A question for liberals: Washington State MW=$11 an hour, Texas MW=$7.25 an hour ..

[Wyatt earp]

The democrats are paying you off


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Comprehend they makeup that number to pay you off for votes

 

[danielpalos]

When are you going to bail out your own?
But again minimum wage was started in America to keep the black man from working... So why do we still have that racist law like the racist federal hemp prohibition ?


.

I learned that too! The minimum wage was to starve out the Chinese as well. They actually have articles about how it was unfair to let Chinese work for lower wages, because they ate rice, instead of meat.

The whole point of the minimum wage, was to prevent the Chinese from getting jobs.

It's amazing that we have become so 'educated' that now things widely understood years ago, are laughed at, and mocked today. "The minimum wage doesn't eliminate jobs!" (100 years before) "Let's raise the minimum wage to eliminate their jobs!".

Left-wing ideology, is basically a regressive mental illness. We're slowly 'unlearning' what we knew hundreds of years ago.

Only excuses?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison; it is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

A made up number

It is more real, than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour by comparison; it is the reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and not a seventeen or twenty-one dollar an hour minimum wage.

Thus, Your opinion of the validity of the numbers, is not Only irrelevant, but a simple diversion which is usually considered, nothing but fallacy.

For the now trillionth time it's a made up number so you don't revolt


.

Your opinion of the validity of the numbers, is not Only irrelevant, but a simple diversion which is usually considered, nothing but fallacy.

Why not get more than, "just repeal"?

 

[Andylusion]

You seem to be implying that's bad.
This is actually a choice they are making that is brilliant.

Making 100 grand a year to live in your car for two years is brilliant?

Exceptionally brilliant.

Seriously brilliant. You could bank almost $100K a year doing that, and buy a house with cash, and that's a bad plan?

Did you read the article? They are getting free food on campus. Free laundry and showers.

We're talking nearly zero living expenses, no gasoline, nothing.

You work two years like that, and buy a house 100% cash, no loans, no mortgage, no interest payments.

How would you like to be age 25, and have a paid for home, no mortgage payment, making $100K? This guy is going to have women throwing themselves at him in 2 years. It's going to be a bad reality TV show for him soon.

Short term pain, long term gain. I actually have a renter in my home right now, who makes $90K a year. Why is he renting a tiny spare bedroom, when he makes so much? He's saving up to buy a house with cash.

Seriously it's a smart move. Brilliant move. Guy is going to be rolling in the money in a short time.

What if he died tomorrow?




.

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Making 100 grand a year to live in your car for two years is brilliant?

Exceptionally brilliant.

Seriously brilliant. You could bank almost $100K a year doing that, and buy a house with cash, and that's a bad plan?

Did you read the article? They are getting free food on campus. Free laundry and showers.

We're talking nearly zero living expenses, no gasoline, nothing.

You work two years like that, and buy a house 100% cash, no loans, no mortgage, no interest payments.

How would you like to be age 25, and have a paid for home, no mortgage payment, making $100K? This guy is going to have women throwing themselves at him in 2 years. It's going to be a bad reality TV show for him soon.

Short term pain, long term gain. I actually have a renter in my home right now, who makes $90K a year. Why is he renting a tiny spare bedroom, when he makes so much? He's saving up to buy a house with cash.

Seriously it's a smart move. Brilliant move. Guy is going to be rolling in the money in a short time.

What if he died tomorrow?




.

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

It's called having a life...something they are missing out of eating potato chips staring at their dash boards

 

[Andylusion]

Exceptionally brilliant.

Seriously brilliant. You could bank almost $100K a year doing that, and buy a house with cash, and that's a bad plan?

Did you read the article? They are getting free food on campus. Free laundry and showers.

We're talking nearly zero living expenses, no gasoline, nothing.

You work two years like that, and buy a house 100% cash, no loans, no mortgage, no interest payments.

How would you like to be age 25, and have a paid for home, no mortgage payment, making $100K? This guy is going to have women throwing themselves at him in 2 years. It's going to be a bad reality TV show for him soon.

