Minimum wage hike closing Seattle restaurants [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Clocker

03-14-2015, 10:21 AM

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurants across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” Seattle Magazine,

“Washington Restaurant Association’s Anthony Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”

Common Core math problem: How much is $15 x 0?

http://shiftwa.org/more-seattle-restaurants-close-doors-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/

ArlJim78

03-14-2015, 10:28 AM

wow, who could have foreseen this? :rolleyes:

Izzy2742

03-14-2015, 10:33 AM

According to the online Seattle Times, the wage increase is a step-process.

Currently, the minimum wage is $9.47
April 1, 2015, that increases to $11.00

It increases to $15/hr by 2021

JustRalph

03-14-2015, 10:42 AM

According to the online Seattle Times, the wage increase is a step-process.

Currently, the minimum wage is $9.47
April 1, 2015, that increases to $11.00

It increases to $15/hr by 2021

Why lose money until 2021? I'm sure that's how they feel. Many of these small places run on a razor thin margin. Getting out before everybody else has advantages too.

The customers will absorb the costs for those that stay.

lamboguy

03-14-2015, 10:50 AM

i never liked mandatory minimum wages and other government mandated rules, but this one seems to have some good side effects by closing down these restaurants.. Mickey D's and Burger King has successfully lowered life expectancy and helped raise medical cost's. they should go up to $20 an hour and wipe out all of them.

Izzy2742

03-14-2015, 10:51 AM

Why lose money until 2021? I'm sure that's how they feel. Many of these small places run on a razor thin margin.
The same article suggests a 4% profit for restaurants currently. I don't know how any restaurant can survive, even before the wage hike.

Clocker

03-14-2015, 11:04 AM

Getting out before everybody else has advantages too.

Like finding a bigger sucker to sell it to. :p

JustRalph

03-14-2015, 11:05 AM

The same article suggests a 4% profit for restaurants currently. I don't know how any restaurant can survive, even before the wage hike.

Many mom and pop places are only providing jobs for locals and that's about it.

You would be surprised how many chain stores lose money but are kept afloat by the other stores in the company. Btw, many chain stores are actually broken up into different divisions or multiple companies. Sometimes the real profit comes from one division of the company selling products or services to the other.

I know of one Rest. Company that is a majority owner in the actual wholesale food company that they buy almost all of their food from. The restaurants make a minimal profit the wholesale food company makes about double the margin. Add the two together and the entire system makes money, including providing tax advantages.

I knew of a company that actually invested in the trucking company that delivered the food product to their stores because they discovered a huge tax advantage in the trucking business.

There are also places like Cheesecake Factory who own their own "Cheesecake Factories" and those portions of their business are separate companies. They sell to retail stores and restaurants. The real estate portion of the business is huge. And complicated. But very profitable sometimes

Clocker

03-14-2015, 11:09 AM

The same article suggests a 4% profit for restaurants currently. I don't know how any restaurant can survive, even before the wage hike.

A lot of restaurants of the type they seem to be talking about are run by one person or a family who really enjoy the business. And the 4% could be accounting profit after the owner pays himself a salary.

JustRalph

03-14-2015, 11:09 AM

Like finding a bigger sucker to sell it to. :p

Especially if you are liquidating. Your equipment brings a better price when there are less options and you're not competing with other shut downs. Used restaurant equipment is big business

JustRalph

03-14-2015, 11:10 AM

A lot of restaurants of the type they seem to be talking about are run by one person or a family who really enjoy the business. And the 4% could be accounting profit after the owner pays himself a salary.

If they are lucky.

TJDave

03-14-2015, 12:52 PM

I'd like to know where they got the 4% from. That's not typical of my experience or my friends/clients. I'd guesstimate double to triple that. And, yes, you always pay yourself.

thaskalos

03-14-2015, 01:14 PM

The same article suggests a 4% profit for restaurants currently. I don't know how any restaurant can survive, even before the wage hike.
4% profit? Golly-gee...imagine if they had to pay their waiters out of their own pockets.

Clocker

03-14-2015, 01:27 PM

I'd like to know where they got the 4% from. That's not typical of my experience or my friends/clients. I'd guesstimate double to triple that. And, yes, you always pay yourself.

In what part of the country? Washington state already had a minimum wage of $9.19. That might explain lower profit margins there.

TJDave

03-14-2015, 02:39 PM

In what part of the country? Washington state already had a minimum wage of $9.19. That might explain lower profit margins there.

California, for one...now at $10 before burden. I don't care about minimum wage. I'm concerned about labor cost as a percentage of sales. Utilizing labor effectively is the key to maintaining profitability. Smart operators will shrug this off and keep on chugging. The real challenge is finding decent help.

JustRalph

03-14-2015, 03:19 PM

I'd like to know where they got the 4% from. That's not typical of my experience or my friends/clients. I'd guesstimate double to triple that. And, yes, you always pay yourself.

I know of 2 places that were in the 4-6 range. They were both mom and pop shops and their kids have been trying to get them to quit for years. They are both run by 60 plus year olds and one is Italian, the other a Sandwich deli style place that was purely a lunch house.

Both parents were not rich, but well enough to run on those small margins.

Dave, love your post about labor. Sounds like a discussion my wife and I have every time she takes over a new place. Which she is in the middle of right now.

Up 700 meals a week after the first month btw........ ;)

mostpost

03-14-2015, 06:18 PM

Common Core math problem: How much is $15 x 0?

http://shiftwa.org/more-seattle-restaurants-close-doors-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/
If you are going to write a story about restaurants closing due to an increase in the minimum wage, my suggestion would be that you cite restaurants which are actually closing for that reason. The Author cited three restaurants; Grub, Little Uncle, and Boat Street Cafe.
From the facebook post announcing the closing of Grub:
It is with both joy and sadness to announce the sale and closure of Grub.
I have had the immense pleasure of serving my community as well as receiving such tremendous support from my community which in turn; has made Grub a huge success.
As some entrepreneurs believe, it is best to leave at the top of their game and to decide when that time is. Although it was a difficult decision to make, I leave Grub with such great memories of the many customers who have come to dine, and for the many customers who have followed me throughout the years.
I look forward to my future opportunities in this wonderful industry, perhaps consulting others in their pursuits of their vision and dreams.
https://www.facebook.com/letsgogrub/posts/802323423174443

Nothing there about minimum wage. The owner has decided for her own reasons to close the restaurant. If you read further in the facebook post, you will learn that a different business is opening in that same space. A restaurant.

Little Uncle.
Chefs Wiley Frank and Poncharee Kounpungchart (PK to most who know her) brought their stellar Thai food operation down to Pioneer Square in the early days of the neighborhood's renaissance. Now the Franks say Little Uncle's final lunch service in its subterranean home will be this Wednesday, February 25.

Wait, WHAT?!? PK is quick to clarify that the news is not necessarily bad. Business in Pioneer Square is great, in fact. But the couple has decided the cavernish location doesn't suit them.

"We are better in a smaller space," says PK. "Less is sometimes more."
http://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/nosh-pit/articles/oh-no-little-uncle-is-closing-its-pioneer-square-location-february-2015

Again, nothing to do with minimum wage. They are simply moving to a more efficient space.

Boat Street Cafe.
Before there was the Walrus, the Whale, and all the national acclaim, Renee Erickson earned Seattle's love at Boat Street Cafe. Now Erickson says her original restaurant will serve its last meal on May 30. The cafe's sibling business, Boat Street Kitchen, will remain.

Closing Boat Street, says Erickson, lets her focus on the two restaurants she's opening this summer on Capitol Hill: a Normandy-style oyster bar and a Parisian cafe where she and her partners will raise, butcher, and dry age their own beef. There's also the small matter of running the Walrus and the Carpenter, the Whale Wins, and the other projects under the umbrella of her company, Sea Creatures.
http://www.seattlemet.com/eat-and-drink/nosh-pit/articles/renee-erickson-is-closing-february-2015
Well, whaddaya know. Its a trifecta. Three in a row with no mention of minimum wage. In this case the owner is closing a restaurant which has seen better days and she is doing it so she can concentrate on opening two new restaurants.

The same place that I found the three links above also had a story about the number of restaurant closings in Seattle in 2014. It listed 26 closings. I tried to find out how many restaurants opened over the course of the year. I was unsuccessful in that search, but I did find a story about "Fourteen Most Anticipated Restaurant Openings in the Fall of 2014." I think I can say without fear of error that there were more restaurants in Seattle at the end of 2014 than there were in the beginning. I am willing to bet that there will be more at the end of 2015 than at the beginning.

Tom

03-14-2015, 06:44 PM

I bet in your mind, your post made sense. :lol: :lol: :lol:

davew

03-14-2015, 06:48 PM

I bet in your mind, your post made sense. :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you have only been an union employee, you are not familiar with the difficulties of running a heavily regulated business.

mostpost

03-14-2015, 06:54 PM

I bet in your mind, your post made sense. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I will simplify it for you.
Clocker posted a story which named three restaurants that were closing because of an increase in the minimum wage. I pointed out that the reasons given by the owners of those restaurants for closing them did not include the increase in the minimum wage. I also pointed out that more restaurants opened than closed in Seattle in the past year. I did not point out, but should have, that the minimum wage does not reach $15.00 until Jan. 1, 2021.

Clocker

03-14-2015, 07:00 PM

If you are going to write a story about restaurants closing due to an increase in the minimum wage, my suggestion would be that you cite restaurants which are actually closing for that reason. The Author cited three restaurants; Grub, Little Uncle, and Boat Street Cafe.

The author didn't say that those restaurants were closing due to increases in minimum wage. He mentioned that a lot of places were closing, including those, and that according to another source, which he linked, the wage increase was a factor that every owner was worried about. He implied that the increase might have been a factor in the decisions, but did not say that it was or was not.

And for Seattle restaurateurs recently, there is also another key consideration. Though none of our local departing/transitioning restaurateurs who announced their plans last month have elaborated on the issue, another major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour. Starting April 1, all businesses must begin to phase in the wage increase: Small employers have seven years to pay all employees at least $15 hourly; large employers (with 500 or more employees) have three.

Since the legislation was announced last summer, The Seattle Times and Eater have reported extensively on restaurant owners’ many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor: They may need to raise menu prices, source poorer ingredients, reduce operating hours, reduce their labor and/or more.

“Everyone is looking at the model right now, asking how do we do math?” he says. “Every operator I’m talking to is in panic mode, trying to figure out what the new world will look like.” Regarding amount of labor, at 14 employees, a Washington restaurant already averages three fewer workers than the national restaurant average (17 employees). Anton anticipates customers will definitely be tested with new menu prices and more. “Seattle is the first city in this thing and everyone’s watching, asking how is this going to change?”

Clocker

03-14-2015, 07:01 PM

I will simplify it for you.
Clocker posted a story which named three restaurants that were closing because of an increase in the minimum wage.

The article does not say that.

But you have not shown that the minimum wage was not a factor in the decisions.

Fred

03-14-2015, 09:13 PM

I spent 38 years in the QSR industry. There are two minimum wages. One is the Federal Minimum. The other is the effective minimum. The latter is the amount you need to pay to effectively staff your restaurant and the market you are playing in dictates the amount. I can assure you in Seattle that number is already above the Federal wage but probably not $15 an hour.
Whatever the raise is everyone has to pay it so yes the cost will be passed onto the customer or at least some of it. The rest will be made up using other cost cutting measures such as reducing hours for workers.
It has also been my experience that the very people that criticize the industry for not paying employees enough are the very ones who will complain that that prices are too high. Typical Liberals-They want to see the little guy get ahead as long as someone else pays for it.

Clocker

03-14-2015, 11:05 PM

Stillriledup

03-14-2015, 11:08 PM

If people are willing to work for less than 15, why stop them?

Clocker

03-14-2015, 11:18 PM

If people are willing to work for less than 15, why stop them?

Because the liberals believe that most people are too stupid to know what is good for them, and the government has to protect them from the greedy corporations.

TJDave

03-15-2015, 01:19 PM

If people are willing to work for less than 15, why stop them?

Minimum wage jobs are not negotiated. Besides, desperate people make lousy employees.

thaskalos

03-15-2015, 01:27 PM

If people are willing to work for less than 15, why stop them?

Is this another way of saying...."if employers are unwilling to pay more than $8.25 minimum, why force them to?"

dartman51

03-15-2015, 01:44 PM

The author didn't say that those restaurants were closing due to increases in minimum wage. He mentioned that a lot of places were closing, including those, and that according to another source, which he linked, the wage increase was a factor that every owner was worried about. He implied that the increase might have been a factor in the decisions, but did not say that it was or was not.

But it doesn't count unless they state that it was, IN FACT, minimum wage hike, that drove them out of business. :eek: And, even then, MoPo will tell you what they REALLY meant to say. :faint:

HUSKER55

03-15-2015, 02:01 PM

it is a crying shame that a person can sstart a buisines hire some help only to have the help and government take over, with out ever suffering a god damn thing.

AndyC

03-16-2015, 09:31 AM

Is this another way of saying...."if employers are unwilling to pay more than $8.25 minimum, why force them to?"

Now that you brought it up, why force them to?

Clocker

03-16-2015, 09:58 AM

Now that you brought it up, why force them to?

Well, duh, it's because you can't raise a family on $7.50 an hour. People need to be paid a living wage. :rolleyes:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

AndyC

03-16-2015, 11:36 AM

Well, duh, it's because you can't raise a family on $7.50 an hour. People need to be paid a living wage. :rolleyes:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Correct answer, comrade!

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 01:37 PM

Now that you brought it up, why force them to?
I don't understand what your thinking is here. Did you similarly object when the minimum wage was raised from the $3.25 an hour that Reagan kept it at throughout his entire tenure as president? We decry the existence of labor unions...and then also condemn every minimum wage increase that we see?

Don't we know that the true "civilization" of a country is directly related to the way that it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens?

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 01:44 PM

it is a crying shame that a person can sstart a buisines hire some help only to have the help and government take over, with out ever suffering a god damn thing.
If an employer can't pay his employees the minimum wage...then he doesn't belong in business. He should go out and get himself a job.

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 01:58 PM

Well, duh, it's because you can't raise a family on $7.50 an hour. People need to be paid a living wage. :rolleyes:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The minimum wage has never been a "living wage". It's always been a "non-dying" wage.

Clocker

03-16-2015, 01:58 PM

Don't we know that the true "civilization" of a country is directly related to the way that it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens?

If society as a whole determines that all vulnerable citizens should have some minimum mandated standard of living, then society should provide that through an open and fair social program, funded through general revenues.

