage jobs were created or not created. We are talking about all jobs here. So it also does not matter what the forecast might have been. If we are creating strong numbers of all jobs than we will be creating sufficient numbers of minimum wage jobs. In any case, the focus of an economy should not be on creating minimum wage jobs; it should be on creating good paying jobs.

I don't even know what disaggregating the data means. By the way you misspelled disaggregating. Not that I would know that were it not for the red line underneath. ;)

If you won't accept my contribution, here is a list of studies which prove that raising the minimum wage has little or no negative effect on employment.
Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger, “The Effect of the Minimum Wage on the Fast Food Industry,” Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, February 1992.

David Card, “Using Regional Variation in Wages to Measure the Effects of the Federal Minimum Wage,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October 1992.

David Card and Alan Krueger, Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

David Card and Alan B. Krueger, “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply,” American Economic Review, December 2000 (in this reply, Card and Krueger update earlier findings and refute critics).

Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt, Economic Policy Institute, Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase, 1998.

Jerold Waltman, Allan McBride and Nicole Camhout, “Minimum Wage Increases and the Business Failure Rate,” Journal of Economic Issues, March 1998.

A Report by the National Economic Council, The Minimum Wage: Increasing the Reward for Work, March 2000.

Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta and Susan Wefald, Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us (Boston: South End Press, 2001/2002), Ch. 4 and pp. 102-08.

Marilyn P. Watkins, Economic Opportunity Institute, “Still Working Well: Washington’s Minimum Wage and the Beginnings of Economic Recovery,” January 21, 2004.

Amy Chasanov, Economic Policy Institute, No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage is Long Overdue, May 2004.

Fiscal Policy Institute, States with Minimum Wages above the Federal Level Have Had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth, March 2006 (update of 2004 report).

John Burton and Amy Hanauer, Center for American Progress and Policy Matters Ohio, Good for Business: Small Business Growth and State Minimum Wages, May 2006.

Paul K. Sonn, Citywide Minimum Wage Laws: A New Policy Tool for Local Governments, (originally published by Brennan Center for Justice) National Employment Law Project, May 2006, includes a good summary of impact research.

Liana Fox, Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Trends: Understanding past and contemporary research, November 8, 2006.

Paul Wolfson, Economic Policy Institute, State Minimum Wages: A Policy That Works, November 27, 2006.

Arindrajit Dube, Suresh Naidu and Michael Reich, “The Economic Effects of a Citywide Minimum Wage,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, July 2007.

Jerold L. Waltman, Minimum Wage Policy in Great Britain and the United States (New York: Algora, 2008), pp. 17-19, 132-136, 151-162, 178-180.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 28, 2008.

Michael F. Thompson, Indiana Business Research Center, “Minimum Wage Impacts on Employment: A Look at Indiana, Illinois and Surrounding Midwestern States,” Indiana Business Review, Fall 2008.

Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 47, no. 2, 2009.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Spacial Heterogeneity and Minimum Wages: Employment Estimates for Teens Using Cross-State Commuting Zones, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 25, 2009.

Arindrajit Dube, T. William Lester and Michael Reich, Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, August 2008.
Published by The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2010.

John Schmitt and David Rosnick, The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum‐Wage Laws in Three Cities, Center for Economic and Policy Research, March 2011.

Sylvia Allegretto, Arindrajit Dube and Michael Reich, Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? Accounting for Heterogeneity and Selectivity in State Panel Data, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, June 21, 2010.
Published by Industrial Relations, April 2011.

Anne Thompson, What Is Causing Record-High Teen Unemployment? Range of Economic Factors Drives High Teen Unemployment, But Minimum Wage Not One of Them, National Employment Law Project, October 2011.

John Schmidt, Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Febuary 2013.

[Clocker]

It doesn't matter how many minimum wage jobs were created or not created. We are talking about all jobs here. So it also does not matter what the forecast might have been.

It certainly does matter. Minimum wage jobs are necessary to develop and train unskilled workers for better jobs. No one that understands business thinks that an increase in minimum wage means jobs are immediately eliminated. What it means is that there will be fewer minimum wage jobs in the future than if the wage had been left to the market. And that means that there will be fewer good jobs in the future because the road to good jobs will have been diverted to mechanization or out sourcing.

If we are creating strong numbers of all jobs than we will be creating sufficient numbers of minimum wage jobs.

Wrong. If unskilled labor is priced at more than its value, employers will out source the function or replace it with machinery. Which makes it harder for unskilled or inexperienced workers to move up to good jobs.

I don't even know what disaggregating the data means. By the way you misspelled disaggregating. Not that I would know that were it not for the red line underneath.

"Disaggregating" means breaking it down into smaller sub-categories so as to use only the data that is relevant. And it is spelled correctly. The spell check here has problems with more complex forms of basic words.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
It doesn't matter how many minimum wage jobs were created or not created. We are talking about all jobs here. So it also does not matter what the forecast might have been.

Wow.....and it's only February. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

I wonder if any of those studies Most Post cited included a study when the minimum wage increase by 50%.

FYI - the SF healthcare costs are 2.44 an hour.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Mika ought to buy the bookstore and then try running it with the increased payroll. Not like I think Mika would be successful at running any business, but she sure feels qualified to others how they have to run theirs!

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost
It doesn't matter how many minimum wage jobs were created or not created. We are talking about all jobs here. So it also does not matter what the forecast might have been.


Wow.....and it's only February.

This is what Beloved Leader calls recalibration. Yeah, what I meant was increasing the minimum wage doesn't affect the creation of good jobs. True, all those people in the book store lost their jobs, but now they are released from that "job lock" and can go out and find good jobs.

[reckless]

This is what Beloved Leader calls recalibration. Yeah, what I meant was increasing the minimum wage doesn't affect the creation of good jobs. True, all those people in the book store lost their jobs, but now they are released from that "job lock" and can go out and find good jobs.

Or write poetry, paint or read books as was suggested by this totally ignorant and inept Administration.

