$10.10. A killer for the rich.

[protectionist]

Well don't set your pants on fire just yet--LOL. Obama will sign into law a $10 minimum wage for FEDERAL (contract) workers ONLY. Meaning Haliburton will be required to pay the $10.10 dollar minimum wage to laborers on government contracts.

Employers in this country are most made up of small business people. In fact, they are the largest employer in this nation today. In 2015 they are going to get hit with the employer mandate OBAMACARE that will greatly add a enormous expense to their bottom lines.

They can ill afford a $10.10 cent per hour inexperienced employee to add to the cost they already have.

Furthermore, if there is a 10.10 dollar minimum wage McDonald's is going to have to charge $8.00 for a hamburger. All cost will go up to accommodate this new minimum wage, including at the grocery store and everywhere else. Who does this really hurt? The elderly that are on fixed incomes and the poor who don't work.

This ignorant silliness was all refuted in Post # 193.

Hell of trick to accomodate for a new MW, by doing something that causes you to LOSE money. So maybe I'll have to ask you too. If having an $8.00 hamburger could bring in more money, then why only NOW, this $8.00 hamburger ? Didn't McDonalds want to make more money in previous months also ?

PS - no consideration for the extra sales$$$$$$ that are going to come in from people having more money in their pockets. Just decided to pass on that subject ?

So, let's see.... all that extra money is going be generated by the 1% or so that earn minimum wage, most of which are kids? Yeah.. mkay... how deliciously stupid.

A whole day later and nobody answered this lamebrain post ? Oh well.

Dude, don't you know that >>

1. When the minimum wage goes up, in accordance, higher wages go up as well. If the MW went up from 7.25 to 10.10, then all the workers making $10/hr or less would be saying "Hey, we're making less than minimum wage." Rising tide lifts all boats.

2. More than 40 percent of all U.S. workers actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968. That is how far we have fallen.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...-a-full-time-minimum-wage-worker-made-in-1968

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Got it now ?

 

[Contumacious]

HOW TO MAKE MORE THAN $10.10 an Hour

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

EXAMPLE 1

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters

$49,140 per year

$23.62 per hour

.

 

[protectionist]

You are the one that thinks that your neighborhood grocer can compete with WalMart if the minimum wage goes up.

1. I didn't say anything about any "neighborhood grocer", you said that. Funny how people keep saying I said things that I didn't.

2. Just curious. what do you think is the effect that of that MW hike on the local grocer (or on WalMart too, for that matter) ?

1. Are you going to tell me you don't think WalMArt has been crowding out mom and pop stores, and that you don't think that all businesses should be local? Why the fuck do you call yourself protectionists, and argue against all the things that you think destroy these things because you never got past third grade in school?
2. Let me see, it forces WalMart to choose between paying its average worker $11 an hour or paying them minimum wage, which would make any effect on WalMart all in your delusional brain, while it forces that local grocer to choose between employing 4 people at $7.25 an hour, or 2 people at $10.10 an hour, or raising prices, which will make WalMart even more attractive to the people who are making minimum wage.

But, please, keep telling me how you proved that it doesn't impact labor costs while teaching inside that school in your head.

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. I didn't say anything about any "neighborhood grocer", you said that. Funny how people keep saying I said things that I didn't.

2. Just curious. what do you think is the effect that of that MW hike on the local grocer (or on WalMart too, for that matter) ?

1. Are you going to tell me you don't think WalMArt has been crowding out mom and pop stores, and that you don't think that all businesses should be local? Why the fuck do you call yourself protectionists, and argue against all the things that you think destroy these things because you never got past third grade in school?
2. Let me see, it forces WalMart to choose between paying its average worker $11 an hour or paying them minimum wage, which would make any effect on WalMart all in your delusional brain, while it forces that local grocer to choose between employing 4 people at $7.25 an hour, or 2 people at $10.10 an hour, or raising prices, which will make WalMart even more attractive to the people who are making minimum wage.

But, please, keep telling me how you proved that it doesn't impact labor costs while teaching inside that school in your head.

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income or savings which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

 

[The T]

1. Are you going to tell me you don't think WalMArt has been crowding out mom and pop stores, and that you don't think that all businesses should be local? Why the fuck do you call yourself protectionists, and argue against all the things that you think destroy these things because you never got past third grade in school?
2. Let me see, it forces WalMart to choose between paying its average worker $11 an hour or paying them minimum wage, which would make any effect on WalMart all in your delusional brain, while it forces that local grocer to choose between employing 4 people at $7.25 an hour, or 2 people at $10.10 an hour, or raising prices, which will make WalMart even more attractive to the people who are making minimum wage.

But, please, keep telling me how you proved that it doesn't impact labor costs while teaching inside that school in your head.