Making an employer fund that social goal is discriminatory, places an unfair share of the burden on many who are least able to afford it, and has economic consequences that can be harmful to economic growth, and in turn to the tax base of the government. If there is a moral obligation to provide a minimum standard of living, why does it fall only on those who employ low skilled labor?

And who eventually pays for increases in minimum wages? The consumer. If fast food restaurants have to increase prices to pay for higher wages, who bears the burden? The top 1% that politicians love to demonize as not paying their fair share? Or the average middle or lower class family?

Clocker

03-16-2015, 02:02 PM

The minimum wage has never been a "living wage". It's always been a "non-dying" wage.

It's always been an entry level wage for unskilled labor not capable of contributing more to production. What moral obligation does an employer have to provide a living wage? Should a 30 year old man with a family be paid more than an 18 year old fresh out of high school if both are doing the same job? A living wage for the former is certainly much higher than for the latter.

Tom

03-16-2015, 02:08 PM

The minimum wage has never been a "living wage". It's always been a "non-dying" wage.

It was never intended to be a living wage.
It is ridiculous to even suggest it should be.

Should a stock boy working part time after school be paid a living wage?
Of course not.

How about a kid who washes dishes a couple of time a week, or runs the grill for Friday night fish fry? Or a guy who delivers flowers on Saturdays?

Is the Walmart greeter providing a service anywhere close to the value of a living wage?

Tom

03-16-2015, 02:11 PM

If an employer can't pay his employees the minimum wage...then he doesn't belong in business. He should go out and get himself a job.

And you get the right to dictate that from where?
Maybe if the minimum wage employee can't find a job he is capable of doing, he should go back to school and get an education, take a bath, buy a tie, act like an adult.........why is a business man responsible for the unskilled?

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 02:21 PM

If society as a whole determines that all vulnerable citizens should have some minimum mandated standard of living, then society should provide that through an open and fair social program, funded through general revenues.

Making an employer fund that social goal is discriminatory, places an unfair share of the burden on many who are least able to afford it, and has economic consequences that can be harmful to economic growth, and in turn to the tax base of the government. If there is a moral obligation to provide a minimum standard of living, why does it fall only on those who employ low skilled labor?

And who eventually pays for increases in minimum wages? The consumer. If fast food restaurants have to increase prices to pay for higher wages, who bears the burden? The top 1% that politicians love to demonize as not paying their fair share? Or the average middle or lower class family?
I don't know your business experience...but I'll tell you mine. I have been in private business for more than 30 years...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the biggest names in my industry. For 30 years, I have seen hard-working employees being exploited...while their employers live in the lap of luxury. An employee walks up to his multi-millionaire employer to ask for a raise to feed his family, and the employer not only refuses the request...but then turns to his manager and demands that the low-paid employee be FIRED...because he could no longer be "trusted".

Regular meeting are held, where stacks of newly-filled job applications are waved under the noses of low-paid employees with families to raise...in order to discourage them from ever asking for a raise in pay. But for the occasional minimum wage increase...these unfortunate workers would NEVER see a raise.

Please don't tell me about those "customer service" businesses which are most affected by these minimum wage increases...I've had a close-up look top to bottom. And it has sickened me to no end...

Clocker

03-16-2015, 02:24 PM

If an employer can't pay his employees the minimum wage...then he doesn't belong in business. He should go out and get himself a job.

If I want a job done and I offer what I think it is worth, and someone thinks it is worth that amount to do it, how does an outside third party presume to say that transaction should not take place?

PhantomOnTour

03-16-2015, 02:27 PM

It was never intended to be a living wage.
It is ridiculous to even suggest it should be.

Should a stock boy working part time after school be paid a living wage?
Of course not.

How about a kid who washes dishes a couple of time a week, or runs the grill for Friday night fish fry? Or a guy who delivers flowers on Saturdays?

Is the Walmart greeter providing a service anywhere close to the value of a living wage?
If he is running the grill during a fish fry then he deserves no pay at all!
;) :D

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 02:32 PM

It was never intended to be a living wage.
It is ridiculous to even suggest it should be.

It wasn't I who suggested that the minimum wage was a "living wage"...CLOCKER was the one who said it. And AndyC agreed.

I was the one who said that the minimum wage has NEVER BEEN a living wage.

Clocker

03-16-2015, 02:41 PM

It wasn't I who suggested that the minimum wage was a "living wage"...CLOCKER was the one who said it. And AndyC agreed.

That was sarcasm on my part. I can't speak for AndyC. It was sarcasm aimed at several liberals here that have complained that the minimum wage is not a living wage, and that employers have some sort of moral obligation to provide a living wage.

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 02:44 PM

That was sarcasm on my part. I can't speak for AndyC. It was sarcasm aimed at several liberals here that have complained that the minimum wage is not a living wage, and that employers have some sort of moral obligation to provide a living wage.
I knew it was sarcasm on your part. What I didn't know was why Tom chose to quote MY post in his reply.

Clocker

03-16-2015, 02:49 PM

I don't know your business experience...but I'll tell you mine. I have been in private business for more than 30 years...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the biggest names in my industry. For 30 years, I have seen hard-working employees being exploited...while their employers live in the lap of luxury. An employee walks up to his multi-millionaire employer to ask for a raise to feed his family, and the employer not only refuses the request...but then turns to his manager and demands that the low-paid employee be FIRED...because he could no longer be "trusted".

I thought they shut down the stockyards in Chicago.

While the issues you bring up do exist and are deplorable, this does not address the issue of the government telling an employer how much a job is worth. And it does not address the issue you brought up about how a society treats, or should treat, its vulnerable citizens. The issues you raise here are moral issues, and you cannot legislate morality. Again, if society determines that there is a moral obligation to give people some minimum standard of living, it is society's obligation to provide it, not to forcefully delegate that responsibility to an employer.

Tom

03-16-2015, 02:49 PM

It wasn't I who suggested that the minimum wage was a "living wage"...CLOCKER was the one who said it. And AndyC agreed.

I was the one who said that the minimum wage has NEVER BEEN a living wage.

I was agreeing with that.

Tom

03-16-2015, 02:51 PM

If he is running the grill during a fish fry then he deserves no pay at all!
;) :D

Hey, I ran the grill, the oven, and the French fryer at the Fish Fries at the American Legion.

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 02:54 PM

I was agreeing with that.
Oh, sorry Tom.

You don't agree with me much here, so I'm not used to it. :)

Tom

03-16-2015, 02:55 PM

The green beer started flowing early. :D

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 03:03 PM

I thought they shut down the stockyards in Chicago.

While the issues you bring up do exist and are deplorable, this does not address the issue of the government telling an employer how much a job is worth. And it does not address the issue you brought up about how a society treats, or should treat, its vulnerable citizens. The issues you raise here are moral issues, and you cannot legislate morality. Again, if society determines that there is a moral obligation to give people some minimum standard of living, it is society's obligation to provide it, not to forcefully delegate that responsibility to an employer.
Yes...but you guys still complain when SOCIETY provides it. Whether it's the employers or society -- or both -- the argument always is that the "cost" eventually filters down to the customer, or the taxpayer, and that they should not be the ones shouldering the load.

We are against labor unions...against minimum pay increases...and against welfare programs. So...what are we for? The free enterprise system and the fairness in the hearts of those who run private business?

mostpost

03-16-2015, 03:06 PM

If an employer can't pay his employees the minimum wage...then he doesn't belong in business. He should go out and get himself a job.
No! No! Don't you understand? There is a sacred, God given right to own a business and to make a profit in that business. The worker has no right to a living wage, but the owner has a right to a profitable business. Jesus said so. It's in the bible....somewhere, I just haven't found it yet. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mostpost

03-16-2015, 03:13 PM

But it doesn't count unless they state that it was, IN FACT, minimum wage hike, that drove them out of business. :eek: And, even then, MoPo will tell you what they REALLY meant to say. :faint:
If you are going to write a story about restaurants closing because of an increase in the minimum wage, then you really ought to find restaurants that closed for that reason; not restaurants the closed because the owner was retiring and another restaurant was taking its place. Nor should you cite a restaurant that was closing because its owner was opening two new, larger restaurants.

The statements about the minimum wage came from a spokesperson for a restaurant association, a group philosophically opposed to any minimum wage hike or to paying anyone for anything.

Tom

03-16-2015, 03:13 PM

The worker has no right to a living wage, but the owner has a right to a profitable business.

The worker has the right to EARN a living wage.
The owner has the right to TRY to make a profit.

Neither outcome is guaranteed and night should be.

Clocker

03-16-2015, 03:23 PM

The statements about the minimum wage came from a spokesperson for a restaurant association, a group philosophically opposed to any minimum wage hike or to paying anyone for anything.

Amen brother! Those evil bastages are trying to bring back indentured servitude. Who are they to presume to know what a job is worth? Those groups should be outlawed before they get really uppity and start thinking that they have freedom of speech. :eek:

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 03:27 PM

If you are going to write a story about restaurants closing because of an increase in the minimum wage, then you really ought to find restaurants that closed for that reason; not restaurants the closed because the owner was retiring and another restaurant was taking its place. Nor should you cite a restaurant that was closing because its owner was opening two new, larger restaurants.

This seems fair enough to me. :ThmbUp:

Clocker

03-16-2015, 03:29 PM

The worker has the right to EARN a living wage.
The owner has the right to TRY to make a profit.

Where does it say that in the bible?

Oh, wait. It's in the Constitution. All of that human rights stuff about life, liberty and property. I heard there's some stuff in there forbidding involuntary servitude too, like you don't have to take a job if you don't think the pay is worth the labor.

Clocker

03-16-2015, 03:40 PM

Yes...but you guys still complain when SOCIETY provides it.

But you are complaining that society is not providing what you think it should. Perhaps "society" has a different view than you of what should be done.

PaceAdvantage

03-16-2015, 03:41 PM

No! No! Don't you understand? There is a sacred, God given right to own a business and to make a profit in that business. The worker has no right to a living wage, but the owner has a right to a profitable business. Jesus said so. It's in the bible....somewhere, I just haven't found it yet. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:The worker has every right to go elsewhere and find another employer who will pay him or her what they're worth.

JustRalph

03-16-2015, 03:41 PM

I don't know your business experience...but I'll tell you mine. I have been in private business for more than 30 years...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the biggest names in my industry. For 30 years, I have seen hard-working employees being exploited...while their employers live in the lap of luxury. An employee walks up to his multi-millionaire employer to ask for a raise to feed his family, and the employer not only refuses the request...but then turns to his manager and demands that the low-paid employee be FIRED...because he could no longer be "trusted".

Regular meeting are held, where stacks of newly-filled job applications are waved under the noses of low-paid employees with families to raise...in order to discourage them from ever asking for a raise in pay. But for the occasional minimum wage increase...these unfortunate workers would NEVER see a raise.

Please don't tell me about those "customer service" businesses which are most affected by these minimum wage increases...I've had a close-up look top to bottom. And it has sickened me to no end...

I don't know what business you're in, but that brings one question to mind. Who are these assholes? And why did you work with them?

I've been involved in businesses in several different areas of the country and never saw anybody who actually treated employees that way. I guess they are out there

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 03:49 PM

I don't know what business you're in, but that brings one question to mind. Who are these assholes? And why did you work with them?

I've been involved in businesses in several different areas of the country and never saw anybody who actually treated employees that way. I guess they are out there
I didn't work with them. I got to know them because we were in the same type of business. You get acquainted with people when you spend time with them...and you even get close enough to them where you find out things about the way that they run their businesses.

It makes your skin crawl to see them in the same type of business as you are...

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 03:52 PM

But you are complaining that society is not providing what you think it should. Perhaps "society" has a different view than you of what should be done.
Perhaps...

AndyC

03-16-2015, 04:06 PM

I don't understand what your thinking is here. Did you similarly object when the minimum wage was raised from the $3.25 an hour that Reagan kept it at throughout his entire tenure as president? We decry the existence of labor unions...and then also condemn every minimum wage increase that we see?

Don't we know that the true "civilization" of a country is directly related to the way that it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens?

I am all for treating the weakest and most vulnerable with kindness and compassion. What I am not for is having the government tell me or any business owner just how much the kindness and compassion should be. People aren't on welfare and government assistance do to low wages they are there because of low skills. Many who get minimum wage jobs are able to learn skills and move up the ladder.

AndyC

03-16-2015, 04:11 PM

I don't know your business experience...but I'll tell you mine. I have been in private business for more than 30 years...and have rubbed shoulders with some of the biggest names in my industry. For 30 years, I have seen hard-working employees being exploited...while their employers live in the lap of luxury. An employee walks up to his multi-millionaire employer to ask for a raise to feed his family, and the employer not only refuses the request...but then turns to his manager and demands that the low-paid employee be FIRED...because he could no longer be "trusted".

Regular meeting are held, where stacks of newly-filled job applications are waved under the noses of low-paid employees with families to raise...in order to discourage them from ever asking for a raise in pay. But for the occasional minimum wage increase...these unfortunate workers would NEVER see a raise.

Please don't tell me about those "customer service" businesses which are most affected by these minimum wage increases...I've had a close-up look top to bottom. And it has sickened me to no end...

I don't doubt the validity of your story but I can tell stories of compassionate employers who treat their employees like family.

A free society isn't always pretty but it sure isn't always ugly as you suggest.

AndyC

03-16-2015, 04:13 PM

AndyC

03-16-2015, 04:17 PM

We are against labor unions...against minimum pay increases...and against welfare programs. So...what are we for? The free enterprise system and the fairness in the hearts of those who run private business?

Certainly not for the "fairness" of those in government. If the government didn't have such power over the control of our lives we wouldn't have a concern over people like the Koch brothers or George Soros.

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 04:31 PM

A free society isn't always pretty but it sure isn't always ugly as you suggest.
Did I really suggest that a free society is "always" as ugly as I portrayed in my post?

AndyC

03-16-2015, 07:42 PM

Did I really suggest that a free society is "always" as ugly as I portrayed in my post?

Let's just say you weren't showing much confidence that your fellow man when acting privately would do the right thing.

thaskalos

03-16-2015, 07:58 PM

Let's just say you weren't showing much confidence that your fellow man when acting privately would do the right thing.
Gee...I wonder where I might have gotten that idea...

classhandicapper

03-16-2015, 08:05 PM

Higher wages are a good thing, but only if they are the result of greater productivity or greater demand for workers than can be met by the supply. Mandating them when market forces are dictating that they be at the current or lower level is where you open yourself up to problems.

If we want to raise the wages of lower skilled workers, IMO the correct approach is to educate people and increase their skill and productivity. Then they'll be worth more. To the extent that there are supply issues it might make some sense to secure the border and slow the flow of millions of unskilled workers into the US. That creates a larger supply of unskilled labor and puts downward pressure on wages for the rest.