[mostpost]

It certainly does matter. Minimum wage jobs are necessary to develop and train unskilled workers for better jobs. No one that understands business thinks that an increase in minimum wage means jobs are immediately eliminated. What it means is that there will be fewer minimum wage jobs in the future than if the wage had been left to the market. And that means that there will be fewer good jobs in the future because the road to good jobs will have been diverted to mechanization or out sourcing.



Wrong. If unskilled labor is priced at more than its value, employers will out source the function or replace it with machinery. Which makes it harder for unskilled or inexperienced workers to move up to good jobs.



"Disaggregating" means breaking it down into smaller sub-categories so as to use only the data that is relevant. And it is spelled correctly. The spell check here has problems with more complex forms of basic words.

I notice you have ignored the twenty some studies which have been done proving that increasing the minimum wage has little or no effect on employment. Perhaps you can cite some that prove it has a negative effect.

[mostpost]

I wonder if any of those studies Most Post cited included a study when the minimum wage increase by 50%.

FYI - the SF healthcare costs are 2.44 an hour.
I couldn't say whether any of the studies I cited involves a minimum wage increase of 50%. What I can say is that the San Francisco increase is not 50%.
The increase takes place in 5 steps between 1-1-15 and 7-1-18. The increases in order are 2.7%; 10.9%; 6.1%; 7,7% and 7.1%.

[DJofSD]

I couldn't say whether any of the studies I cited involves a minimum wage increase of 50%. What I can say is that the San Francisco increase is not 50%.
The increase takes place in 5 steps between 1-1-15 and 7-1-18. The increases in order are 2.7%; 10.9%; 6.1%; 7,7% and 7.1%.
It would be nice if there was a guaranteed step-wise increase in business and profit to cover those increases.

[Clocker]

I notice you have ignored the twenty some studies which have been done proving that increasing the minimum wage has little or no effect on employment. Perhaps you can cite some that prove it has a negative effect.

Yes I have ignored them. You cut and paste a bunch of studies that you didn't read, you present no evidence of their worth, and I am supposed to waste my time on them? You throw out a lot of stuff that you didn't read, let alone understand, and claim that it proves your point? You are preaching your minimum wage dogma based on pure faith. It doesn't even stand up to common sense, nor real world business experience, let alone economic and statistical analysis. Post it in the religious thread, where it belongs.

Negative effect? How about the CBO, which says that Obama's proposed increase of the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would probably cost 500,000 jobs, but could go as high as 1 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/18/cbo-obamas-minimum-wage-plan-would-cost-jobs-but-help-millions/

You found some random studies that claim to that show minimum wage hikes don't cause job loss. There are many more to the contrary. From Forbes:

In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/

[Clocker]

It would be nice if there was a guaranteed step-wise increase in business and profit to cover those increases.

The left's answer is that business owners are not giving labor a fair share of the profits produced by labor productivity, and that the owners can easily absorb the increased costs.

That must be obvious from the book store facts, right? :rolleyes:

[AndyC]

The left's answer is that business owners are not giving labor a fair share of the profits produced by labor productivity, and that the owners can easily absorb the increased costs.

That must be obvious from the book store facts, right? :rolleyes:

If the business owners are, in fact, making obscene profits it would make sense for the employees to band together and start a competing business and reap only a fair share of profits while paying their employees generous wages.

[mostpost]

Yes I have ignored them. You cut and paste a bunch of studies that you didn't read, you present no evidence of their worth, and I am supposed to waste my time on them? You throw out a lot of stuff that you didn't read, let alone understand, and claim that it proves your point? You are preaching your minimum wage dogma based on pure faith. It doesn't even stand up to common sense, nor real world business experience, let alone economic and statistical analysis. Post it in the religious thread, where it belongs.

Negative effect? How about the CBO, which says that Obama's proposed increase of the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would probably cost 500,000 jobs, but could go as high as 1 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/18/cbo-obamas-minimum-wage-plan-would-cost-jobs-but-help-millions/
I ask for studies that show the negative effects of a raise in the minimum wage on job growth and you give me a prediction by the CBO. A guess. I'm not interested in guesses. I want to know what happened after it happened.
Of course, I knew you were going to bring up that CBO report.

You found some random studies that claim to that show minimum wage hikes don't cause job loss. There are many more to the contrary. From Forbes:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/
Then you give me a meaningless study of studies. Two guys look at 102 studies of the effect of a hike in the minimum wage on job creation. Then they pick 33 of those that they consider most credible. How do they decide? What are the criteria? Isn't it odd that at least four of the studies they picked as most credible were studies they themselves did? Isn't odd that fifteen of the studies they chose were of foreign countries and every one of those was a negative.

In any case it does not matter. It's not about the most popular answer. It is about the correct answer. In that economics class you never taught, did count the most popular answer as the correct one?

[Tom]

If the business owners are, in fact, making obscene profits it would make sense for the employees to band together and start a competing business and reap only a fair share of profits while paying their employees generous wages.

That would require work.
Joining a union is much easier - then they just help themselves to the profits.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't organize.

[Clocker]

Then you give me a meaningless study of studies. Two guys look at 102 studies of the effect of a hike in the minimum wage on job creation. Then they pick 33 of those that they consider most credible. How do they decide? What are the criteria? Isn't it odd that at least four of the studies they picked as most credible were studies they themselves did? Isn't odd that fifteen of the studies they chose were of foreign countries and every one of those was a negative.

You know better than a professor of economics at UC-Irvine and an economist at the Federal Reserve how to analyze economic studies? And you present no objective argument for your "belief", and no indication that you know how economic analysis is done. Sorry, you are in way over your head, and I opt not to waste any more time on this.

[Robert Goren]

I don't know anything about the bookstore business, but looking from the outside in, labor costs have got to be a very small part of a bookstores expenses. It appears to me that the owner was going to have close the store no matter what and took the chance to lamblast the minimum wage.

[Actor]

(because after all, that is what this min wage garbage is all about - these animals want an artificial protection from those power dynamics because otherwise they'd be working for what they deserve = $2/hour)How did you come up with that figure, $2/hour?