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

Indeed, and relatively nothing to put back (invest) in their companies.

 

[Steinlight]

WOW! Really?

I'm not surprised you can't 'figure out' $23.50/hr figure.

What the hell is ' price of the house all together', and 'nominal prices'?

No, I can't, enlighten me. How do you come to that figure?

That article you posted from from Forbes suggested that the housing price measure be the full price of the house, as opposed to the monthly mortgage/rent. Not very practical. Did you happen to read the article you posted?

Also, your second link was just a link the nominal prices of some goods. Learn the difference between nominal prices and real prices.

You seem out of your depth here.

So you can't figure out the monthly payments? Really?

Where do you get the $23.50 an hour figure? Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

 

[Steinlight]

So your writing that lenders gave out loans to people that had no ability to pay? Why would they do that?

Yes, lenders have and still do end up giving loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay. If borrowers had the ability to pay off their loans, they would pay off their loans. Duh.

Why would lenders do that?

Why do lenders lend money?

To make money, duh.

Why do you ask these stupid questions? Oh wait, you support a $23.50 an hour minimum wage. Never mind...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. First of all don't use foul language with me.

If you don't like my fucking language, stop fucking posting stupid enema producing shit.

Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

Hey, douchebag, I asked a fucking question, I didn't fucking say you said anything.

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??

Yes, you want me to believe that labor, unlike every other commodity, is magically exempt from the laws of supply and demand. When people ask you to explain how this works, you babble about magic, and expect everyone to believe you because you make up a fucking lie about how you taught this in a douchebag school, and then complain about how your business would have been so much better off if only the fucking government had forced you to pay the people who worked for you more money.

Well, shit for brains, why haven't you ever answered the fucking question about why you didn't just pay your workers more? Is it really that hard to spew some shit out of your ass to cover that? Would it force you to admit that we are right, and that the only way to actually pay that much is to raise prices or fire people?

Well, shithead?

They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

They explained this? Who the fuck is this they you are talking about?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

You explained this before, shit for brains?

Tell me something, asshole, what the fuck happens if the marke price is lower than the fucking cost of manufacturing? Does your magic money pop in and save the fucking day, or does the company go out of fucking business?

Dickwad.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

No, she should go out of business entirely, asshole.

Tell me something, shit for brains, what the fuck did your ex do when the cost of doing business went up? Did she get magic money, or did she divorce your skanky ass because you lied to her and told her that everything would magically work out and that, despite an across the board increase in expenses, she would still make the same amount of profit?

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

Why didn't you pay your workers enough that they could afford to buy the product you were making? Is it because the government didn't tell you to? Is it because you are a pathetic asshole? Are you just fucking stupid?

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

WRONG.

She had 10 workers because that is how many she had.

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

There is that magic money again.

Tell me something, shit for brains, if it actually works that way, why the fuck doesn't every company just pay their workers $100 an hour? This would result in massive amounts of disposable income, and everything would still cost exactly what it did before they raised the pay, and every business owner on the fucking planet would get rich over fucking night.

By the way, shit for brains, you actually have said that your only problem when you had a fucking business was that the people who woprked for you couldn't buy your shit.

My guess, they were actually smart enough not to buy shit from an asshole that wasn't smart enough to raise wages to save his business without the fucking government forcing him to obey.

When I owned a business, my biggest problem was the large # of people in my sales area whose incomes were too low to enable them to buy my products. My wish was for big raises in the minimum wage.

 

[bripat9643]

This ignorant silliness was all refuted in Post # 193.

Hell of trick to accomodate for a new MW, by doing something that causes you to LOSE money. So maybe I'll have to ask you too. If having an $8.00 hamburger could bring in more money, then why only NOW, this $8.00 hamburger ? Didn't McDonalds want to make more money in previous months also ?

PS - no consideration for the extra sales$$$$$$ that are going to come in from people having more money in their pockets. Just decided to pass on that subject ?

So, let's see.... all that extra money is going be generated by the 1% or so that earn minimum wage, most of which are kids? Yeah.. mkay... how deliciously stupid.

A whole day later and nobody answered this lamebrain post ? Oh well.

Dude, don't you know that >>

1. When the minimum wage goes up, in accordance, higher wages go up as well. If the MW went up from 7.25 to 10.10, then all the workers making $10/hr or less would be saying "Hey, we're making less than minimum wage." Rising tide lifts all boats.

2. More than 40 percent of all U.S. workers actually make less than what a full-time minimum wage worker made back in 1968. That is how far we have fallen.

40 Percent Of U.S. Workers Make Less Than What A Full-Time Minimum Wage Worker Made In 1968

Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Got it now ?