The latter is kind of difficult to accomplish.

Democrats are arguing for increased wages out of one side of their mouth while simultaneously doing everything in their power to encourage more illegal immigration under the assumption they will eventually become democrats after they are given amnesty. Basically they are screwing their own constituency, but in their case, many of them may not even understand that.

Republicans aren't much better. They talk a much better game, but behind closed doors they are making deals with businesses to ensure the flow of legals and illegals continues so the supply remains high and there's plenty of downward pressure on wages.

HUSKER55

03-18-2015, 07:00 AM

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2015, 02:17 PM

tucker6

03-19-2015, 02:21 PM

I don't know what business you're in, but that brings one question to mind. Who are these assholes? And why did you work with them?

I've been involved in businesses in several different areas of the country and never saw anybody who actually treated employees that way. I guess they are out there
Just reading this thread now, but your post was the exact feeling I got when I read Thaskalos' post. I've never run across anyone who did that, and I've consulted with a lot of business owners who were "me first". In fact, the majority of owners realize that satisfied employees make the business more money. Doesn't mean you become a hostage to the employees demands, but valuable employees should be recognized and retained.

mostpost

03-19-2015, 02:39 PM

It's a natural result once labor costs rise out of the value range. Why would anyone buy anything that gives them no value?

It's the same in picking horses...or picking an employee...

When value disappears, you seek satisfaction elsewhere. In this instance, it is automation, which starts to become more financially attractive...

Democrats - never thinking about the long run...

But then again, a rise in unemployment will only help their "come suck at the teat of big gov't" message....
You are the one not thinking about the long run. If only robots are working, only robots will be able to purchase your product. I do not know any robots who eat Big Macs.

What amazes me even more is your next statement. "But then again, a rise in unemployment will only help their "come suck at the teat of big gov't" message." First of all, as I have proven many times, there is no evidence that an increase in the minimum wage causes a rise in unemployment. Second, you ignore the purchasing power gained by those who receive the increase in the minimum wage.

The majority of those benefiting from the various government programs are not unemployed, they are under employed. Raising their pay levels could mean getting them off those programs.

Tom

03-19-2015, 02:46 PM

The majority of those benefiting from the various government programs are not unemployed, they are under employed. Raising their pay levels could mean getting them off those programs.

Or put more in them when they are no longer valuable.

Over 2 trillion $$$ sitting off shore that could come back here and create jobs, if not for the ridiculous Obama economic policies that prevent common sense from prevailing.

You probably believe my idiot-gobbiner Baby Mario when he says that increasing min wage will put over 3 billion into the economy. :lol::lol::lol:

Clocker

03-19-2015, 02:51 PM

You are the one not thinking about the long run. If only robots are working, only robots will be able to purchase your product. I do not know any robots who eat Big Macs.

But the people that make the robots will be eating high on the hog.

First of all, as I have proven many times, there is no evidence that an increase in the minimum wage causes a rise in unemployment.

You have stated that many times, you have never proven it. In any case, few if any economists claim that an increase in the minimum wage causes an immediate rise in unemployment. It causes a decline in the creation of new, entry level jobs. The result is not an immediate decline in employment, it is a future unemployment rate higher than it would have been without the wage increase.

Second, you ignore the purchasing power gained by those who receive the increase in the minimum wage.

Higher wages do not mean higher purchasing power if the wage increases leads to higher prices. Once again, the price increase does not happen over-night. It happens in the long run. And there is no higher purchasing power for those who cannot find jobs because job creation is constrained by higher minimum wages.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 02:56 PM

You probably believe my idiot-gobbiner Baby Mario when he says that increasing min wage will put over 3 billion into the economy. :lol::lol::lol:

And where does that $3 billion come from? :rolleyes:

Here's a free clue Mario baby, it comes from money that businesses could have used to expand and create more and better jobs.

Econ 101: TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.)

mostpost

03-19-2015, 02:59 PM

went out ot dinner last night at one of the local greek restaurants. We were chatting with the owner and he said that it is going to be interesting to see how this shakes out.

One of the local McD's is considering putting in a totally self serve, no cash operation. There will be no more high schoolers and the operation will only require about 8 adults during the day and 3 in the evening to run. No more drive thru.

Serve your self, pay with credit card, and partime help is zero so no more kids. oh yeah,.....it might become a family operation. That means they will hire no one.

I hope it happens. Serves dems and labor union right. if it succeeds I give it 6 months to stretch across the whole country.

Let us see if it happens.
Bad Idea!! Look at this from the point of view of the customer. I'm on my way home from work and decide to get some fast food. I decide that I will go to your McDonalds, go through the drive thru and get a Big Mac, fries and a Coke. But, according to your post above, you have no drive thru. Wendy's has a drive thru and there is a Wendy's two blocks up the road. So I go there and you lose the business. Besides Wendy's has better hamburgers.

But let's say that I really love McDonald's and I decide to stop and go inside.
When I get inside there is no one there to help me, just a machine. And I, like a lot of people, are technologically challenged. So it takes me longer to place my order than if I were to give it to a human and maybe I get it wrong. Then I find that you don't take cash and I have to pay with a credit card. But I do not want to use my credit card for a small ticket item like a Big Mac so I leave and you lose the business. Anyway Wendy's has better hamburgers.

I think you are wildly optimistic if you think this idea will sweep the country in six months.

PaceAdvantage

03-19-2015, 03:03 PM

You are the one not thinking about the long run. If only robots are working, only robots will be able to purchase your product. I do not know any robots who eat Big Macs.

What amazes me even more is your next statement. "But then again, a rise in unemployment will only help their "come suck at the teat of big gov't" message." First of all, as I have proven many times, there is no evidence that an increase in the minimum wage causes a rise in unemployment. Second, you ignore the purchasing power gained by those who receive the increase in the minimum wage.

The majority of those benefiting from the various government programs are not unemployed, they are under employed. Raising their pay levels could mean getting them off those programs.Is this a defense via "Trickle UP theory?"

And it's more valid than "Trickle DOWN" because?

Clocker

03-19-2015, 03:08 PM

Is this a defense via "Trickle UP theory?"

It's a theory from the Tinker Bell School of Economics. If everyone just closes their eyes and believes hard enough, it will happen.

Tom

03-19-2015, 03:25 PM

But, according to your post above, you have no drive thru.

See, as a narrow-minded union boy, you have no foresight.
I see this as an opportunity.

Dispensing hot food at a drive-thru without a person is not a hard nut to crack. Banks has ATMs these days.......you just need to use your imagination.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 03:27 PM

Banks has ATMs these days.......you just need to use your imagination.

Obama says ATMs are a big source of unemployment. :eek:

OntheRail

03-19-2015, 04:11 PM

I have proven many times, there is no evidence that an increase in the minimum wage causes a rise in unemployment. ( In your Mind maybe ) Second, you ignore the purchasing power gained by those who receive the increase in the minimum wage. Right like cost are not tied to wages... it will be a wash to negative effect. :rolleyes:

The majority of those benefiting from the various government programs are not unemployed, they are under employed. Raising their pay levels could mean getting them off those programs. No they will adjust the parameters of what poverty is and grow more teats for the impoverished.. so more will be on it... SNAP.

You have no idea how the PRIVATE ECONOMY WORKS... :faint:

Clocker

03-19-2015, 04:20 PM

You have no idea how the PRIVATE ECONOMY WORKS... :faint:

There is one way that the private sector and the public sector function the same. It is a basic principle of business and management in either sector that people do what they are rewarded for.

If you reward people in the public sector for building a bigger bureaucracy, they will increase head count and expand their operations. If you reward people in the private sector for replacing labor with capital, they will use less labor and more machinery.

The difference is that people in the private sector understand the process.

reckless

03-19-2015, 06:02 PM

You are the one not thinking about the long run. If only robots are working, only robots will be able to purchase your product. I do not know any robots who eat Big Macs.
...

No robots nor do agenda-driven liberals and retired government workers with their fat pensions eat Big Macs either, mostpost.

Then who does?

Poor people and working poor people do, that's who. And when increases in minimum wage costs filter through the system, who pays for that increased cost? These poor consumers do, who once again get screwed over by liberal do gooders.

These consumers eventually get priced out of a decent meal when those Value Meals and Big Macs cost more and more.

davew

03-19-2015, 06:46 PM

I was at a Hardee's today and got a combo for $6.22 - They upper teens kid took my $10 and I said wait, here is 22 cents. He had already pushed in the $10 and receipt said I needed $3.78 in change - he grabbed the 22 cents and looked confused. Then he said 'Dude, I m not very good at math, how much should you get back'. This explains a similar situation in another place/state a few years ago when I got back $3.78 and the 22 cents I gave them.

I suspect most of the posters in this forum are well above average in math abilities, but isn't this first or second grade math?

These were white kids that talked normal with no apparent disabilities, that seemed lost without the computer/cash register.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 07:25 PM

I remember being taught how to count out change in a grade school math course. It was considered to be a skill that you might need for a job some time, and useful knowledge to insure that you were getting proper change.

I was in a local grocery store recently and paid with a $50 bill. The clerk entered the cash tendered amount as $50 and the register computed the change. It was $22 and something. I was shocked when I glanced at the small monitor screen on the register. The screen showed a graphic of a typical cash drawer. The $20 bill slot was lit up showing a $20 bill with a big "1" above it, and the $1 bill slot was lit up showing a $1 bill with a big "2" above it. The coins came down the chute in the coin dispenser mounted on the counter.

mostpost

03-19-2015, 08:15 PM

(An increase in the minimum wage) causes a decline in the creation of new, entry level jobs. The result is not an immediate decline in employment, it is a future unemployment rate higher than it would have been without the wage increase.

OK, let's play by your rules. We will concentrate on teenagers since you claim that teenagers are most negatively affected by an increase in the minimum wage. And BLS has statistics on teenage (Age 16-19) employment going back to 1948.

A brief explanation of my methodology.
1. I googled "Historic increases in minimum wage.
2. I printed out the table which I found.
3. I went to BLS.gov and found table A-1; "Employment Situation by age and Sex"
4. I selected "16-19 year olds and selected "Historic tables"
5. I compared the number of 16-19 year old's employed in the month immediately following the imposition of a minimum wage increase with the number employed one year later. This is what I found.

Since 1950 there have been 21 increases in the minimum wage which did not coincide with a recession. 16 times the number of 16-19 year old jobs has increased. The average yearly increase-even after deducting the negative years is 144,761.

Clearly it can be shown that an increase in the minimum wage is accompanied by job growth in the teenage demographic.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Edited to provide a link to the BLS table and to correct the table designation to A-1.

JustRalph

03-19-2015, 08:38 PM

mostpost

03-19-2015, 09:11 PM

Mostpost. You suffer from one incurable disease. You believe the government.

90% of what the Government says is total bullshit. The data is massaged and manipulated in every form of government, for one reason.

To sustain and increase the need for the agency producing the report.

It's all horseshit!
That is so pathetic. You know that what I say is true and you have no way of disproving it. So you disparage my sources. Do you realize how many people would have to be in on your so called conspiracy. Just because a fact does not fit your world view, does not make it wrong.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 09:19 PM

Mostpost. You suffer from one incurable disease. You believe the government.

90% of what the Government says is total bullshit. The data is massaged and manipulated in every form of government, for one reason.

To sustain and increase the need for the agency producing the report.

It's all horseshit!

Even if the data he presents is correct, the conclusions he tries to draw from the data display a total ignorance of basic economics and statistics. I have tried to explain it several times. I give up. You can't argue with blind faith.

mostpost

03-19-2015, 09:38 PM

This is in answer to the theory that an increase in the minimum wage is counter productive because the increased wage will be offset by higher prices.
The first set of numbers is the date the minimum wage was increased.
The second number is the percentage of the increase.
The third number is the percentage increase of the CPI from that month to the same month one year later.

1-25-50/87.5%/8.0%
3-1-56/33.3%/2.9%
9-3-61/15%/0.6%
9-3-63/8..6%/1.3%
2-1-67/12.0%/3.9%
2-1-68/14.3%/2.8%
5-1-74/25%/9.5%
1-1-75/5.0%/6.7%
1-1-76/9.5%/5.2%
1-1-78/15.2%/9.3%
1-1-79/9.4%/13.9%
1-1-80/6.9%/11.8%
1-1-81/8.0%/8.4%
4-1-90/13.4%/5.6%
4-1-91/11.8%/2.6%
10-1-96/11.8%/2.9%
10-1-97/8.4%/1.6%
7-24-07/13.6%/5.6%
7-24-08/11.9%/(the CPI dropped during this period.)
7-24-09/10.7%/1.2%

Of all those increases in the minimum wage, there were only four times where the % increase in the CPI was greater than the % increase in the minimum wage. (I highlighted them in red) All other times the minimum wage far exceeded the CPI.

mostpost

03-19-2015, 09:50 PM

Even if the data he presents is correct, the conclusions he tries to draw from the data display a total ignorance of basic economics and statistics. I have tried to explain it several times. I give up. You can't argue with blind faith.
I think the same about you.

I don't think you have ever refuted what I said. You just told me I was comparing the wrong things.

I compared unemployment immediately after an increase with unemployment before an increase and found little change. You said that was wrong. You said it took awhile for things to shake out and for the effects to be felt.

So I made that comparison and found that, if anything, things were even better. Again I was told that I was wrong. It isn't about overall unemployment. It's about future, entry level jobs. It is about teenage employment.

Now I have shown you that an increase in the minimum wage has a positive effect on teenage employment and you say....what?????????

I hearby declare Victory and end this conversation. :kiss:

davew

03-19-2015, 09:54 PM

iceknight

03-19-2015, 09:57 PM

Could you correlate that to the population of those age groups for those years in the US? I believe it as much as the claims of 1 million new jobs we get without mentioning there were 2 million new people to fill them...If someone provides hard data and you want to refute it or reinterpret, the onus is on you to do "correlations" and other adjustments.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 10:08 PM

If someone provides hard data and you want to refute it or reinterpret, the onus is on you to do "correlations" and other adjustments.

No, in economic analysis, if someone presents data and claims a correlation between the numbers, the initial onus is on the person claiming the connection to present both a theoretical explanation and a statistically significant analysis showing correlation. He has done neither.

Tom

03-19-2015, 10:15 PM

But clocker, he HAS shown us a strong correlation with those numbers. Very strong. Just not the one he was trying to show us. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The government depends on people like him.

Clocker

03-19-2015, 10:27 PM

Now I have shown you that an increase in the minimum wage has a positive effect on teenage employment and you say....what?????????