[Robert Fischer]

How did you come up with that figure, $2/hour?
i should stick to horse racing and occasional sports discussion. :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I don't know anything about the bookstore business, but looking from the outside in, labor costs have got to be a very small part of a bookstores expenses. It appears to me that the owner was going to have close the store no matter what and took the chance to lamblast the minimum wage.


try reading this. your are dead wrong. His labor costs are 42% That's not out of line with the book business. Pretty standard in the business es I have been involved in. 36-44 wouldn't be way off base. Either way, this guy loses his business and goes way in the hole

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/minimum-wage-dilemma-san-francisco

In spite of trying very hard to sugar coat it, the New Yorker can't get past the plain and simple math of the problem. Just like those nitwits who proclaim to support the wage increase and on one side of their mouth talk about how much good the wage increase is going to do ignore the fact that it costs jobs. Just to support their agenda, they play the game.

Then whine about the loss of jobs.

15k jobs will go away. The city says so. There is only so much pie. All you are doing is taking a slice away from some and re-distributing it to others. While 15k starve.............

It's plain and simple math.

[DJofSD]

Thanks for the additional article, JR.

Re your epitaph: not to choose is a choice in itself.

[Spiderman]

Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone has mentioned it, my bad.

Costco pays $21 minimum to their employees and their stock outperforms Walmart by far, every year. Walk into a Walmart and there is no customer service. Costco employees are eager assistants to the shopping experience.

[Spiderman]

http://freebeacon.com/blog/if-you-support-higher-minimum-wages-you-hate-bookstores/



Liberals won't care any ways -- they don't read.

I read an average of two novels, each month. Your statement is BS.

[JustRalph]

Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone has mentioned it, my bad.

Costco pays $21 minimum to their employees and their stock outperforms Walmart by far, every year. Walk into a Walmart and there is no customer service. Costco employees are eager assistants to the shopping experience.

Walmart has twice the margin too. It's how you choose to do business. If you can maintain a 12% profit margin like Costco does, and survive against almost no competition, as they do. You can run it however you want. But it's a niche business. Very little competition.

The book store business is not the same. You cannot in any way use the two as similar examples.

[DJofSD]

Then you're an outlier.

[Spiderman]

Then you're an outlier.


You're link is also BS. Perpetrated by corporatist interests.

[DJofSD]

You're link is also BS. Perpetrated by corporatist interests.
Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one.

[Spiderman]

Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one.
But you sit around in your soiled underwear and spew divisive lies to accommodate fantasy of your mind.

[DJofSD]

But you sit around in your soiled underwear and spew divisive lies to accommodate fantasy of your mind.
From being a zero to iggy in 4 posts. That has got to be a record.

[Spiderman]

From being a zero to iggy in 4 posts. That has got to be a record.

Take a shower, its Saturday.

[horses4courses]

Walmart has twice the margin too. It's how you choose to do business. If you can maintain a 12% profit margin like Costco does, and survive against almost no competition, as they do. You can run it however you want. But it's a niche business. Very little competition.

The book store business is not the same. You cannot in any way use the two as similar examples.

At least 25% of Walmart employees need financial assistance
for themselves and their families to survive.

In the meantime, the Walton family is the richest family
in the country - even ahead of the Kochs.
Pathetic people who won't pay a living wage to their workers. :ThmbDown:

[DJofSD]

A living wage is a nice concept. When did the shift from responsibility for ones self to the employer happen?

[Spiderman]

Walmart has twice the margin too. It's how you choose to do business. If you can maintain a 12% profit margin like Costco does, and survive against almost no competition, as they do. You can run it however you want. But it's a niche business. Very little competition.

The book store business is not the same. You cannot in any way use the two as similar examples.

Competition: To name a few, SAM's, BJ Warehouse, Staples (soon to consume Office Depot) and all supermarket chains

[horses4courses]

A living wage is a nice concept. When did the shift from responsibility for ones self to the employer happen?

Other corporations can do it.
Walmart earn way more than most.
Close to slave labor, really.

[wisconsin]

At least 25% of Walmart employees need financial assistance
for themselves and their families to survive.

In the meantime, the Walton family is the richest family
in the country - even ahead of the Kochs.
Pathetic people who won't pay a living wage to their workers. :ThmbDown:

OK, I'll bite. Let's just reduce this to the ridiculous. There are 2.2 million Wal Mart employees. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Wal Mart will offer these workers a raise from a pool of, hmmm, let's say $500,000 million dollars of profit, passing it along to every worker. At the end of the day, every single worker gets, sit down pal, a whopping $227 more per year. Boy, that's sure gonna take them off the assistance. Or a billion gets them each $454. Wow. Really pathetic when dolts come up with these straw arguments against rich companies, yet do not have the mindset to do the simple mathematical equations. :bang:

[horses4courses]

OK, I'll bite. Let's just reduce this to the ridiculous. There are 2.2 million Wal mart employees. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Wal Mart will offer these workers a raise from a pool of, hmmm, let's say $500,000 million dollars of profit, passing it along to every worker. At the end of the day, every single worker gets, sit down pal, $227 more per year. Really pathetic when dolts come up with these straw arguments against rich companies, yet do not the mindset to do the simple mathematical equations. :bang:

Which hat did you pull these figures out of, oh great Carnac?

[JustRalph]

Competition: To name a few, SAM's, BJ Warehouse, Staples (soon to consume Office Depot) and all supermarket chains

none near the size of Costco. The only real player in the game is Sams. Walmart has decided to expand the Sams brand. We will see what happens in the next ten years.

[wisconsin]

Which hat did you pull these figures out of, oh great Carnac?


The worldwide employment by Wal Mart is 2.2 million employees. Look it up pal.

The do the math for yourself. Per worker. It's not difficult, but then again, your avatar says it all.

[horses4courses]

none near the size of Costco. The only real player in the game is Sams. Walmart has decided to expand the Sams brand. We will see what happens in the next ten years.

Additional icing on Marie Antoinette Walton's cake....... :rolleyes:

[horses4courses]

The worldwide employment by Wal Mart is 2.2 million employees. Look it up pal.

The do the math for yourself. Per worker. It's not difficult, but then again, your avatar says it all.