If government can simply mandate higher wages, after it orders the ocean waves to stop crashing on the shore, why doesn't Congress simply pass a bill saying everyone gets a 50% pay increase?

 

[Contumacious]

HOW TO MAKE MORE THAN $10.10 an Hour

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

EXAMPLE 1

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters

$49,140 per year

$23.62 per hour

.

 

[protectionist]

1. Are you going to tell me you don't think WalMArt has been crowding out mom and pop stores, and that you don't think that all businesses should be local? Why the fuck do you call yourself protectionists, and argue against all the things that you think destroy these things because you never got past third grade in school?
2. Let me see, it forces WalMart to choose between paying its average worker $11 an hour or paying them minimum wage, which would make any effect on WalMart all in your delusional brain, while it forces that local grocer to choose between employing 4 people at $7.25 an hour, or 2 people at $10.10 an hour, or raising prices, which will make WalMart even more attractive to the people who are making minimum wage.

But, please, keep telling me how you proved that it doesn't impact labor costs while teaching inside that school in your head.

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income or savings which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

Don't you read the quotes that you quote ? The answer is RIGHT THERE in # 3 of that quote you just quoted. And remember. There's a lot more customers than there are employees.

Bottom line though is, no matter what the disposable income is, raising prices and laying off workers both create LOSSES not gains, so why would anybody do what causes them to LOSE money ?

 

[protectionist]

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

Indeed, and relatively nothing to put back (invest) in their companies.

Result of an uneducated mind. Never heard of disposable income.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income or savings which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

Don't you read the quotes that you quote ? The answer is RIGHT THERE in # 3 of that quote you just quoted. And remember. There's a lot more customers than there are employees.

Bottom line though is, no matter what the disposable income is, raising prices and laying off workers both create LOSSES not gains, so why would anybody do what causes them to LOSE money ?

Magic money, how stupid do you think we think you are?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1. First of all don't use foul language with me. Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

2. You don't know much about even the most basic business economics. You say the grocer would lay people off or raise prices, in response to a MW hike. He can do neither, and rarely would ever need to do either. Have you been reading my posts ??
They explained all this a long time ago ? And what happened to you when they were teaching this in your school ? Maybe a blimp was slowly going by, and you looked out the window at it, and missed the lesson ?

As I said previously >> Selling prices are called "the market price". They come from the market (NOT THE SELLER), and are set at the level which is the highest price they can charge, without going up to where sales drop enough to cause income/profit to fall, causing LOSSES. This is graphically illustrated by a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis, and prices going up on the X axis, and the market price at the top of the curve. So NO, the grocer CANNOT raise his prices (above his current MARKET PRICE), because to do so, cause his sales to drop to where he then makes LESS money than before.

As for your lamebrain lay-off notion, I suppose I'll have to repeat on that one too. Like I said in Post # 220, >> To illustrate, I'll use the business of my ex-wife as an example. She had a boutique in a nice, indoor mall. The MW went up. She had 10 workers. So should she lay off somebody to compensate for the added labor cost ? You seem to think so.

Well think about it. Why do you think she had 10 workers ? (rather than some other number) Because 10 was her lucky number ? Or maybe because 10 is easier to do arithmetic with ? Or perhaps maybe she was a philanthropist, and just wanted to give an extra person a job, huh ? Or maybe 10 was the number of her favorite football player.

EARTH TO ALL ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHINGS: She had 10 workers because she made more money with 10 than any other number, that's why, and it's the only reason why. So if she were to lay somebody off, guess what happens. Her sales go down. That's why she had 10 to begin with. It's the # of employees with which she maximized her sales. Any more or less than that optimum number, and she'll LOSE money. And in business, you can't do anything that causes you to lose money. Got it ?

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

i'm curious here....10 workers full time would be 400 hrs per week or 1600 hrs labor per month...

let's say she was paying them $8 per hour and now has to pay $10 per hour.....this equals an extra $2 X 1600 hrs....if you can't cut labor back where does that extra $3,200 come from.....?

seems to me that many small businesses are just squeaking by.....barely making rent and payroll.....if the extra bucks have to come out of the owner's income or savings which may be already pared way back....this could cause alot of small enterprises to go OUT of business....

Don't you read the quotes that you quote ? The answer is RIGHT THERE in # 3 of that quote you just quoted. And remember. There's a lot more customers than there are employees.

Bottom line though is, no matter what the disposable income is, raising prices and laying off workers both create LOSSES not gains, so why would anybody do what causes them to LOSE money ?

how many more customers (income) would it take to make up that extra $3,200 per month or $38,400 per year....to support the new cost of labor.....?

let's say the average percentage of payroll to gross revenues is 20%.....that means the store would have to do an extra $192,000 worth of business....to support a $2 raise for each of the 10 employees...