I'd say that this is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard about economics. :D

Did you even think about what you just said? If true, then if we raise the minimum wage high enough, we can totally wipe out unemployment. And if McD's raises the price of hamburgers to pay for the higher wages, then they will obviously sell more hamburgers.

I'd suggest that you contact Paul Krugman with these revolutionary economic discoveries. I'm sure he will be thrilled to discuss them.

iceknight

03-19-2015, 10:30 PM

No, in economic analysis, if someone presents data and claims a correlation between the numbers, the initial onus is on the person claiming the connection to present both a theoretical explanation and a statistically significant analysis showing correlation. He has done neither.Fair enough. I agree with the bolded part. But this (bolded part) is different from asking another correlation, isnt it?

Clocker

03-19-2015, 10:30 PM

But clocker, he HAS shown us a strong correlation with those numbers. Very strong. Just not the one he was trying to show us. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .

It's settled science. If wages go up this year, and employment is higher next year, then obviously the increase in wages caused the increase in employment.

And if car prices go up this year, and car sales go up next year, obviously the price increase caused the sales increase. Wait until Toyota figures this one out. :p

Clocker

03-19-2015, 10:37 PM

Fair enough. I agree with the bolded part. But this (bolded part) is different from asking another correlation, isnt it?

Yes it is. If the original claim was substantiated, than anyone challenging it would have the burden of proof. I think the request here was more in the nature of suggesting other possible explanations for two things happening together, with no evidence of causation. But that was an unsubstantiated assumption on my part, and we already have enough of those flying around. :rolleyes:

mostpost

03-20-2015, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by mostpost
This is in answer to the theory that an increase in the minimum wage is counter productive because the increased wage will be offset by higher prices.
The first set of numbers is the date the minimum wage was increased.
The second number is the percentage of the increase.
The third number is the percentage increase of the CPI from that month to the same month one year later.

1-25-50/87.5%/8.0%
3-1-56/33.3%/2.9%
9-3-61/15%/0.6%
9-3-63/8..6%/1.3%
2-1-67/12.0%/3.9%
2-1-68/14.3%/2.8%
5-1-74/25%/9.5%
1-1-75/5.0%/6.7%
1-1-76/9.5%/5.2%
1-1-78/15.2%/9.3%
1-1-79/9.4%/13.9%
1-1-80/6.9%/11.8%
1-1-81/8.0%/8.4%
4-1-90/13.4%/5.6%
4-1-91/11.8%/2.6%
10-1-96/11.8%/2.9%
10-1-97/8.4%/1.6%
7-24-07/13.6%/5.6%
7-24-08/11.9%/(the CPI dropped during this period.)
7-24-09/10.7%/1.2%

Of all those increases in the minimum wage, there were only four times where the % increase in the CPI was greater than the % increase in the minimum wage. (I highlighted them in red) All other times the minimum wage far exceeded the CPI.

Could you correlate that to the population of those age groups for those years in the US? I believe it as much as the claims of 1 million new jobs we get without mentioning there were 2 million new people to fill them...
I don't understand. :confused: What does my post that you quoted have to do with the question you asked? My post is about a comparison between the minimum wage and the Consumer Price Index. You're asking a question about age groups. Age groups have nothing to do with that post.

mostpost

03-20-2015, 01:12 AM

I'd say that this is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard about economics. :D
Not as long as we have statements such as the one you make below.

Did you even think about what you just said? If true, then if we raise the minimum wage high enough, we can totally wipe out unemployment. And if McD's raises the price of hamburgers to pay for the higher wages, then they will obviously sell more hamburgers.
This the most idiotic statement ever. A reasonable increase in wages increases purchasing power. No one is suggesting an infinite increase. You are setting up a straw man to knock down.

I'd suggest that you contact Paul Krugman with these revolutionary economic discoveries. I'm sure he will be thrilled to discuss them.
I think Krugman would understand what I am saying.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 01:14 AM

I don't understand. :confused:

Yes, we know. Try starting here:

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426828413&sr=1-1&keywords=sowell+basic+economics

Clocker

03-20-2015, 01:17 AM

I think Krugman would understand what I am saying.

Krugman is dense, but not even he is that dense.

mostpost

03-20-2015, 01:23 AM

It's settled science. If wages go up this year, and employment is higher next year, then obviously the increase in wages caused the increase in employment.

And if car prices go up this year, and car sales go up next year, obviously the price increase caused the sales increase. Wait until Toyota figures this one out. :p
False equivalency. Wages are money coming in. Your problem is you think of every thing from viewpoint of the business owner. Car prices are money going out.

If wages go up, it means the consumer has more money to purchase a car. If car prices go up it means the consumer will need more money to purchase a car. Wages go up, car sales go up. Car prices go up, car sales go down.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 01:35 AM

You have to look at it from the viewpoint of the business owner, because the business owner is the one that buys labor.

Cars and labor are commodities to those that purchase them. Wages are the price of labor. MSRPs are the price of cars. You said that as wages (the price of labor) went up, the consumption of labor increased. If it works for labor, it works for cars.

mostpost

03-20-2015, 01:35 AM

Yes, we know. Try starting here:

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426828413&sr=1-1&keywords=sowell+basic+economics
If I were to read something on Basic Economics it would certainly not be anything by Thomas Sowell.

In any case, you completely misunderstood my question to Davew. Davew quoted my post comparing the % of increase in the minimum wage with the corresponding % of increase in the CPI. Then he asked me to correlate that to the population of those age groups for those years in the US? Why? What age groups? That particular post had nothing to do with age groups. It was a simple comparison of two things-Increases in the minimum wage compared to increases in the CPI.

It was designed to disprove the assertion that an increase in the minimum wage caused a corresponding or greater increase in the CPI. Clearly that is not the case.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 03:00 AM

If I were to read something on Basic Economics it would certainly not be anything by Thomas Sowell.

It is obvious that you never have read anything on basic economics, so I guess there is no point starting now.

And given that Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest minds of our time, I can well understand your intimidation in taking on any of his works.

HUSKER55

03-20-2015, 03:33 AM

the one thing I have never understood is if these people are sooo good why don't they pool their money and start their own business?

turninforhome10

03-20-2015, 08:54 AM

It is obvious that you never have read anything on basic economics, so I guess there is no point starting now.

And given that Thomas Sowell is one of the greatest minds of our time, I can well understand your intimidation in taking on any of his works.
I feel that this is also helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages

davew

03-20-2015, 09:17 AM

I don't understand. :confused: What does my post that you quoted have to do with the question you asked? My post is about a comparison between the minimum wage and the Consumer Price Index. You're asking a question about age groups. Age groups have nothing to do with that post.

classic Democratic Deflection - say you are going to answer something

OK, let's play by your rules. We will concentrate on teenagers since you claim that teenagers are most negatively affected by an increase in the minimum wage. And BLS has statistics on teenage (Age 16-19) employment going back to 1948.

A brief explanation of my methodology.
1. I googled "Historic increases in minimum wage.
2. I printed out the table which I found.
3. I went to BLS.gov and found table A-1; "Employment Situation by age and Sex"
4. I selected "16-19 year olds and selected "Historic tables"
5. I compared the number of 16-19 year old's employed in the month immediately following the imposition of a minimum wage increase with the number employed one year later. This is what I found.

Since 1950 there have been 21 increases in the minimum wage which did not coincide with a recession. 16 times the number of 16-19 year old jobs has increased. The average yearly increase-even after deducting the negative years is 144,761.

Clearly it can be shown that an increase in the minimum wage is accompanied by job growth in the teenage demographic.

And then spew stuff about something altogether different...

say, if $15 is so good, why not just make it $60 - a buck a minute, easy to calculate...

HUSKER55

03-20-2015, 12:26 PM

Bad Idea!! Look at this from the point of view of the customer. I'm on my way home from work and decide to get some fast food. I decide that I will go to your McDonalds, go through the drive thru and get a Big Mac, fries and a Coke. But, according to your post above, you have no drive thru. Wendy's has a drive thru and there is a Wendy's two blocks up the road. So I go there and you lose the business. Besides Wendy's has better hamburgers.

But let's say that I really love McDonald's and I decide to stop and go inside.
When I get inside there is no one there to help me, just a machine. And I, like a lot of people, are technologically challenged. So it takes me longer to place my order than if I were to give it to a human and maybe I get it wrong. Then I find that you don't take cash and I have to pay with a credit card. But I do not want to use my credit card for a small ticket item like a Big Mac so I leave and you lose the business. Anyway Wendy's has better hamburgers.

I think you are wildly optimistic if you think this idea will sweep the country in six months.

I have no dog in this as I always to to a white table cloth restaurant. If you can wait on your self then you have a problem. But what happens if they all do this. Remember, the first job in business is to secure a profit.

If this is such a bad idea you could capitalize on it and start your own restaurant paying $15 an hour and quit telling others how to spend their money

Tom

03-20-2015, 12:35 PM

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, whine.

classhandicapper

03-20-2015, 03:41 PM

Clocker

03-20-2015, 04:12 PM

Raising the minimum wage DOES transfer "some" income into the hands of "some" workers which gives them more purchasing power that they can then spend on products and services.

Which immediately brings up the question: where does that money come from?

The favorite lib answers are:

1. the employer was making excess profits and can afford to share them with his employees; and

2. the "additional" money now in the economy will increase demand and thus increase sales for that employer.

Anyone that has been in any management position in business knows that both those answers are totally unrealistic. Anyone that has run a small business knows that they are insane.

mostpost

03-20-2015, 05:38 PM

mostpost,

I agree with you to some extent.

Raising the minimum wage DOES transfer "some" income into the hands of "some" workers which gives them more purchasing power that they can then spend on products and services.

The problem is that's not 1 for 1 to the impacted companies.

If your theory was correct, we could simply make the minimum wage $100 an hour and eliminate poverty for everyone forever. Even you would probably admit that won't work.

Ask yourself why.

It might work something like this.

You raise the minimum wage. It costs some SPECIFIC companies that hire minimum wage workers 10K off their bottom line. It costs others nothing. That 10k gets spent back, but it's spent throughout the economy. It helps many companies a little bit. It doesn't help the impacted companies 10k worth. A little bit of extra profit to a lot of companies doesn't lead to as much hiring as a 10k loss to some specific companies. The former make a few extra dollars on a narrow margin. The latter have to close shop. So the net is that some jobs and some of that income evaporates.

Some minimum wage workers are better off.

Some companies are very slightly better off.

Some minimum wage companies and workers are totally screwed.

The net is a negative because some income and jobs evaporate.

It's a highly complex subject. It's very difficult to control for all the variables in employment so you can isolate just the impact of minimum wage and prove it. That's why people are frowning upon your data. But if you look at what real businesses do in response, you'll see the flaw in your thinking.
On Jan. 1, 2016 the minimum wage in Seattle will go up fifty cents an hour. That means that any full time worker earning minimum wage will have $1040 more in his pocket at the end of the year. How can that not result in more money being spent. The people involved here are not going to put that money in the bank. They are going to buy things for their family that they were unable to buy previously; necessary things.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 (over a period of time) is good. Raising it to $100 is obviously not good. Your claim that anyone thinks it is a good idea is foolish-or dishonest. But, because you should not raise the minimum to $110 an hour, is not a reason to forego raising it to $15 an hour.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 05:44 PM

mostpost

03-20-2015, 05:50 PM

Raising the minimum wage DOES transfer "some" income into the hands of "some" workers which gives them more purchasing power that they can then spend on products and services.

The problem is that's not 1 for 1 to the impacted companies.
I don't know what the ratio is for your so-called-impacted companies and it doesn't really matter. I am looking at this from the standpoint of society as a whole. Perhaps some companies will fail. They will fail because they were not managed in a way to sustain them. Their employees will lose their jobs but they will be picked up by the well managed companies.

The question is, "Overall does the money gained by raising the minimum wage exceed or at least equal the rise in the cost of living. If you look at my #93, you will see that it does by a wide margin.

mostpost

03-20-2015, 05:55 PM

Which immediately brings up the question: where does that money come from?

The favorite lib answers are:

1. the employer was making excess profits and can afford to share them with his employees; and
Too stupid to deserve a response.

2. the "additional" money now in the economy will increase demand and thus increase sales for that employer.
Maybe it doesn't increase demand, but it does change latent demand into active demand; and that does increase sales.

Anyone that has been in any management position in business knows that both those answers are totally unrealistic. Anyone that has run a small business knows that they are insane.
Anyone with a brain knows that no one is going to buy anything if they don't have the money. No matter how much supply you have in your warehouse.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 06:01 PM

Anyone with a brain knows that no one is going to buy anything if they don't have the money. No matter how much supply you have in your warehouse.

Where does the money come from?

mostpost

03-20-2015, 06:15 PM

He will if he still has a job.

Whose pocket does that money come out of?
Raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. There are more than sixty studies that prove that.

Clocker

03-20-2015, 06:29 PM

Raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss. There are more than sixty studies that prove that.

From the Congressional Budget Office:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44995-land-table1b.png

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

Clocker

03-20-2015, 06:46 PM

The favorite lib answers are:

1. the employer was making excess profits and can afford to share them with his employees; and
Too stupid to deserve a response.

You yourself have stated more than once on this forum that any such increases in costs would be at least partially absorbed by the employer.

You yourself have stated more than once on this forum that employers are not giving employees a share of any increase in profits due to increased productivity.

HUSKER55

03-20-2015, 10:44 PM

As robots replace workers, and they will, then these people will have to find jobs or become responsible for themselves in their own endevors.

Tom

03-21-2015, 10:39 AM

You seem to be afraid to answer the question....where does the money come from?

Someone loses it. Who?

HUSKER55

03-21-2015, 11:14 AM

the evil entraupeneur who had the balls to back is plan.

some whinny ass sittting on the side said "I can do that better" and along comes democrats, libereals and unions to take the company away because he squatted to piss.

God Bless Robots! Ask Lego how that worked out for him.

Clocker

03-21-2015, 11:47 AM

You seem to be afraid to answer the question....where does the money come from?

And unable to deal with the reality that whoever the money comes from now has less to spend on products and services. Which is to say that an increase in the minimum wage is a government mandated redistribution of wealth, based on the government's idea of what is "fair".

davew

03-21-2015, 12:28 PM

You seem to be afraid to answer the question....where does the money come from?

Someone loses it. Who?

You do not understand the Democrat/Socialist/Communist model, which through decisions that are best for the future ends up 'making' money for everyone.

GaryG

03-21-2015, 12:31 PM

AndyC

03-21-2015, 02:47 PM

mostpost

03-21-2015, 02:54 PM

You seem to be afraid to answer the question....where does the money come from?

Someone loses it. Who?
The money comes from the labor of the worker.