Not the number of employees, but the increase you mention.

and I'm definitely not your pal........

[wisconsin]

Not the number of employees, but the increase you mention.

and I'm definitely not your pal........

Again, simple math. $1,000,000,000 divided by 2,200,000 is $454 per employee. $500,000,000 divided by same is $227.

I am refuting your stupid and ignorant comments about the pay.

[AndyC]

Haven't read all of the thread, so if someone has mentioned it, my bad.

Costco pays $21 minimum to their employees and their stock outperforms Walmart by far, every year. Walk into a Walmart and there is no customer service. Costco employees are eager assistants to the shopping experience.

Costco pays an average wage of about $21/hr. They have many employees in the $11-13/hr range.

The fact that Wal-Mart has "no customer service" should mean that everyone will soon quit shopping at Wal-Mart and move to stores with well-paid employees.

[AndyC]

At least 25% of Walmart employees need financial assistance for themselves and their families to survive.

What kind of assistance would they need if they didn't have a job?

[horses4courses]

What kind of assistance would they need if they didn't have a job?

Yours and mine.

[delayjf]

But you sit around in your soiled underwear and spew divisive lies to accommodate fantasy of your mind.

Darryl,

I always thought of you as a commando kinda guy :cool:

[Tom]

It's plain and simple math.

That is the problem.
The left can't do math.
Never could. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Then you're an outlier.

Take out out.

[DJofSD]

Darryl,

I always thought of you as a commando kinda guy :cool:
Naw, not my style!

[Tom]

At least 25% of Walmart employees need financial assistance
for themselves and their families to survive.

Obama is proud that more Americans than ever before are on food stamps.
Make up you feeble minds.

[horses4courses]

Obama is proud that more Americans than ever before are on food stamps.
Make up you feeble minds.

and Republicans are doing their best to take those
benefits away from everyone - including war veterans.

[JustRalph]

and Republicans are doing their best to take those
benefits away from everyone - including war veterans.

Show me.......

[Clocker]

At least 25% of Walmart employees need financial assistance
for themselves and their families to survive.

In the meantime, the Walton family is the richest family
in the country - even ahead of the Kochs.
Pathetic people who won't pay a living wage to their workers. :ThmbDown:

Why is it the employer's obligation to support the family of an employee? Why is the employer responsible for the economic decisions and consequences of an employee?

How much is a living wage? Who decides? If everyone should be paid a living wage, should no one be paid more than a living wage?

If everyone should be paid a living wage, is the government responsible for making sure that the self-employed make a living wage?

[johnhannibalsmith]

If only that were the case. Please let that be case. Some people should be on welfare because when they are "working", all they do is screw things up and add a little bit of unnesecessary misery to everybody who has to deal with them. Fast Food workers are at the top of that list. If you can not fill an fast food order correctly, you should not be working.

Amen.

[Robert Goren]

try reading this. your are dead wrong. His labor costs are 42% That's not out of line with the book business. Pretty standard in the business es I have been involved in. 36-44 wouldn't be way off base. Either way, this guy loses his business and goes way in the hole

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/minimum-wage-dilemma-san-francisco

In spite of trying very hard to sugar coat it, the New Yorker can't get past the plain and simple math of the problem. Just like those nitwits who proclaim to support the wage increase and on one side of their mouth talk about how much good the wage increase is going to do ignore the fact that it costs jobs. Just to support their agenda, they play the game.

Then whine about the loss of jobs.

15k jobs will go away. The city says so. There is only so much pie. All you are doing is taking a slice away from some and re-distributing it to others. While 15k starve.............

It's plain and simple math.With bestsellers costing over 2 hours of the minimum wage and rent in frisco sky high, it does not add up. Wages can not take up 42% of the expense unless he does not sell any books. He must being doing some real fancy bookkeeping or the publishers are giving their books to bookstores for free to get to a 42% labor cost. Unless you are in service industry, it would be really hard to get to a 42% labor cost. Really hard. Almost any retail business I have been near, replace costs for sold (or stolen) merchandise is its number one cost by miles. Interest on debt is often number 2. Labor cost vary from type of business to another. A bar has a lot higher labor costs than a liquor store for instance. But even a bar does not get near that 42%.

[Robert Goren]

You who oppose the minimum wage would have a better point if his competors did not have to pay it too.

[Clocker]

You who oppose the minimum wage would have a better point if his competors did not have to pay it too.

His competitors do not have to pay it. That minimum wage hike applies only within the city of San Francisco. He is in the city, his competitors are not.

[Spiderman]

His competitors do not have to pay it. That minimum wage hike applies only within the city of San Francisco. He is in the city, his competitors are not.

Arcticle, originally posted by JR, mentions three other bookstores in Mission District.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/c...a-san-francisco

[mostpost]

OK, I'll bite. Let's just reduce this to the ridiculous. There are 2.2 million Wal Mart employees. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Wal Mart will offer these workers a raise from a pool of, hmmm, let's say $500,000 million dollars of profit, passing it along to every worker. At the end of the day, every single worker gets, sit down pal, a whopping $227 more per year. Boy, that's sure gonna take them off the assistance. Or a billion gets them each $454. Wow. Really pathetic when dolts come up with these straw arguments against rich companies, yet do not have the mindset to do the simple mathematical equations. :bang:
WalMart's gross profit in 2014 was $129,000,000,000. (One hundred and twenty nine billion dollars). You are offering raises out of $500,000,000 of that profit. Do the math. That is three tenths of one percent of your profit. Thank you for your freakin' generosity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Using 3% of profit to give raises would not be particularly generous, but that would give each worker $2270 more each year or $43.00 a week. Tell me that would not make a difference to that worker.

[Saratoga_Mike]

WalMart's gross profit in 2014 was $129,000,000,000. (One hundred and twenty nine billion dollars). You are offering raises out of $500,000,000 of that profit. Do the math. That is three tenths of one percent of your profit. Thank you for your freakin' generosity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Using 3% of profit to give raises would not be particularly generous, but that would give each worker $2270 more each year or $43.00 a week. Tell me that would not make a difference to that worker.