 

[Mr Natural]

Every time in the last 70 years or so that the minimum wage has been raised, the economy went right into the shitter.

You'd think they'd learn by now.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, lenders have and still do end up giving loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay. If borrowers had the ability to pay off their loans, they would pay off their loans. Duh.

Why would lenders do that?

Because federal bureaucrats have a gun pointed at their heads.

Your hypothetical gun sure worked out well for Angelo Mozilo.

 

[protectionist]

1. First of all don't use foul language with me.

If you don't like my fucking language, stop fucking posting stupid enema producing shit.

Secondly when did I say "argue against" what ? (are you talking about ?) You talk in riddles. What are you saying that I "argued against" ?

Hey, douchebag, I asked a fucking question, I didn't fucking say you said anything.



Yes, you want me to believe that labor, unlike every other commodity, is magically exempt from the laws of supply and demand. When people ask you to explain how this works, you babble about magic, and expect everyone to believe you because you make up a fucking lie about how you taught this in a douchebag school, and then complain about how your business would have been so much better off if only the fucking government had forced you to pay the people who worked for you more money.

Well, shit for brains, why haven't you ever answered the fucking question about why you didn't just pay your workers more? Is it really that hard to spew some shit out of your ass to cover that? Would it force you to admit that we are right, and that the only way to actually pay that much is to raise prices or fire people?
They explained this? Who the fuck is this they you are talking about?
You explained this before, shit for brains?
Tell me something, asshole, what the fuck happens if the marke price is lower than the fucking cost of manufacturing? Does your magic money pop in and save the fucking day, or does the company go out of fucking business?
No, she should go out of business entirely, asshole.
Tell me something, shit for brains, what the fuck did your ex do when the cost of doing business went up? Did she get magic money, or did she divorce your skanky ass because you lied to her and told her that everything would magically work out and that, despite an across the board increase in expenses, she would still make the same amount of profit?
Why didn't you pay your workers enough that they could afford to buy the product you were making? Is it because the government didn't tell you to? Is it because you are a pathetic asshole? Are you just fucking stupid?
She had 10 workers because that is how many she had.

3. That brings us to what I said the grocer would rarely need to do anything. That's because raising the MW (which also causes higher wages to also rise), also raises the disposable income (money in customers' pockets) in the community around that grocer, causing his SALES$$$$ to go up. The greater the increase in MW, the greater the increase in SALES$$$$. Got it ?

There is that magic money again.

Tell me something, shit for brains, if it actually works that way, why the fuck doesn't every company just pay their workers $100 an hour? This would result in massive amounts of disposable income, and everything would still cost exactly what it did before they raised the pay, and every business owner on the fucking planet would get rich over fucking night.

By the way, shit for brains, you actually have said that your only problem when you had a fucking business was that the people who woprked for you couldn't buy your shit.

My guess, they were actually smart enough not to buy shit from an asshole that wasn't smart enough to raise wages to save his business without the fucking government forcing him to obey.

When I owned a business, my biggest problem was the large # of people in my sales area whose incomes were too low to enable them to buy my products. My wish was for big raises in the minimum wage.

HA HA. I ask the members of USMB. Should I really even dignify the idiocy of this fool's comments, by responding to them ? Do the even deserve the dignity of a response ? Or is it an insult to all of us to have something this low-level on our pages ?

I keep accidently wiping out my answers, so I'm going to answer in short spurts (although I really shouldn't even be talking to this moron - when I've given enough sufficient info already, and he just can't get it into his little head.

 

[OnePercenter]

No, I can't, enlighten me. How do you come to that figure?

That article you posted from from Forbes suggested that the housing price measure be the full price of the house, as opposed to the monthly mortgage/rent. Not very practical. Did you happen to read the article you posted?

Also, your second link was just a link the nominal prices of some goods. Learn the difference between nominal prices and real prices.

You seem out of your depth here.

So you can't figure out the monthly payments? Really?

Where do you get the $23.50 an hour figure? Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Cost increases in food, housing, and transportation. (1970 - 2013)

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, lenders have and still do end up giving loans to people who didn't have the ability to pay. If borrowers had the ability to pay off their loans, they would pay off their loans. Duh.

Why would lenders do that?

Why do lenders lend money?

To make money, duh.

Why do you ask these stupid questions? Oh wait, you support a $23.50 an hour minimum wage. Never mind...

Lenders lend money to individuals that don't have the ability to pay to make money? Sure they do.

 

[Steinlight]

So you can't figure out the monthly payments? Really?

Where do you get the $23.50 an hour figure? Or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Cost increases in food, housing, and transportation. (1970 - 2013)

The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.60. Today, it is $7.25. In 1970 dollars, the $1.70 minimum wage adjusted for inflation today would be $4.94 approximately.