Clocker

03-21-2015, 03:02 PM

The money comes from the labor of the worker.

So your argument here is the one liberals were accused of using, and which you rejected as too stupid to respond to:

the employer was making excess profits and can afford to share them with his employees

Because if you argue that the money comes from the labor of the worker, then the worker is not being paid fairly for his labor now and the employer can afford to pay him more.

Tom

03-21-2015, 03:47 PM

An employer is under no moral obligation to share increased profits with workers. Capitalists are in business for only one reason, to make money. They are the ones with the foresight to establish the business and who are taking all of the risks. Employees agree to work for a certain salary and that is it. A bonus at Christmas would be a good idea after a good year, but not wholesale raises.

Good point.
Employees sell their services.
Should the owners pay more for hamburger or buns because they make a profit? Work from unskilled labor is no different than ketchup or napkins.
If you want to make a living wage, provide a living contribution for it.

Most people are not worth $10 an hour, half not worth $5. 25% should be in prison.

Tom

03-21-2015, 03:50 PM

Too stupid to deserve a response.

You mean too stupid to provide one, don't you? :lol::lol::lol:

davew

03-21-2015, 03:51 PM

The money comes from the labor of the worker.

Why does the worker need to have a 'crappy employer' if they can make their own money from their own labor?

Tom

03-21-2015, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by mostpost
The money comes from the labor of the worker.

You and reality have never meet, have you?

horses4courses

03-21-2015, 09:28 PM

and their flock swallow it.....hook, line, and sinker.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAqgk_-UYAAE3U6.jpg

JustRalph

03-22-2015, 12:45 AM

Wholesale fools abound

HUSKER55

03-22-2015, 04:27 AM

if the middle class provides jobs then why is your mouth moving. The middle class provides no jobs. Only those with money can provide jobs. GE decided to build a plant in Venzuela to build rairoad units and they showed a 6% profit for the stockholders. those are permanent jobs that left the USA so the poor guy could show a profit,ie, us stockholders.

Higher minimum wage will only help landlords collect more rent. Any sap that thinks otherwise has a problem.

Tom

03-23-2015, 08:43 PM

GE - HUGE Obama supporter.

Tom

03-23-2015, 08:45 PM

Wholesale fools abound

And he must be their KING!
Even he can't believe the moronic crap he posts here.
Nobody could be that gullible.

classhandicapper

03-24-2015, 01:32 PM

On Jan. 1, 2016 the minimum wage in Seattle will go up fifty cents an hour. That means that any full time worker earning minimum wage will have $1040 more in his pocket at the end of the year. How can that not result in more money being spent. The people involved here are not going to put that money in the bank. They are going to buy things for their family that they were unable to buy previously; necessary things.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 (over a period of time) is good. Raising it to $100 is obviously not good. Your claim that anyone thinks it is a good idea is foolish-or dishonest. But, because you should not raise the minimum to $110 an hour, is not a reason to forego raising it to $15 an hour.

You are still missing the point.

The $1040 that goes into the hands of workers COMES FROM SOME VERY SPECIFIC COMPANIES THAT HIRE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS (like restaurants).

The $1040 that those workers spend gets spread across the entire economy. They don't just spend it back at restaurants.

If that makes sense, next.

If 100 small businesses (restaurants) lose 20K each (2 million) because of higher wages, that's a big deal and leads to layoffs.

If 10,000 other business gain $200 each (2m), it's nothing, and leads to little hiring.

The net is fewer jobs and not as extra much income to workers as you think.

On your other point, I did not say anyone claimed that raising it to $100 was
a good idea. I said if you can agree that $100 would not work (and you seem to), then obviously your model of thinking is flawed. I've been trying to elaborate on why.

mostpost

03-24-2015, 01:53 PM

Wholesale fools abound
They do, and you are one of them.

Tom

03-24-2015, 09:31 PM

Whatever your head is made of, we need to enclose those flight data recorders.
Not a damn thing on earth can penetrate it.

JustRalph

03-24-2015, 11:22 PM

They do, and you are one of them.

Yes, I'm the fool ......

HUSKER55

03-25-2015, 12:23 PM

has anyone ever noticed that those who have no balls and no pot to piss in and no window to throw it out of, always seem to know how to handle the money of those who do?

and yet.....they won't get off their asses.....

mostpost

03-25-2015, 07:23 PM

You are still missing the point.

The $1040 that goes into the hands of workers COMES FROM SOME VERY SPECIFIC COMPANIES THAT HIRE MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS (like restaurants). Restaurants employ more minimum wage workers than any other industry, but they are far from the only such employer.

The $1040 that those workers spend gets spread across the entire economy. They don't just spend it back at restaurants.
No, but the extra money earned by minimum wage earners in other industries is not just spent in those industries. It is also spent in restauarants.

If that makes sense, next.

If 100 small businesses (restaurants) lose 20K each (2 million) because of higher wages, that's a big deal and leads to layoffs
20K? That figure is meaningless. You simply don't know how much an increase in the minimum wage is going to affect a company.

In Seattle, the minimum wage will go from $10.00 an hour to $10.50 an hour on Jan. 1, 2016. That is an increase of 5%. 5% of labor costs. Not 5% of materials cost. Not 5% of operating costs. (by operating costs I mean things like electricity, heat etc.) Just 5% of one aspect of total costs. Unless all of your employees are minimum wage it is not even 5% of your labor costs.

But how do you recoup those extra costs? You raise your prices by 5%. A ten dollar meal now costs $10.50. A fifteen dollar meal now costs $15.75.
A six dollar banana split is $6.30. Very few people will even notice. Those who do will pay the few cents extra as long as the quality of the food and the ambiance remain what they have come to expect.

classhandicapper

03-25-2015, 07:37 PM

20K? That figure is meaningless. You simply don't know how much an increase in the minimum wage is going to affect a company.

In Seattle, the minimum wage will go from $10.00 an hour to $10.50 an hour on Jan. 1, 2016. That is an increase of 5%. 5% of labor costs. Not 5% of materials cost. Not 5% of operating costs. (by operating costs I mean things like electricity, heat etc.) Just 5% of one aspect of total costs. Unless all of your employees are minimum wage it is not even 5% of your labor costs.

But how do you recoup those extra costs? You raise your prices by 5%. A ten dollar meal now costs $10.50. A fifteen dollar meal now costs $15.75.
A six dollar banana split is $6.30. Very few people will even notice. Those who do will pay the few cents extra as long as the quality of the food and the ambiance remain what they have come to expect.

Forget it, you still don't understand the point. The actual dollar figures I used were meaningless. I was illustrating a point.

The point is that increased salaries for minimum wages HIT SOME COMPANIES HARD but don't hit others at all.

The increased spending from higher wages does not go back dollar for dollar to the companies that were hit hard. It gets spread around. That is important.

If companies raise prices, it takes wages out of the system because people are spending more for the same thing and have less left to buy other things as a result (net negative).

There's no escaping the fact that the net effect is that some workers are better off, some lose their job, and overall it's a net negative.

Clocker

03-25-2015, 07:51 PM

The increased spending from higher wages does not go back dollar for dollar to the companies that were hit hard. It gets spread around. That is important.

There is no increased real spending from higher wages. The money for the higher wages has to come from somewhere. As he just admitted in the previous post, it comes from higher prices. There are no more burgers being consumed, they just cost more. And they cost more for the people that just got an increase in wages.

In the past, his position was that prices would not increase, the money would come from increased demand or be absorbed by the employer.

mostpost

03-25-2015, 08:33 PM

http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/sites/default/files/BFMW_ASBC_Minimum_Wage_Business_Poll_Report_July_2 014.pdf
61% if small business owners favor raising the minimum wage to $10.10/hour over the next three years, then adjusting it annually to keep pace with the cost of living. Why?
1. raising the minimum wage would increase consumer purchasing power in the economy.
2. raising the minimum wage would help the economy.
3. with a higher minimum wage, businesses would benefit from lower employee turnover and increased productivity and customer satisfaction.

Those are not my reasons. Those are reasons given by respondents to the poll-small businessmen.
Someone is sure to respond to this poll by saying, "If those businessmen want to pay their employees more, why don't they just do so? Why do we have to get the government involved?"

This is exactly why these businessmen favor a minimum wage. So that they can pay their employees what they (and the employees) consider to be a fair wage, without worrying about a competitor underselling them because that competitor is paying substandard wages.

tucker6

03-25-2015, 08:38 PM

Someone is sure to respond to this poll by saying, "If those businessmen want to pay their employees more, why don't they just do so? Why do we have to get the government involved?"

This is exactly why these businessmen favor a minimum wage. So that they can pay their employees what they (and the employees) consider to be a fair wage, without worrying about a competitor underselling them because that competitor is paying substandard wages.
I hope those small business owners realize that big box store companies use global labor. Note the extinction of mom and pops for that very reason.

mostpost

03-25-2015, 08:49 PM

There is no increased real spending from higher wages. The money for the higher wages has to come from somewhere. As he just admitted in the previous post, it comes from higher prices. There are no more burgers being consumed, they just cost more. And they cost more for the people that just got an increase in wages.

In the past, his position was that prices would not increase, the money would come from increased demand or be absorbed by the employer.
You are misinterpreting my position. Any of the three is possible. All of the three are probable. My point in my reply to classhandicapper was that an increase in price would not necessarily cause a drop in sales. In fact, an increase in sales is much more likely.

Here are some annual sales figures for restaurants in the United States
1970---$42.8 Billion
1980---$119.6 billion
1990---$239.4 Billion
2000---$378.0 Billion
2010---$586.7 Billion
2015---$729.2 Billlion
Over that same period we raised the minimum wage at least fifteen times. It does not seem that raising the minimum wage has had a particularly negative effect.

Clocker

03-25-2015, 08:50 PM

Someone is sure to respond to this poll by saying, "If those businessmen want to pay their employees more, why don't they just do so? Why do we have to get the government involved?"

Because they are already paying more than minimum wage (i.e., union shops) and are in competition with companies that use cheap labor? Because they want to force up the cost of production for the competition? Because they want to keep start-ups with cheap labor from entering their market?

Clocker

03-25-2015, 09:00 PM

an increase in price would not necessarily cause a drop in sales. In fact, an increase in sales is much more likely.

Hundreds of years of universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory refuted in a single post. :D

tucker6

03-25-2015, 09:22 PM

Hundreds of years of universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory refuted in a single post. :D
The stupid, it hurts. :D

Clocker

03-25-2015, 10:04 PM

mostpost

03-25-2015, 11:55 PM

Hundreds of years of universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory refuted in a single post. :D
Yes, I confused increase in wages with increase in price. What I do not think is that an increase in the minimum wage has to accompanied by an increase in prices. There are other ways to offset that increase, such as an increase in sales and other economies like lower turnover and training costs.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory. There are conflicting schools of thought on almost every economic issue. When you say universally accepted you mean the theories you agree with.

Clocker

03-26-2015, 12:07 AM

Anyway, there is no such thing as a universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory. There are conflicting schools of thought on almost every economic issue. When you say universally accepted you mean the theories you agree with.

It is a nearly universally accepted economic principle that there is an inverse relation between price and quantity demanded. The exception being you.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 12:35 AM

The poll purporting to show that small businesses support an increase in the minimum wage is suspect because the results are counter-intuitive, the results are contrary to main stream economic theory, the methodology of the poll is not discussed in any detail, and all parties to the poll (the pollster and the sponsors) are clearly and openly biased.

Just for laughs, let's start with the pollster, Lake Research Partners. From their web site:

Quote:
LRP works with leading voices in the progressive movement. We take pride in providing individual attention and strategy to every candidate we work for. From the U.S. Senate to City Hall and everywhere in between, we work side by side with our clients on developing communications and paid media, targeting supporters, and honing the messages that win persuadable voters. We use a full range of research tools, from surveys and focus groups to online town halls and ad testing to propel our clients to victory on Election Day.

Their aim is not to discover information, it is to discover how to sway opinion. More:

Quote:
We are national experts on unions and labor issues. LRP shares the goals of the labor movement and is committed to improving the lives of working people. Our in-depth message research has helped unions successfully advocate on issues including the minimum wage, the right to organize, retirement security and health care. Our research experience includes working with the AFL-CIO, UFCW, SEIU, NEA, AFSCME, CWA, UAW, and AFT.

Again, they are not looking for opinions, they are looking for ways to influence opinions. More:

Quote:
LRP is a leading public opinion and political strategy research firm providing expert research-based strategy for campaigns, issue advocacy groups, foundations, unions, and non-profit organizations.

In their own words, they are not pollsters, they are political strategy consultants.
If a pollster were to say that he works exclusively with conservative groups, you would have no problem accepting their results. If such a pollster said he had conducted a survey and found that 98% of small business owners rejected the idea of an increase in the minimum wage, you would never question that survey.

You have no reason, except for your unabashed bias, to claim the survey was falsified.

Methodology
Results for this scientific poll are based on a nationwide live telephone survey of 555 owners of for-profit small
businesses in the U.S. with 2 to 99 employees, conducted by Lake Research Partners, June 4-10, 2014. The data were
weighted slightly by gender, region, party identification, ethnicity and business size to match the sample of small
business owners to the national population of small business owners. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.2%.
That is the methodology you said does not exist.

Also, 43% of the owners surveyed were Republican, while only 28% were Democrats. Despite this 61% favored an increase.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 12:48 AM

It is a nearly universally accepted economic principle that there is an inverse relation between price and quantity demanded. The exception being you.
Purchasing power has nothing to do with it? If purchasing power i.e. wages increase more than the price of an object then, according to your theory, the demand will increase. Demand increases; sales go up.

This is as good a place as any to mention this. This thread was originally about how raising the minimum wage in Seattle was causing restaurants to shut their doors. Several specific examples were given. It was quickly proven that not one of those restaurants was closing because of the minimum wage. Naturally the cons deflected the issue.

Clocker

03-26-2015, 02:16 AM

Purchasing power has nothing to do with it? If purchasing power i.e. wages increase more than the price of an object then, according to your theory, the demand will increase. Demand increases; sales go up.

There is nothing to indicate that aggregate purchasing power has increased here. The question remains, where does the money come from. Even if there is no general increase in prices, if minimum wage earners have more purchasing power, employers and/or customers have less.

Clocker

03-26-2015, 02:29 AM

If a pollster were to say that he works exclusively with conservative groups, you would have no problem accepting their results.

You are trying to read minds again, an area where you have demonstrated a serious lack of reading comprehension.

I give no credibility to any "pollster" that labels himself as affiliated with a party or view. The notion of talking heads on TV identified as Democratic or Republican pollsters is nuts. Those people are political consultants, not pollsters. As is the group that did this "poll".