Most, would you support capping Wal-Mart's profits at a certain level?

[mostpost]

Why is it the employer's obligation to support the family of an employee? Why is the employer responsible for the economic decisions and consequences of an employee?
Because that employee is doing the work that makes it possible for the employer to have a successful business. If the employer pays a living wage and the employee makes bad economic decisions, that is the employees problem.

How much is a living wage? Who decides? If everyone should be paid a living wage, should no one be paid more than a living wage?
Google Teddy Roosevelt on a living wage. Not who decides; what decides. Your third question is stupidity squared.

If everyone should be paid a living wage, is the government responsible for making sure that the self-employed make a living wage?
No, the person responsible for making sure that a self employed person earns a living wage is his employer-himself.

[davew]

A problem with giving across the board 'raises' is you can not take them away next year. If there is a downturn in the company or industry, and the company has losing quarters/years, the management needs to decide how to stay in business which frequently means downsizing.

The problem with raising minimum wage 40% in a couple years, is that if the company has any minimum wage employees (usually entry level), they need to give corresponding raises to most of their hourly employees to keep their employee structure. An effective employee that has done well for 5 years, can't be paid the same as someone hired last week, if they want to keep them.

[Clocker]

Arcticle, originally posted by JR, mentions three other bookstores in Mission District.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/c...a-san-francisco

He runs a special interest book store devoted to science fiction. I doubt he has any real competition in the city.

Which is not relevant. Whether he has competition or not, the only thing changing is the minimum wage, and that is what is putting him out of business.

[wisconsin]

WalMart's gross profit in 2014 was $129,000,000,000. (One hundred and twenty nine billion dollars). You are offering raises out of $500,000,000 of that profit. Do the math. That is three tenths of one percent of your profit. Thank you for your freakin' generosity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Using 3% of profit to give raises would not be particularly generous, but that would give each worker $2270 more each year or $43.00 a week. Tell me that would not make a difference to that worker.

Better look again there Mosty. It was around $15 Billion net income.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials

I was using the example to show what would happen with certain amounts of money per worker, since every thinks there is so much to go around.

It's real easy to make straw arguments with other people's money. You should by some shares of Wal Mart and get on the bandwagon of the rich owners.

[Clocker]

Because that employee is doing the work that makes it possible for the employer to have a successful business.

So that employee is morally entitled to a "living wage", even if that turns the company into an unsuccessful business and shuts it down?

Once again in your world, "fairness" trumps economics. And reality.

[Clocker]

It's real easy to make straw arguments with other people's money.

And to be generous with it. And to make moral judgments about the use of it.

[davew]

Better look again there Mosty. It was around $15 Billion net income.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wmt/financials

I was using the example to show what would happen with certain amounts of money per worker, since every thinks there is so much to go around.

It's real easy to make straw arguments with other people's money. You should by some shares of Wal Mart and get on the bandwagon of the rich owners.


Gross, Net - what difference does it make? We are talking about taking away and redistributing here.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So that employee is morally entitled to a "living wage", even if that turns the company into an unsuccessful business and shuts it down?

Once again in your world, "fairness" trumps economics. And reality.

Not really - he just assumes that every business owner is extremely wealthy and earning "immoral" levels of profit.

[Clocker]

Not really - he just assumes that every business owner is extremely wealthy and earning "immoral" levels of profit.

Well, it's true. That bookstore owner paid himself a salary of over $28,000, and the store itself still made profits of over $3000. That's just not fair. Those profits could have gone toward paying his 5 employees a living wage.

[AndyC]

WalMart's gross profit in 2014 was $129,000,000,000. (One hundred and twenty nine billion dollars). You are offering raises out of $500,000,000 of that profit. Do the math. That is three tenths of one percent of your profit. Thank you for your freakin' generosity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Using 3% of profit to give raises would not be particularly generous, but that would give each worker $2270 more each year or $43.00 a week. Tell me that would not make a difference to that worker.

Gross profit could not be a more meaningless number in this discussion. Try using net.

[Clocker]

The very end of the New Yorker article gives a prime example of the absurdity of the concept of a legal or moral responsibility to pay a living wage. The author talked to one of the residents in the upper floors of the building the bookstore is in.

That guy, by chance, works in another bookstore, where he makes minimum wage. His rent is $750 a month for a one room apartment with no kitchen and a bathroom down the hall. I'm sure no liberal would consider that to be acceptable living conditions. What would this person have to be paid as a living wage in San Francisco?

[Saratoga_Mike]

That guy, by chance, works in another bookstore, where he makes minimum wage. His rent is $750 a month for a one room apartment with no kitchen and a bathroom down the hall. I'm sure no liberal would consider that to be acceptable living conditions. What would this person have to be paid as a living wage in San Francisco?

We could solve this problem by adopting stricter rent control laws in San Francisco. Better rent control laws would result in a better housing situation for all.

[AndyC]

We could solve this problem by adopting stricter rent control laws in San Francisco. Better rent control laws would result in a better housing situation for all.

Of course rent control would then cause numerous other problems to deal with.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Of course rent control would then cause numerous other problems to deal with.

...which the govt could solve with other laws

[Clocker]

We are talking about taking away and redistributing here.

Yes, but that's a proper role for government, because the government knows better than individuals and the private sector what is "fair" and how the money should be redistributed for the greater good.

The linked article above states that the city government estimated that the minimum wage increase would result in the elimination of 15,000 private sector jobs, but decided that was worth it for the greater good of the city. So they were not only redistributing wealth from employers to employees, they were redistributing wealth from the minimum wage workers who lost their jobs to the minimum wage workers who kept their jobs and got the raises.

Note to libs. Yes, even the moonbats that run San Francisco realistically estimated that the increase in the minimum wage would eliminate 15,000 jobs.

[Clocker]

Of course rent control would then cause numerous other problems to deal with.

They already have. SF has some rent controls and has very restrictive building codes resulting in very high excess demand for housing. And thus very high rents.

[davew]

Yes, but that's a proper role for government, because the government knows better than individuals and the private sector what is "fair" and how the money should be redistributed for the greater good.