That is the methodology you said does not exist.

Nonsense. It says nothing about the population of the sample, how the population was sampled, or other details about how the results were weighted.

Also, 43% of the owners surveyed were Republican, while only 28% were Democrats. Despite this 61% favored an increase.

More nonsense. I can't believe that such a high percentage of business owners were Democrats.

Clocker

03-26-2015, 10:30 AM

The poll is meaningless because it does not provide two essential pieces of information. Of the 61% in favor of an increase in the minimum wage, how many would see their own payroll expenses increase, and how many would see their competition but not themselves adversely affected.

It's easy to advocate how others should run their businesses.

davew

03-26-2015, 10:53 AM

Sen Murray from WA thinks this is so good, she is pushing for $12 national minimum wage

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/03/23/murray-democrats-move-toward-proposing-12-an-hour-minimum-wage/

This is a nice start, but why think so small - $60 / hr makes it so easy to calculate, only $1/ minute....

reckless

03-26-2015, 11:16 AM

One side says that an increase in the minimum wage is a benefit that increases wages and income. They add that this event will thrust the economy forward when these minimum wage earners will spend and spend increasing the country's GDP.

The other side says that an increase in the minimum wage is not a benefit and it is a reason why companies either lay off workers or even go out of business because of the higher labor costs.

Hmmm.... let's say for a second that both arguments have an some element of truth.

If the minimum wage is increased 10-20 per cent or even higher, let's say that this increase helps 25 per cent of the work force. Now, these workers will earn an alleged 'livable wage,' so says liberal advocates.

Yet, what if this mandatory wage increases hurts 25 per cent of the work force when workers lose their jobs or when companies go out of business.

What 'benefit' is now best for the country or to individual small businesses in question?

Is it the 25 per cent of the work force with a fatter paycheck, or is it the 25 per cent of the work force that lose their jobs?

tucker6

03-26-2015, 11:26 AM

It is unproven and likely incorrect to assume that higher wages equals higher productivity of the worker, especially since most studies indicate that worker productivity is NOT tied to wages, but to technology and more altruistic needs such as customer service, team camaraderie, and helping people.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 01:03 PM

Also, 43% of the owners surveyed were Republican, while only 28% were Democrats. Despite this 61% favored an increase.

More nonsense. I can't believe that such a high percentage of business owners were Democrats.
You never believe anything that challenges your stilted world view.
http://nsba.biz/docs/Politics-Survey-2014.pdf
That is a link to a survey conducted by the National Small Business Administration. It does not address minimum wage. It does say that 39% of small business owners are Republican; 22% are Democrats and 29% are independent. While the percentages of Republicans and Democrats are lower than in the other survey, the proportions are not that much different,

As I pointed out, the survey does not directly address the topic of minimum wage, but it does ask the following;
IF YOU HAVE CONTACTED YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ON A SMALL-BUSINESS ISSUE, WHAT
WERE THE ISSUES? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
These were the responses.
Tax Reform 40% 45% 23%
Controlling Costs of Health Care 39% 44% 27%
A local issue 35% 34% 36%
Regulatory Reform 28% 29% 19%
Small-Business Contracting 26% 25% 31%
Deficit Reduction and Entitlement Reform 22% 26% 10%
Immigration Reform 16% 17% 16%
Other 16% 11% 22%
Improving Access to Capital 12% 9% 14%
Fair Labor/Union issues 11% 14% 10%
Tort reform/medical malpractice reform 11% 14% 4%
A casework issue involving my business 11% 10% 11%
SBA Lending Programs 10% 8% 14%
Exporting/Free Trade issues 9% 11% 9%
Energy efficiency for small business 7% 5% 13%
SBA Office of Advocacy 7% 6% 8%
SBIR Reauthorization 7% 3% 12%
White House Conference on Small Business 5% 4% 7%

Do you notice which issue is not there? The NSBA-a small business advocacy group-does not consider minimum wage an important enough issue to include it in a survey of its members. The members do not consider it enough of a problem to contact their representative about.

classhandicapper

03-26-2015, 01:09 PM

Hundreds of years of universally accepted nonpartisan economic theory refuted in a single post. :D

Even the CBO agrees on this.

The only real debates are:

1. How much of a "net negative" is it?

2. Is it a good tradeoff to help many minimum wages workers who will get raises at a severe cost to some others who will lose jobs (and all the rest of us that have to pay higher prices).

Thebart

03-26-2015, 01:27 PM

mostpost

03-26-2015, 02:06 PM

Before I jump to conclusions, I take a look at an alternative viewpoint such as this Seattle Times report (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/truth-needle-is-15-wage-dooming-seattle-restaurants-owners-say-no/)
Basically what your alternative viewpoint says is that conservatives are full of crap. Hope you don't mind if I quote a few of the comments from the article.

Renee Erickson is closing Boat Street Cafe, her first restaurant, but she runs three others and is in the process of opening two more. Asked in an email about the closure being associated with $15, she replied: “That’s weird, ha. No, that’s not why I’m closing Boat Street. Would have said so.”

Erickson continued, “I’m totally on board with the $15 min. It’s the right thing to do … Opening more businesses would not be smart if I felt it was going to hinder my success.”

Here is what the owners of Little Uncle said about the closing of their restaurant;
We were never interviewed for these articles and we did not close our … location due to the new minimum wage,” Kounpungchart and Frank said in an email. “We do not know what our colleagues are doing to prepare themselves for the onset of the new law, but pre-emptively closing a restaurant seven years before the full effect of the law takes place seems preposterous to us.”
They also sent a letter to the author of the Washington Policy Center post, telling him to keep his politics out of their business.

Shanik proprietor Meeru Dhalwala, who is also mentioned by Seattle Magazine, said in a Facebook message, “My closure is strictly due to location — nothing to do with wages.”

Finally,
Sharon Fillingim, the owner of Grub, the final restaurant referenced, said on Facebook that Grub was “a huge success.” In fact, the restaurant was sold and is reopening imminently under new ownership as Bounty Kitchen.

Finally-yes another finally-the article points out that the number of restaurant closings in Seattle is similar to the number in previous years and more restaurants are opening than closed.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 02:20 PM

What 'benefit' is now best for the country or to individual small businesses in question?

Is it the 25 per cent of the work force with a fatter paycheck, or is it the 25 per cent of the work force that lose their jobs?
It is neither. Your numbers are way off. Minimum wage earners are about 5% of the work force. If 25% of the work force lost their jobs every time we had a minimum wage increase, the country would be in a permanent Great Depression. The fact is that dozens of studies-over sixty-have established that an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment.

A lot of you folks keep referencing a CBO report which predicts a loss of 500,000 jobs if the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 over the next three years. That is a prediction. The studies I am talking about looked at what actually happened after the minimum wage was raised.

tucker6

03-26-2015, 02:46 PM

Finally,
Sharon Fillingim, the owner of Grub, the final restaurant referenced, said on Facebook that Grub was “a huge success.” In fact, the restaurant was sold and is reopening imminently under new ownership as Bounty Kitchen.

So Sharon the owner says she found the everlasting money tree at Grub, but decided she was unworthy of such 'huge success', and so sold to someone else who promptly renamed it to diminish its goodwill. Got it.

... and I'm supposed to believe anything else she might say??

tucker6

03-26-2015, 02:49 PM

A lot of you folks keep referencing a CBO report which predicts a loss of 500,000 jobs if the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 over the next three years. That is a prediction. The studies I am talking about looked at what actually happened after the minimum wage was raised.
Interesting. When the CBO 'predicted' a net gain for Obamacare in the beginning and we laughed at the numbers, weren't you the one who asked us to stop hating and get with the program?

Clocker

03-26-2015, 03:20 PM

You never believe anything that challenges your stilted world view.

That was a joke about Democrats not running businesses. Sorry, I forgot liberals don't have a sense of humor. That's why there is such a heavy use of these :lol: :lol: :lol: by libs, to pretend they do understand humor.

I will be more "liberal" with my use of smilies in the future in deference to the humorously disadvantaged. :p :cool: ;) :D

Clocker

03-26-2015, 03:25 PM

The studies I am talking about looked at what actually happened after the minimum wage was raised.

You have posted raw data that usually shows an increase in minimum wage in one year is followed by little or no increase in CPI the next year. I have tried many times to explain the statistical and econometric flaws in your claims, to no avail. I won't try again. The data you post is worse than meaningless, it is dangerous, should anyone ever believe you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Tom

03-26-2015, 03:25 PM

Conservative :):)
Rich conservative :lol::lol::lol:
Liberal :mad:
47 percenter :p

Clocker

03-26-2015, 03:33 PM

A lot of you folks keep referencing a CBO report which predicts a loss of 500,000 jobs if the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 over the next three years. That is a prediction.

CBO predictions are based on statistical models of the historic causal relation between variables. If they are predicting that an increase in minimum wages will result in a decrease in jobs, it is because they have found a statistically significant correlation between wages and jobs in the historical data.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 05:52 PM

Interesting. When the CBO 'predicted' a net gain for Obamacare in the beginning and we laughed at the numbers, weren't you the one who asked us to stop hating and get with the program?
With Obamacare we had no history to look back at. CBO predictions were all we had and as it turns out they were pretty good.
For minimum wage. we have almost eighty years if history. We have studies based on that history. And we have a CBO study based on what if that contradicts those studies. A prediction of what is going to happen compared to the facts of what did happen.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 05:56 PM

That was a joke about Democrats not running businesses. Sorry, I forgot liberals don't have a sense of humor. That's why there is such a heavy use of these :lol: :lol: :lol: by libs, to pretend they do understand humor.

I will be more "liberal" with my use of smilies in the future in deference to the humorously disadvantaged. :p :cool: ;) :D
You don't make jokes. It always goes over your head when one of us libs makes a joke. So don't pretend you were making a joke. And if you were, it was a really crummy joke.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 06:04 PM

So Sharon the owner says she found the everlasting money tree at Grub, but decided she was unworthy of such 'huge success', and so sold to someone else who promptly renamed it to diminish its goodwill. Got it.

... and I'm supposed to believe anything else she might say??
She owns two or three other restaurants and is opening two more. She sold Grub so she can concentrate on her other properties. As for renaming the restaurant, maybe that was part of the deal. Or maybe the new owner wanted his own identity to be associated with his restaurant. It's not like he was buying a McDonalds.

In any case, if Sharon the owner was closing her restaurant because of the increase in the minimum wage, why wouldn't she just say so? Why go out of her way to deny it?

Clocker

03-26-2015, 06:13 PM

For minimum wage. we have almost eighty years if history. We have studies based on that history. And we have a CBO study based on what if that contradicts those studies. A prediction of what is going to happen compared to the facts of what did happen.

OMG!!! :eek:

There isn't a minute to lose. You need to get to Washington ASAP and inform the CBO that they are doing it all wrong!

Obama will probably give you a major award for your service to the country.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 06:35 PM

You have posted raw data that usually shows an increase in minimum wage in one year is followed by little or no increase in CPI the next year. I have tried many times to explain the statistical and econometric flaws in your claims, to no avail. I won't try again. The data you post is worse than meaningless, it is dangerous, should anyone ever believe you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I did not post that data to claim that there is a one to one connection between the minimum wage and the CPI. I understand that there are many factors that make up the CPI. Just as I never claimed that raising the minimum wage, in and of itself, causes unemployment to drop.

Here is why I posted that data.

You cons are constantly telling us that raising the minimum wage is useless because the increase in wages is offset by the increase in prices. My data, which you can find in post #93, shows something quite different. With few exceptions we see that the amount the minimum wage was increased was much greater than the increase in the cost of living.

Here are some recent examples.
On April 1, 1990 we raised the Minimum wage 13.4%. One year later the CPI was up 5.6%. Put another way the increase in the CPI was only 42% of the increase in wages.

I'm not going to waste my time going through all the calculations, except to list the % of CPI increase to minimum wage increase for the last six increases.
4/1/91 22%
10/1/96 24%
10/1/97 19%
7/24/07 41%
7/24/08 -16%*
7/24/09 11%

* not sure I did this one right as the CPI declined over this period.

OntheRail

03-26-2015, 06:37 PM

She owns two or three other restaurants and is opening two more. She sold Grub so she can concentrate on her other properties. As for renaming the restaurant, maybe that was part of the deal. Or maybe the new owner wanted his own identity to be associated with his restaurant. It's not like he was buying a McDonalds.

In any case, if Sharon the owner was closing her restaurant because of the increase in the minimum wage, why wouldn't she just say so? Why go out of her way to deny it?

Cause she has two more ventures to dump... and does not want to poison the pool of potential sucks... I mean buyers. ;)

Clocker

03-26-2015, 07:00 PM

My data, which you can find in post #93, shows something quite different.

Your data shows nothing, and can show nothing as presented. Your attempt to show meaning shows a complete lack of understanding of statistical analysis or econometric modeling.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the CBO knows a lot more about this stuff than even you.

tucker6

03-26-2015, 08:44 PM

She owns two or three other restaurants and is opening two more. She sold Grub so she can concentrate on her other properties. As for renaming the restaurant, maybe that was part of the deal. Or maybe the new owner wanted his own identity to be associated with his restaurant. It's not like he was buying a McDonalds.

The difference between you and me is that you read about these things and I live it. But go on letting us know how smart you are about buying and selling restaurants. :rolleyes:

mostpost

03-26-2015, 10:35 PM

Cause she has two more ventures to dump... and does not want to poison the pool of potential sucks... I mean buyers. ;)
She is opening two new restaurants. She has no intention of selling anymore. Read the article. You do not have a right to make things up just to help your case.

mostpost

03-26-2015, 10:41 PM

Your data shows nothing, and can show nothing as presented. Your attempt to show meaning shows a complete lack of understanding of statistical analysis or econometric modeling.

I know this will come as a shock to you, but the CBO knows a lot more about this stuff than even you.
You really are an arrogant jerk. An arrogant jerk that I am putting on ignore.

JustRalph

03-26-2015, 10:46 PM

Cause she has two more ventures to dump... and does not want to poison the pool of potential sucks... I mean buyers. ;)

Very very possible.......

OntheRail

03-26-2015, 11:06 PM

She is opening two new restaurants. She has no intention of selling anymore.
Oh yes the all seeing PA Oracle can see what's in the heart and mind of all and knows what one meant to say.. and should of meant when read. :rolleyes:

You do not have a right to make things up just to help your case. Oh PA Oracle I forgot that is your domain. Pardon me.

On the other hand... take a long walk on a short pier. :lol:

I have every right to call it as I see it. ;)

Clocker

03-26-2015, 11:15 PM

Oh yes the all seeing PA Oracle can see what's in the heart and mind of all and knows what one meant to say.. and should of meant when read. :rolleyes:

Jealousy is an ugly thing. The man can read minds and you can't. Deal with it. :p

Clocker

03-26-2015, 11:39 PM

You really are an arrogant jerk. An arrogant jerk that I am putting on ignore.

This from a guy that has regularly and repeatedly called me stupid, greedy, and a liar. Especially liar. Often.

I have never responded in kind. I have never called him names (other than a liberal) or questioned that he honestly believed what he was saying. But I have objectively documented his extreme economic illiteracy, and that makes me the bad guy. :D

And if I might add,

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing025.gif

We will see how long this "ignore" lasts. Promises, promises. :p

reckless

03-27-2015, 07:45 AM

It is neither. Your numbers are way off. Minimum wage earners are about 5% of the work force. If 25% of the work force lost their jobs every time we had a minimum wage increase, the country would be in a permanent Great Depression. ...

The numbers I used aren't wrong, as you read, because I made up the numbers -- it was a hypothetical example.

Again I ask you -- and please note again that I am using the numbers below simply to make a point. What scenario is best for the economy and country?:

the 70 per cent of minimum wage earners that get a raise with the increase, or the 30 per cent of minimum wage earners that lose their jobs because of the minimum wage increase?

Mostpost, if you choose to answer this, I beg you, please, stay away from any wonky policy link or quote from some agency apparatchik. They don't live in the real world.

Also note, as a public service to the PA readership :) ... I purposely skewered my hypothetical numbers to be more favorably weighted toward those that just might 'benefit' from a minimum wage increase.

Thebart

03-27-2015, 12:19 PM

To be specific Conservatives are generally "full of crap." Yes, this is my view and yes it is true.

PaceAdvantage

03-27-2015, 01:44 PM

You really are an arrogant jerk. An arrogant jerk that I am putting on ignore.That's funny...coming from someone with a posting history such as yours over recent years.

PaceAdvantage

03-27-2015, 01:45 PM

To be specific Conservatives are generally "full of crap." Yes, this is my view and yes it is true.As opposed to what group of "not full of crap?"

Liberals? :lol: :lol: :lol:

classhandicapper

03-27-2015, 02:46 PM

Mosty,

There is probably little to no correlation between the minimum wage and inflation because the price increases will generally ONLY IMPACT THE BUSINESSES THAT EMPLOY MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS. That's a fraction of a percent of all business.

Even there, it won't impact OVERALL prices dramatically because some businesses may choose to lay workers off, reduce worker's hours, or simply close shop depending in circumstances. Furthermore, if some restaurants (for example) do raise prices, that means people will have less money available to spend elsewhere (which could be is deflationary elsewhere).

The bottom line to all this nonsense is quite simple.

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

If you give some workers higher wages, it will be a positive for THEM, but there will be offsetting OR MORE negatives elsewhere and for others.

As I keep saying, if there weren't offsetting negatives that eventually swamp the increased salaries, we could just raise the minimum wage to 20, 30, 50 or 100 and wipe out poverty for good. There is a reason no one is stupid enough to suggest that. It's because THERE ARE NEGATIVES that you refuse to acknowledge.

Tom

03-27-2015, 02:52 PM

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

Especially if you raise the cost of a Happy Meal!

Clocker

03-27-2015, 03:11 PM

It's because THERE ARE NEGATIVES that you refuse to acknowledge.

Even the moonbat government in San Francisco acknowledged that before enacting a minimum wage increase eventually reaching $15/hr.

Just before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee’s public hearing on a proposed $15 minimum wage, the City and County of San Francisco’s Controller’s Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) issued an economic impact report on the proposed ballot measure. The OEA found that the proposal will increase labor costs for business discouraging job creation. According to the report, if the proposal is approved by voters, the city will have 15,270 fewer jobs in 2019 than it otherwise would, which represents nearly 2% of private-sector jobs in the city. The two largest industries that will be affected are restaurants and foodservice.

In discussion of the increase, members of the Board of Supervisors said that the job loss was acceptable given the benefit to the city of the higher wages.

How much is $15 x 0?

http://www.calrest.org/newsroom/-san-francisco-cautions-on-job-loss-from-proposed-15-minimum-wage-advances-measure

HUSKER55

03-27-2015, 07:48 PM

and again I say, if your employer is sooooooo bad then start your own damn restaurant and then YOU can pay $20 an hour to somebody who thinks you still owe him more.

Then YOU can increase his pay because he must know more than YOU DO!

Let us know how that works out for you.

mostpost

03-28-2015, 01:00 AM

Even the moonbat government in San Francisco acknowledged that before enacting a minimum wage increase eventually reaching $15/hr.

In discussion of the increase, members of the Board of Supervisors said that the job loss was acceptable given the benefit to the city of the higher wages.

How much is $15 x 0?

http://www.calrest.org/newsroom/-san-francisco-cautions-on-job-loss-from-proposed-15-minimum-wage-advances-measure
http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5495

If one were to only look at what you post, they would think that raising the minimum wage in San Francisco would be a bad thing. After all 15,700 people would lose their jobs. But if you read the actual report you find that no one will lose their job, and between 12,000 and 44,000 people who did not have jobs would gain them.

You see the study gives an opinion of what could happen if the minimum wage was increased compared to what could happen if it remains the same.
From the OEA report:
The OEA generally relies upon three different sources for future projections of industry
employment: the Employment Development Department (EDD), Moody's Analytics, and the
REMI baseline projection.
• While none of the three sources anticipate a recession in the 2015-19 period, they differ in
their projected job growth rate, leading to projections of overall employment growth in the
city ranging from 27,000 to 59,000 additional jobs.
and:
Under the least optimistic projection, with the proposed minimum wage increase, the city's
private sector employment would still increase by 12,000 by 2019.

The OEA report states that Workers in low-wage industries in San Francisco would likely see their pay increase by an average of over 20%. A 20% increase in pay with no loss in current jobs seems like a win-win to me. But I don't have the wisdom of the Great Clocker.

Clocker

03-28-2015, 11:35 AM

I could have sworn I was put on "Ignore" here. Someone must have hacked the account. :rolleyes:

The OEA report states that Workers in low-wage industries in San Francisco would likely see their pay increase by an average of over 20%. A 20% increase in pay with no loss in current jobs seems like a win-win to me.

We already know that jobs were lost in San Francisco due to the wage hike. We just don't know how many yet. More jobs will go away as positions open due to turnover are not filled. They made no estimate for that. And by the government's own estimate, there will be at least 15,000 fewer new jobs created over the next few years.

And we still have the pending question: where does the money come from to pay for the increased wages. Also not addressed. Here is part of the answer totally ignored by the libs:

One way employers are cutting their labor costs in SeaTac, which recently mandated a $15 per hour minimum wage for certain workers, is by stripping away the benefits they used to offer.

Northwest Asian Weekly reports that employees earning the new wage in SeaTac have lost benefits such as 401k, paid holidays and paid vacation, free food, free parking and overtime hours. One hotel waitress said she is earning less because tips have decreased since the high wage has been in effect. In many cases these benefits plus the lower state minimum wage added more value to workers’ earnings than the new $15 wage.

As one SeaTac worker put it, “It sounds good, but it’s not good.”

SeaTac’s $15 minimum wage has been in effect less than six months and workers in the city are discovering the new high wage comes with a steep cost. In Seattle, a minimum wage has not even gone into effect yet, but employers warn they will be forced to use similar tactics to reduce labor costs once a $15 wage is imposed. Some say they will be forced to lay off workers.

Despite theses warnings, the Seattle City Council is meeting today to continue debating how to implement a $15 minimum wage in the city.

Yeah, that sounds like a win-win to me. :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seatac%E2%80%99s-15-minimum-wage-hurting-workers-it-supposed-help

mostpost

03-28-2015, 02:06 PM

I could have sworn I was put on "Ignore" here. Someone must have hacked the account. :rolleyes:
I did put you on ignore, but after further reflection I decided if I ignore you, I can't keep you in line.

We already know that jobs were lost in San Francisco due to the wage hike. We just don't know how many yet. More jobs will go away as positions open due to turnover are not filled. They made no estimate for that. And by the government's own estimate, there will be at least 15,000 fewer new jobs created over the next few years.
No jobs were lost due to the wage hike. There may be less jobs gained. But, according to the OEA report, there will still be between 12,000 and 44,000 new jobs created in San Francisco between now and 2019.

And we still have the pending question: where does the money come from to pay for the increased wages. Also not addressed. Here is part of the answer totally ignored by the libs:

Yeah, that sounds like a win-win to me. :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/blog/post/seatac%E2%80%99s-15-minimum-wage-hurting-workers-it-supposed-help
Yeah, there is a link that inspires me. Washington Policy Center; the same folks who told us about the restaurants that were closing due to the $15 an hour minimum wage. Except when we talked to the restaurant owners we found out that the minimum wage had nothing to do with their decisions.

Clocker

03-28-2015, 02:24 PM

Yeah, there is a link that inspires me. Washington Policy Center; the same folks who told us about the restaurants that were closing due to the $15 an hour minimum wage. Except when we talked to the restaurant owners we found out that the minimum wage had nothing to do with their decisions.

The issue is real or not, regardless of who reported it. And the information about SeaTac did not come from that publication, it came from another source cited in the article.

The other article was about restaurant closings in general, for many reasons. It did not state that the four restaurants that you keep harping on were closing because of the minimum wage hike. You are trying to make it seem so by pounding on the fact that both things were mentioned in the same article.

MrPickles

03-28-2015, 02:42 PM

Unfortunately, there are people that deserve less than minimum wage. To put an arbitrary minimum limit ruins it for the people that actually work hard and deserve more.

hcap

04-17-2015, 07:35 AM

As Cities Raise Their Minimum Wage, Where's the Economic Collapse the Right Predicted?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/04/economic-collapse-prediction-minimum-wage-raise

Conservatives have long portrayed minimum wage increases as a harbingers of economic doom, but their fears simply haven't played out. San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies:

Here is how the US compares to other countries

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u185021/bxcxpeaimaaw47b.jpg

tucker6

04-17-2015, 07:56 AM

As Cities Raise Their Minimum Wage, Where's the Economic Collapse the Right Predicted?

Conservatives have long portrayed minimum wage increases as a harbingers of economic doom, but their fears simply haven't played out. San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies:

Here is how the US compares to other countries

What does that pretty picture even mean as it relates to your written claim? Remember that there is a nominator and denominator for each division, and the reasons for each are myriad. That thought came to mind when I saw USA and Greece so close together in your pic. There are infinite ways to get to a number.

hcap

04-17-2015, 08:14 AM

The main theme above is that so far minimum wage laws as enacted have not shown adverse effects on the cities covered by the study.

Here is the link to that study..

The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum Wage Laws in Three Cities

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2011-03.pdf

.................................................. ....
I tied to post the image from the MotherJones page, but could not.
Settled for the eye opening image of how the US compares to other developed nations. You can dispute that all you want, but in this case one graph is worth all the right wing blather to follow.

classhandicapper

04-17-2015, 11:23 AM

Who ever predicted economic doom from raising the minimum wage?

The prediction was that at the margin it would cost some jobs in certain industries and possibly cause businesses with some pricing power to raise their prices. Even the politically motivated CBO agreed on that.

The other point has been that previous studies on the subject were flawed because they did not control for other aspects of the economy (like whether we were in a general recovery or the beginnings of a recession etc..) Unless you control for everything else, you can't isolate the impact of the minimum wage.
You are forced to use common sense and empirical evidence like real businesses coming out and saying they laying workers off, raising prices, swapping some people to part time etc... which of course they do.

Clocker

04-17-2015, 11:28 AM

San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington, DC, were among the first major cities to raise their minimum wages to substantially above state and national averages. The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that the increases had little effect on employment rates in traditionally low-wage sectors of their economies:

I don't know about the latter two cities, but I find it very difficult to believe the data showing the 3 year impact on employment in San Francisco. The increase in minimum wage there goes into effect on 5/1/15.

Where's the Economic Collapse the Right Predicted?

No one with any knowledge of how the private sector works predicted any collapse. In general, low wage workers don't get fired when there is a big increase in the minimum wage. The increase has a long term impact as employers don't fill vacancies, don't create new jobs, and restructure their operations, substituting capital for labor. The city of San Francisco did a study before passing the increase and found that the higher wage would lead to thousands of fewer new jobs over the term of the study.

The other impact is on benefits. The city of SeaTac, the home of the Seattle airport, passed a $15 minimum wage recently. Hotel workers there lost virtually all benefits, including overtime, paid vacation, 401k, free parking, free meals, etc.

There is one critical question liberals advocating $15 an hour refuse to address: where does the money come from.

JustRalph

04-17-2015, 11:48 AM

Hcap

Call a travel agent. They can get you a ticket to any of those countries listed in your chart in post #207

Clocker

04-17-2015, 11:53 AM

You are forced to use common sense and empirical evidence like real businesses coming out and saying they laying workers off, raising prices, swapping some people to part time etc... which of course they do.

He said "common sense". :D

Please, remember who you are talking to. Liberals can't conceive of businesses making changes to their operations to offset higher wages. They think that fast food operators are making obscene profits, and will just cover wage increases out of their own pockets.

http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/McDonalds-worker-replacement.jpg

Dave Schwartz

04-17-2015, 01:18 PM

I ran across this link yesterday.

While we're all crazy talking about huge increases, the reality is that tipped employees are still getting beaten up.

Did you know that the Federal minimum for tipped employees is only $2.13 per hour? I did not.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm

Now, most states have opted to go beyond that. As an example, Nevada is:
With no health insurance $8.25
With health insurance $7.25

Washington is $9.47.

These are pretty healthy wages for someone who is getting something (probably) substantial beyond their base wage.

Not sure I completely understand the document at that link, but it appears that a lot of states start out with a pretty poor hourly wage, then subtract the full amount (or a percentage) of tips reported (which can be forced to be high). In the end, the employee is back to pretty close to a minimum wage.

TJDave

04-17-2015, 03:26 PM

Now, most states have opted to go beyond that.

Some states, California being one, make no distinction between tipped and non-tipped. The minimum just went to ten and in a year will go to twelve.

The new boutique idea out here is non tip restaurants, where the tip is built in to the price.

Dave Schwartz

04-17-2015, 06:29 PM

TJD,

The new boutique idea out here is non tip restaurants, where the tip is built in to the price.

Yes, that is what we've been hearing.

I think the Chili's model is more likely. That's where there is a kiosk on your table.

Currently, you order from a waiter, they bring the food, they offer to collect your check but the kiosk is the encouraged mode. At payment a tip is suggested.