The linked article above states that the city government estimated that the minimum wage increase would result in the elimination of 15,000 private sector jobs, but decided that was worth it for the greater good of the city. So they were not only redistributing wealth from employers to employees, they were redistributing wealth from the minimum wage workers who lost their jobs to the minimum wage workers who kept their jobs and got the raises.

Note to libs. Yes, even the moonbats that run San Francisco realistically estimated that the increase in the minimum wage would eliminate 15,000 jobs.

Yes, but the lucky ones with no jab anymore can benefit from 5 years of unemployment and the opportunity to explore other options like poetry, volunteering for protests, volunteering to sign up dead people for elections, help with multiple voting, ...

[AndyC]

...which the govt could solve with other laws

I think I understand now. The government's job is to pass laws to correct the problems that they created from passing prior laws.

[Clocker]

I think I understand now. The government's job is to pass laws to correct the problems that they created from passing prior laws.

Think of it as job security. One area where the government is much more effective than the private sector.

[wisconsin]

Gross, Net - what difference does it make? We are talking about taking away and redistributing here.

Time to go to business school. They are entirely different numbers and mean entirely different things. :rolleyes:

[wisconsin]

Yes, but the lucky ones with no jab anymore can benefit from 5 years of unemployment and the opportunity to explore other options like poetry, volunteering for protests, volunteering to sign up dead people for elections, help with multiple voting, ...


Wait,

I think those were the people in Madison, WI a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6Qfm1ySKQ

[davew]

Time to go to business school. They are entirely different numbers and mean entirely different things. :rolleyes:

not for unions or liberal dems, just more for the taking (until the place goes bankrupt from running in the red too long)

[davew]

Wait,

I think those were the people in Madison, WI a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6Qfm1ySKQ

I suspect some of those protestors were bussed in from Chicago, where they have strong community organizers..

[wisconsin]

not for unions or liberal dems, just more for the taking (until the place goes bankrupt from running in the red too long)

My point was to refute a claim from a taker. Net is a smaller pool to redistribute from. Much smaller in the case of Wal Mart, which really got me going today.

[wisconsin]

I suspect some of those protestors were bussed in from Chicago, where they have strong community organizers..


They were in Madison so long, some certainly did not have jobs. Goofballs.

[Robert Goren]

Well, it's true. That bookstore owner paid himself a salary of over $28,000, and the store itself still made profits of over $3000. That's just not fair. Those profits could have gone toward paying his 5 employees a living wage.Unless the business is located in small town Nebraska, these numbers do not point to an ongoing profitable business. I wish they had printed what his inventory was worth. Even at today's rate, I suspect that he could have done better with a bank CD. They only way a business with those numbers is going stay open is if it is a start-up (not the case) or it was a hobby(not the case either). This business had to close regardless of what happened to the minimum wage. With those numbers, it is just plain not sustainable.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9WHpMsCIAAINdO.jpg:medium

[Clocker]

Even the moonbats that passed the minimum wage increase in San Francisco admitted that it would kill jobs. The Congressional Budget Office says that it would kill jobs. But Bill Clinton knows better? :D

I guess he should know about economics though. He was flat broke when he left the White House, and look at him now.

[JustRalph]

They create jobs......hysterical......

They take better care of their children? Insane.....

[Clocker]

or it was a hobby(not the case either).

People that run businesses like that often do it as much for the psychic reward as for the money. The owner ran another business that was apparently profitable.

[JustRalph]

Amazing that people would believe anything Bill Clinton says.

The impeached Prez.

The Disbarred Lawyer (Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court)

The accused rapist

Perjurer

At least they keep the family consistent. Chelsea's Father in Law, the former Congressman, was convicted of cheating investors out of millions of dollars.

Just this week Chelsea's husbands investment fund came under fire for losing millions by betting on "The Greek Economy instead of making huge money like every other investment fund has over the last two years.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU LOOK UP TO! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU QUOTE WHEN TRYING PROVE A POINT?

Next you will rely on John Dillinger for bank security

[TJDave]

Amazing that people would believe anything Bill Clinton says.

The impeached Prez.

The Disbarred Lawyer (Arkansas and the U.S. Supreme Court)

The accused rapist

Perjurer

At least they keep the family consistent. Chelsea's Father in Law, the former Congressman, was convicted of cheating investors out of millions of dollars.

Just this week Chelsea's husbands investment fund came under fire for losing millions by betting on "The Greek Economy instead of making huge money like every other investment fund has over the last two years.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU LOOK UP TO! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU QUOTE WHEN TRYING PROVE A POINT?

Next you will rely on John Dillinger for bank security

Has nothing to do with the above statement about minimum wage. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[WJ47]

How do you determine what labor is undervalued? Some people who make minimum wage are way overpaid. For those people the minimum wage is a subsidy dictated by the government and paid by the employer who gets no quid pro quo.

I agree with this. I'm a moderate democrat, but I like to research both sides of issues.

When I go to the local Taco Bell and other places around my house, I often see employees who are so incompetent that they probably don't deserve to be paid at all. They're hurting the businesses more than helping them.

But then I think that businesses can't expect to get the brightest and best employees for such low wages. Maybe their businesses would become more profitable if they paid a wage that attracted smarter people who actually cared about their jobs. I know that I will make homemade tacos before I torture myself by going to Taco Bell. With all the mistakes they make and the orders they have to throw out and remake, the incompetent employees have got to be costing the franchisee a bundle of money.

My husband's brother is in a nursing home. He's only 47, but he has a terminal lung condition. He's likely not going to survive unless he gets a lung transplant, which is a long shot. Yesterday my husband comes home complaining about the poor treatment the patients are getting in the nursing home. He says all you hear is patients screaming, "Help me! Help me!" and no one is helping them. The place is disgustingly dirty and smells like piss.

So I try to explain to him that nursing home aides get paid very little money. People that work those jobs are desperate and they don't seem to care about the elderly and disabled people they're supposed to take care of. They couldn't find better jobs. A nursing home aide was in trouble last week in our area for taking pictures of an elderly male patient who soiled himself. He posted the pictures on his Facebook page to get a laugh. :( So unprofessional. Obviously not a person who holds his job in high esteem.

And I've seen it with my own eyes when my grandfather had to be in a nursing home temporarily after an illness for rehabilitation. It was terrible. We had to be there constantly to make sure he had what he needed. Fortunately he was able to come back home after a few months and we took care of him until he passed away at 91. My grandmother is 93 and we all take turns caring for her so she doesn't have to go into a nursing home. I'd shoot myself before I'd go to one of those places.

The worst part is that the nursing home my brother-in-law is at is a 4 star nursing home on the NY Department of Health's website. I'd hate to see what the 1 star ones look like.

But I don't know what the solution is. Some businesses should pay more and some should pay less. If a business owner only wanted to pay $3 an hour for his employees, you could expect that you'd get pretty poor service if you went into his establishment. Incompetent employees can really hurt a business. Sometimes a cheap solution can be really expensive.

We used to have a Kmart in our town. The manager must have really liked to hire mean old biddies. Every time you went in there, you'd get very rude customer service. If you tried to return something or (God forbid) use a coupon, the cashiers would act like it came right out of their pocket. People went there because they needed stuff and just tried to ignore the mean biddies. But then a Target moved in about a 1/4 mile away from the Kmart. Now people could go to Target, who had friendly cashiers, and within a year, the Kmart was out of business.

It's a tricky situation.

[AndyC]

.....But I don't know what the solution is. Some businesses should pay more and some should pay less. If a business owner only wanted to pay $3 an hour for his employees, you could expect that you'd get pretty poor service if you went into his establishment. Incompetent employees can really hurt a business. Sometimes a cheap solution can be really expensive.

We used to have a Kmart in our town. The manager must have really liked to hire mean old biddies. Every time you went in there, you'd get very rude customer service. If you tried to return something or (God forbid) use a coupon, the cashiers would act like it came right out of their pocket. People went there because they needed stuff and just tried to ignore the mean biddies. But then a Target moved in about a 1/4 mile away from the Kmart. Now people could go to Target, who had friendly cashiers, and within a year, the Kmart was out of business.

It's a tricky situation.

I think you answered your own question. A business will sink or swim based on whether or not the customer wants to pay for the goods or service provided by the business. Poor service (bad employees) has doomed many a business.

But the bigger question is: What's to be done with the bad employees? At a high minimum wage they will be a big drag on any business.

[thaskalos]

I think you answered your own question. A business will sink or swim based on whether or not the customer wants to pay for the goods or service provided by the business. Poor service (bad employees) has doomed many a business.

But the bigger question is: What's to be done with the bad employees? At a high minimum wage they will be a big drag on any business.

Behind every bad employee, there is a bad manager...and behind every bad manager, there is a bad boss. In business...everyone has to carry his load.

[tucker6]

Behind every bad employee, there is a bad manager...and behind every bad manager, there is a bad boss. In business...everyone has to carry his load.
you actually believe that crap?? bad employees can and are exclusive of bad managers. Bad managers can and are exclusive of bad bosses. Holy mackerel!!

[Robert Goren]

you actually believe that crap?? bad employees can and are exclusive of bad managers. Bad managers can and are exclusive of bad bosses. Holy mackerel!!That is can be true. Although incompetence almost flows from the top down.

[DJofSD]

That is can be true. Although incompetence almost flows from the top down.
And excellence starts at the bottom, right? All bad at the top, all good at the bottom?

[AndyC]

Behind every bad employee, there is a bad manager...and behind every bad manager, there is a bad boss. In business...everyone has to carry his load.

So I guess they're all victims.

[horses4courses]

And excellence starts at the bottom, right? All bad at the top, all good at the bottom?

Who hires those at the bottom?
If they took more time in the interviewing process,
made some educated decisions, instead of hiring the first
warm body that walks in the door, they might get
a larger number of competent - even good - employees.

The hiring process is never going to be fool proof.
It could be much better, though.

[DJofSD]

I thank God I never had to interview and hire for non-technical positions.

[Tom]

The hiring process is never going to be fool proof.
It could be much better, though.

So you agree many of these people are not worth a higher minimum wage.

[horses4courses]

So you agree many of these people are not worth a higher minimum wage.

No, I don't.
Not sure how you deduced that, Sherlock, but whatever.

[Tom]

Who hires those at the bottom?
If they took more time in the interviewing process,
made some educated decisions, instead of hiring the first
warm body that walks in the door, they might get
a larger number of competent - even good - employees.

Sounds like you have a low opinion of bottom level workers.
And yet you want to increase their pay.

[JustRalph]

Who hires those at the bottom?
If they took more time in the interviewing process,
made some educated decisions, instead of hiring the first
warm body that walks in the door, they might get
a larger number of competent - even good - employees.

The hiring process is never going to be fool proof.
It could be much better, though.

You are so out of touch. How many have you hired in the last year?

My wife and I hire at "the bottom" and try to prop up "the bottom" every week. If you knew what was out there...... :bang:

[DJofSD]

Tom, I think that's called OPM.

[Robert Goren]

And excellence starts at the bottom, right? All bad at the top, all good at the bottom?If it is bad at top, it does not matter what is at the bottom.

[DJofSD]

If it is bad at top, it does not matter what is at the bottom.
Of course the private sector is guilty as charged but the public sector and it's politicians are exempt.

[Robert Fischer]

The market does a pretty job with determining worth.

In general, wages across the board for nearly everyone(low class, and upper-lower class, and lower-middle class, and middle-class, and even upper-middle-class) are relatively low.

This isn't anything nefarious from the people in power, it's simply the natural way that power works.

What is a "minimum wage"?
A minimum wage is an artificial protection for the lower class. The leverage that the employers have is so great, that as a society we've come to agree that the lower class needs this artificial protection or they could be made to work for almost nothing, and some people would feel sympathy seeing lower-class people working for almost nothing.

So any time you see a minimum wage, that's what it is. It's very low. It's an artificial protection for the lower class so that they will not be so exploited that it will make others uneasy.