The logical progression is that eventually the waiter is minimized, first to just taking the order, and a different server brings the food. Eventually you order from that kiosk as well, and the food is brought by a server.

Effectively, the waiter is reduced to "just delivering food," although there would be an "order verifier" that comes to the table just to make sure there isn't anything else you need before the order is placed.

Of course, as contact decreases between the server and the table, so does the size of the tip. As the customer accepts this - much as "automatic checkout" (or whatever it is called) at Walmart is being eased in now - the concept of "tipping" pretty much goes away (as does the concept of "service").

I doubt that the "service charge" itself will go away as quickly - and "tips" will likely still be used by food organizations to reduce labor costs.

mostpost

04-17-2015, 07:59 PM

You are forced to use common sense and empirical evidence like real businesses coming out and saying they laying workers off, raising prices, swapping some people to part time etc... which of course they do.
You're confused. people saying they are laying workers off etc. is not empirical evidence. It is anecdotal. You find one or two businesses which fit the profile you want and ignore the rest. In some cases, even the businesses you choose to advance your narrative prove how wrong you are. An example:
Scott Ostrander was the manager of the Cedarbrook Lodge in Seatac, Wa. When the city council was debating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, Ostrander appeared before the body begging them to vote down the increase. He said that if they passed it he would be forced to cut hours, staff and benefits. Despite his objections the increase was passed. Less than nine months later Cedarbrook began an expansion which added sixty three rooms and hired a large number of new workers.

mostpost

04-17-2015, 08:08 PM

I don't know about the latter two cities, but I find it very difficult to believe the data showing the 3 year impact on employment in San Francisco. The increase in minimum wage there goes into effect on 5/1/15.

No one with any knowledge of how the private sector works predicted any collapse. In general, low wage workers don't get fired when there is a big increase in the minimum wage. The increase has a long term impact as employers don't fill vacancies, don't create new jobs, and restructure their operations, substituting capital for labor. The city of San Francisco did a study before passing the increase and found that the higher wage would lead to thousands of fewer new jobs over the term of the study.

The other impact is on benefits. The city of SeaTac, the home of the Seattle airport, passed a $15 minimum wage recently. Hotel workers there lost virtually all benefits, including overtime, paid vacation, 401k, free parking, free meals, etc.

There is one critical question liberals advocating $15 an hour refuse to address: where does the money come from.
Some righty blogger talked to some women in a hallway, who claimed she lost a 401K, health insurance and free food and you extrapolate that to mean that all hotel workers lost all their benefits. :rolleyes:

IF that encounter even happened.

mostpost

04-17-2015, 08:11 PM

Clocker

04-17-2015, 08:36 PM

Scott Ostrander was the manager of the Cedarbrook Lodge in Seatac, Wa. When the city council was debating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, Ostrander appeared before the body begging them to vote down the increase. He said that if they passed it he would be forced to cut hours, staff and benefits. Despite his objections the increase was passed. Less than nine months later Cedarbrook began an expansion which added sixty three rooms and hired a large number of new workers.

Objection, anecdotal. :rolleyes:

mostpost

04-17-2015, 11:12 PM

Objection, anecdotal. :rolleyes:
Objection sustained, but I never said it was anything but. I presented as an example of one case in which a business claimed they would have to cut employees and ended up adding employees.

Clocker

04-17-2015, 11:43 PM

Objection sustained, but I never said it was anything but. I presented as an example of one case in which a business claimed they would have to cut employees and ended up adding employees.

Proving nothing. He was initially wrong, or he found a way to deal with it. There is a lot more flexibility in hotel room prices than in burgers. And a lot more flexibility in benefits for employees.

The main issue is still there. Liberals want a "living wage" for everyone, but they want someone else to pay for it.

Clocker

04-30-2015, 05:01 PM

Warning! Anecdotal evidence ahead.

A Seattle pizza parlor is closing due to the new minimum wage. The owner says she can't afford the interim increase to $11/hr, let alone the eventual $15. More anecdotal evidence sure to follow.

http://q13fox.com/2015/04/28/owner-of-pizza-shop-says-new-minimum-wage-law-is-forcing-her-to-close/

Robert Goren

04-30-2015, 05:52 PM

Proving nothing. He was initially wrong, or he found a way to deal with it. There is a lot more flexibility in hotel room prices than in burgers. And a lot more flexibility in benefits for employees.

The main issue is still there. Liberals want a "living wage" for everyone, but they want someone else to pay for it.Does the right not know that somebody pays for it when people do not make enough to live on? They do in everything from higher crime rates to higher insurance premiums and almost everything in between. I strongly suspect that if you add up all the costs to society, the living wage is cheap.

Clocker

04-30-2015, 06:14 PM

Does the right not know that somebody pays for it when people do not make enough to live on? They do in everything from higher crime rates to higher insurance premiums and almost everything in between. I strongly suspect that if you add up all the costs to society, the living wage is cheap.

This has been discussed here ad nauseam. Yes, there are costs to society. If you try to correct this problem through a minimum wage, you are imposing those costs on those that hire low skill labor.

If society deems a "living wage" to be a major benefit, then society should pay for it as a whole, not impose the burden on a relatively small sector of society. A minimum wage to provide a "living wage" is in effect a welfare entitlement funded by a tax on selected employers. The open and honest way to do this is to fund a welfare program through general taxes.

horses4courses

04-30-2015, 06:27 PM

He said "common sense". :D

Please, remember who you are talking to. Liberals can't conceive of businesses making changes to their operations to offset higher wages. They think that fast food operators are making obscene profits, and will just cover wage increases out of their own pockets.

http://theblacksphere.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/McDonalds-worker-replacement.jpg

Look who's the cartoon man, now :lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Looney_tunes_careta.png/220px-Looney_tunes_careta.png

davew

07-22-2015, 11:36 AM

some workers are asking for fewer hours

.... the extra income is making them ineligible for SNAP, section 8 , welfare .....

wasn't that the idea of raising minimum wage on the first place?

johnhannibalsmith

07-22-2015, 11:38 AM

...

wasn't that the idea of raising minimum wage on the first place?

No it was votes.

Fager Fan

07-22-2015, 02:26 PM

Well, duh, it's because you can't raise a family on $7.50 an hour. People need to be paid a living wage. :rolleyes:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You shouldn't be trying to raise a family on minimum wage. These are entry-level jobs. Work your way up to a better paying job, then start thinking about adding the 18+-year responsibility of raising and paying for a child.

Clocker

07-22-2015, 02:48 PM

You shouldn't be trying to raise a family on minimum wage. These are entry-level jobs. Work your way up to a better paying job, then start thinking about adding the 18+-year responsibility of raising and paying for a child.

The idea of a minimum wage based on a "living wage" is just like ObamaCare. It is a liberal government entitlement program without a government funding mechanism.

ObamaCare is nothing more than a version of Medicaid funded by the artificially high insurance premiums of the young and healthy instead of being openly and honestly funded by general tax revenues.

Minimum wages are welfare payments funded by employers (and passed on to consumers) instead of being openly and honestly funded by general tax revenues.

In either case, the unintended consequences of the funding method are burdensome, and are generally regressive, i.e., they have a larger negative impact on those that can least afford it.

PaceAdvantage

07-22-2015, 03:39 PM

NYC has raised the minimum wage for fast food workers to $15/hr

Clocker

07-22-2015, 03:55 PM

I saw an article last week about an annual survey of McDonald franchise owners. They rate how they see their business doing over the next year. The rating ranges from 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent). The average this year was about 1.6 as I remember. The primary reasons given were increasing competition in the fast food industry and increasing minimum wages.

I grab a lunch at McD about 4-5 times a year, and always order the same things off the "Dollar Menu". Over the last year or so, the average price of stuff on the "Dollar Menu" has gone up to about $1.25.

Let's start the count down to the next post by a lib saying the greedy owners are using the minimum wage as an excuse to jack up their obscene profits.

wisconsin

07-22-2015, 05:33 PM

NYC has raised the minimum wage for fast food workers to $15/hr

How does the worker who makes $13 somewhere feel? How about the guy with the $30k salary?

Robert Goren

07-22-2015, 06:01 PM

You shouldn't be trying to raise a family on minimum wage. These are entry-level jobs. Work your way up to a better paying job, then start thinking about adding the 18+-year responsibility of raising and paying for a child. Then along comes a recession ( usually caused by bankers), they get laid off and they have to start all over working their way up from the minimum wage. (We are now in the 6th year since the last recession which means are we are over due for another one. I think the average time between recessions is about three and a half years.) The further up from the minimum wage a worker who started at the minimum wage gets, the more likely they are to be the first out the door. In the hiring practice of most companies, the higher the wage had at their previous job, the less likely they are to be hired. The older they are, the less likely they are to be hired. After they reach the age of 30( maybe, 25), they are extremely unlikely to be hired off the street unless the company is desperate for a body or they know somebody important at the company. Once they reach the age of 40, it is nearly impossible to get hired unless they know someone. If you are over the age of 50, you are likely working at your full time last job. Secure it as best you can.

burnsy

07-22-2015, 06:31 PM

I don't know when NYC gets 15 bucks an hour. Its expensive to live there. But the rest of the state does not get it until 2021. People are so full of crap. "Oh, the outrage." What a freaking joke. Some well known news joker even wrote an op ed against it. Hey moron. Its almost 6 years away. By then the minimum will probably be 13 to 14 anyway. Get a life already its not happening in most of the state for 5 and 1/2 years........by then it might be the minimum anyway......or close to it...why do people think that its getting passed? Gee, it takes a real genius to figure that one out.....

Clocker

07-22-2015, 06:52 PM

Its expensive to live there.

Why is it the employer's responsibility to deal with that problem?

Hoofless_Wonder

07-22-2015, 07:04 PM

Seattle and New York have cranked up the minimum wage, perhaps mostly in response to how damn expensive it is to live there, but not entirely looking at cause and effect of the change in the law. Not surprisingly, these two cities are in the top 5 for the number of homeless residents.

So, with businesses going under due to higher labor costs, and less tax revenue resulting in even more homeless people, which in turn drives away more business, it all seems to be a vicious circle.....

Makes me dizzy.

Robert Fischer

07-22-2015, 07:11 PM

wages will slowly rise. The people who rule us are doing a brilliant job of keeping them down, so those who are upset about raises in minimum wage have very little to worry about.

Robert Fischer

07-22-2015, 07:18 PM

Why is it the employer's responsibility to deal with that problem?

It's not. Employers, and Employees each have to constantly adapt and evolve in order to survive. If an employee can't survive without a raise in min. wage, - he must adapt and evolve. Get a 2nd job, get a better job, start a side-hustle etc... If an employee can't survive with a raise in min. wage - they must adapt and evolve. Run a more efficient business, get a better business, start a side-hustle etc...

Mechanic

07-22-2015, 07:49 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/

As a sub contractor in the Seattle area I have raised my rates in order keep up with the cost of All items, the day after the wage increase went into effect even my morning coffee went up twenty one percent :mad:

burnsy

07-22-2015, 08:02 PM

Why is it the employer's responsibility to deal with that problem?

It's not mine either. I'm sure they can get off their ass and do the work themselves if the employer does not like it. That's how we ran our family business when I worked for my dad years ago. They can get off the golf course or out of their shiny little office and flip burgers if they don't like it. I don't give a F^ck. Like I said I don't live there, could care less. But I do know by the time the rest of the state does this it won't amount to a hill of beans because its 5 and 1/2 years away.......its either that or give them food stamps and all the other bullshit......that's not MY problem why should I pay for that? McDonalds, Burger King and the rest of them including Wal Mart should pay at least a living wage. Why should I and the rest of us subsidize their crappy business? So I can get a bunch of crap for 99 cents and then pay these people so they can eat and get health care? They get the profit and privilege of a business here, don't hand me the bill to keep their employees afloat. That's what a lot of people fail to realize, if these ass clown corporations don't pay these people.....we have to. Its not just Obama like the jack asses on here think, its been going on since the 70's. Most of the people that collect all that stuff.....already have jobs. Why are other citizens subsiding that.......so yeah, its their problem......not mine.

Hoofless_Wonder

07-22-2015, 08:19 PM

wages will slowly rise. The people who rule us are doing a brilliant job of keeping them down, so those who are upset about raises in minimum wage have very little to worry about.

Wages are not rising, and I doubt it's "the rulers" who are pulling all the strings. It's more likely due to supply and demand.

http://www.epi.org/publication/stagnant-wages-in-2014/

Wages are actually declining, except where propped up by artificial means (minimum wage hikes) or at the very top, where skimming profits is expected. The declining economy will have a bigger impact on wages, and it is declining....

Clocker

07-24-2015, 12:01 PM

Unable to get a minimum wage increase through the state senate, NY governor used executive action to increase wages for large fast food chains. Only chains with more than 30 franchises nationally will be affected. The increase to $15/hour will be phased in over 3 years in NYC and 6 years for the rest of the state.

Another leap forward in making NY business friendly and attracting new firms to the state.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/24/cuomo-raising-minimum-wage-only-for-fast-food-workers-by-executive-action/

Fager Fan

07-24-2015, 12:45 PM

Clocker

07-24-2015, 01:09 PM

Brilliant.

I've been wondering though how this affects the restaurants where tipping was the norm. I could see that many decide to no longer tip since they're making such a large hourly wage.

An article linked earlier in this thread said that some restaurants in Seattle were adding a surcharge to cover the increase in wages, and that people were tipping less.

This increase in NY only covers large fast food chains, and I can't imagine those chains will let it go into effect without a court challenge. Singling out a relatively small sector like that without legal justification has got to be undue discrimination.

AndyC

07-24-2015, 01:16 PM

.......its either that or give them food stamps and all the other bullshit......that's not MY problem why should I pay for that? McDonalds, Burger King and the rest of them including Wal Mart should pay at least a living wage. Why should I and the rest of us subsidize their crappy business? So I can get a bunch of crap for 99 cents and then pay these people so they can eat and get health care? They get the profit and privilege of a business here, don't hand me the bill to keep their employees afloat. That's what a lot of people fail to realize, if these ass clown corporations don't pay these people.....we have to. Its not just Obama like the jack asses on here think, its been going on since the 70's. Most of the people that collect all that stuff.....already have jobs. Why are other citizens subsiding that.......so yeah, its their problem......not mine.

So the burden of feeding, clothing and providing shelter to an unskilled employee should be the responsibility of the employer? I guess if the government does such a poor job of educating people to be productive and self-sufficient they will need to push welfare payments to the employers. Could you imagine how much you would have to pay out if these "ass clown corporations" didn't hire anybody? Paying artificially high wages takes away incentive for some people to improve their skills and their marketability in the job market.