Even when the cost of living is higher in certain places and the raw number is a bit higher, it's always a small amount.

[Clocker]

Sounds like you have a low opinion of bottom level workers.
And yet you want to increase their pay.

Those at the bottom are not capable of making their own decisions and don't know what is good for them. So Big Brother has to step in to help them, to protect them from the rich, evil bastages that they work for, and to make sure that they are paid a living wage.

In reality, minimum wage workers are generally able to function on their own. And the idea of a huge class of starving families is absurd. According to Pew Research, over half of minimum wage earners are 16-24 years old. And 64% of them are part time workers. Also, about 2/3 of minimum wage workers are making more than that within a year, either through raises or moving on to better jobs.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/

[Robert Goren]

If it is good at the top, the top make sure it is good at the bottom. Unfortunately there is a lot of not too bad, but not good either at all levels of a lot of companies.

[Robert Goren]

Of course the private sector is guilty as charged but the public sector and it's politicians are exempt. I never said that. But in fairness, I have found some good people in the public sector. Then again there some real stinkers too. Most are just trying to survive in an outdate bad system doing their job as best they can without getting to too much trouble. Every time I hear some body complian about a low level employee, I think of a guard of an exit at Aksarben who was being chew up side and down by some one who was trying to get back in without a hand stamp. Just about minute before the irrate customer arrived, the guard had been told by his boss that if let any person in without a stamp, he would be fired. The boss also made it very clear he did not want to called either when somebody was angry because he could not get in. The poor guard just had to take it. I imagined that it took every bit of self control to keep from going off on the customer who knew that he needed a stamp to get back in. That is why I always gave my employees an out. I told them to tell the customers that I was greedy and arrogant and an idiot. Everybody can relate to having a fool for a boss. I figured I was getting paid to take the heat. A guy making minimum wage should not get yelled for things they have no control over.

[reckless]

The comfort level in workers shouldn't be overlooked but will probably be denied -- especially by the sacrosanct, quite replaceable worker class.

Throughout history, the thinking of all those mean, rich, business owners towards their workers was this:

1--don't pay them too much or else they'll get soft, fat and lazy;

2--don't pay them too little or they'll leave en masse, which is costly; or commit company espionage; or literally destroy product and good will, or finally, god forbid, there is the risk of possible unionization when workers are paid too little.

The business owners know how to run the businesses they're in. They also know their work force equally well too, more so than the workers knows the business they work in or even know themselves.

[Robert Goren]

Those at the bottom are not capable of making their own decisions and don't know what is good for them. So Big Brother has to step in to help them, to protect them from the rich, evil bastages that they work for, and to make sure that they are paid a living wage.

In reality, minimum wage workers are generally able to function on their own. And the idea of a huge class of starving families is absurd. According to Pew Research, over half of minimum wage earners are 16-24 years old. And 64% of them are part time workers. Also, about 2/3 of minimum wage workers are making more than that within a year, either through raises or moving on to better jobs.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/ A trip to Walmart will quickly dispel the idea that there are not people out there working part-time for the minimum wage who are trying survive on what they earn there. There are not many students working at any the Walmarts around here. They are staffed by people well into their 30s or older. Those employees are not there because there because they want to be. They are there because they have no other options. You go to Target or any other large chain retailer and you will see the same thing. Sure they might get a small raise after they been there a while, but they top out very quickly. And there is no place for them to go that pays more. They might make supervisor after a time(still probably part-time), but they can not go any higher without a degree. The days of starting at the bottom and working your way up are over, if they ever existed at all.
Places like Pew are always putting out numbers, but if you open your eyes and take look around you, you will see how wrong their conclusions are.

[Robert Goren]

The comfort level in workers shouldn't be overlooked but will probably be denied -- especially by the sacrosanct, quite replaceable worker class.

Throughout history, the thinking of all those mean, rich, business owners towards their workers was this:

1--don't pay them too much or else they'll get soft, fat and lazy;

2--don't pay them too little or they'll leave en masse, which is costly; or commit company espionage; or literally destroy product and good will, or finally, god forbid, there is the risk of possible unionization when workers are paid too little.

The business owners know how to run the businesses they're in. They also know their work force equally well too, more so than the workers knows the business they work in or even know themselves. I will give this, employees don't know the whole picture. Even a lot of low level managers don't know either. They just know their little piece of the turf.

[thaskalos]

you actually believe that crap?? bad employees can and are exclusive of bad managers. Bad managers can and are exclusive of bad bosses. Holy mackerel!!
Of course I believe that "crap".

Yes...there are employees who refuse to conform to the demands of the particular job...but a good manager doesn't keep them employed for long. What exactly does a manager "manage"...if not his employees? And if a manager is "bad"...then he himself should quickly find himself without a job. I know business-owners who seldom show up at their own stores, because they wildly overestimate the competence of their managers. It's a fatal mistake in today's ultra-competitive business world.

When a fast-food place consistently screws up my order...I don't only blame the preparer of that order. I, myself, have worked with customers for over 30 years...and I know better. What my customers see in my employees is the reflection of my managers...who, in turn, are a reflection of me.

[AndyC]

Of course I believe that "crap".

Yes...there are employees who refuse to conform to the demands of the particular job...but a good manager doesn't keep them employed for long. What exactly does a manager "manage"...if not his employees? And if a manager is "bad"...then he himself should quickly find himself without a job. I know business-owners who seldom show up at their own stores, because they wildly overestimate the competence of their managers. It's a fatal mistake in today's ultra-competitive business world.

When a fast-food place consistently screws up my order...I don't only blame the preparer of that order. I, myself, have worked with customers for over 30 years...and I know better. What my customers see in my employees is the reflection of my managers...who, in turn, are a reflection of me.


Of course you are correct in the overall view of things. Good management really cures a lot of ills.

From an employee's perspective, I think just about everybody has had to work at a job where they were under the control of a bad manager. A good employee has some pride and tries to overcome bad management and still do a good job. That is why some bad managers are able to survive at their jobs for longer than they should. That and having a union job where merit is a foreign word.