Short term pain, long term gain. I actually have a renter in my home right now, who makes $90K a year. Why is he renting a tiny spare bedroom, when he makes so much? He's saving up to buy a house with cash.

Seriously it's a smart move. Brilliant move. Guy is going to be rolling in the money in a short time.

What if he died tomorrow?




.

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

It's called having a life...something they are missing out of eating potato chips staring at their dash boards

I've met many people who "had a life" and now they are broke and poor. In fact I have a co-worker right now, that made big money years ago, blew it all, has nothing to show for it, and is now making $12/hour. But he had a great life, until he blew all the money, and now doesn't have a life anymore.

You think this guy when he's 24, and has a paid for house, no mortgage or interest payments.... you think he'll have a life then? Yeah, and likely a much better life, than all those scraping by with all those payments, spending hundreds of dollars on gas, and those expensive California apartments.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What if he died tomorrow?




.

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

It's called having a life...something they are missing out of eating potato chips staring at their dash boards

I've met many people who "had a life" and now they are broke and poor. In fact I have a co-worker right now, that made big money years ago, blew it all, has nothing to show for it, and is now making $12/hour. But he had a great life, until he blew all the money, and now doesn't have a life anymore.

You think this guy when he's 24, and has a paid for house, no mortgage or interest payments.... you think he'll have a life then? Yeah, and likely a much better life, than all those scraping by with all those payments, spending hundreds of dollars on gas, and those expensive California apartments.

So you wished it was you?

 

[danielpalos]

Exceptionally brilliant.

Seriously brilliant. You could bank almost $100K a year doing that, and buy a house with cash, and that's a bad plan?

Did you read the article? They are getting free food on campus. Free laundry and showers.

We're talking nearly zero living expenses, no gasoline, nothing.

You work two years like that, and buy a house 100% cash, no loans, no mortgage, no interest payments.

How would you like to be age 25, and have a paid for home, no mortgage payment, making $100K? This guy is going to have women throwing themselves at him in 2 years. It's going to be a bad reality TV show for him soon.

Short term pain, long term gain. I actually have a renter in my home right now, who makes $90K a year. Why is he renting a tiny spare bedroom, when he makes so much? He's saving up to buy a house with cash.

Seriously it's a smart move. Brilliant move. Guy is going to be rolling in the money in a short time.

What if he died tomorrow?




.

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

It's called having a life...something they are missing out of eating potato chips staring at their dash boards

did you not read the article? Google offers a range of benefits, including a twenty-four hour campus.

 

[Andylusion]

What if an asteroid wipes out the planet next week? Will it matter either way?

At least They didn't make a100 grand a year living in their car.

Again... to them this is a great plan. I've lived out of my car. Not a big deal.

Not of course I did it because I was poor. They did it to be rich. These guys are not doing this because Google is evil or something. They are doing it so they have a better tomorrow.

The chances of them dying tomorrow is extremely low. Especially when they are not driving. The chances are very high that they will end up very wealthy, and not end up like the average American that makes $50k to $100K a year, and yet owes more money in loans, credit, and mortgages, and ends up dying penniless.

I was shocked by the number of people with high incomes, who have a negative net worth. The problem isn't that they don't earn enough to be wealthy, only that they are simply unwilling to make the sacrifices to be wealthy.

These guys are willing to do that, and instead of mocking them, we should be encouraging them, and encouraging everyone to be like them.

Because it's guys like this, that in their 40s through 70s, are not going to be complaining they need government health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, and eventually medicaid, medicare and social security.

If everyone was willing to make the sacrifices to be wealthy like them, we could eliminate the welfare state.

It's called having a life...something they are missing out of eating potato chips staring at their dash boards

I've met many people who "had a life" and now they are broke and poor. In fact I have a co-worker right now, that made big money years ago, blew it all, has nothing to show for it, and is now making $12/hour. But he had a great life, until he blew all the money, and now doesn't have a life anymore.

You think this guy when he's 24, and has a paid for house, no mortgage or interest payments.... you think he'll have a life then? Yeah, and likely a much better life, than all those scraping by with all those payments, spending hundreds of dollars on gas, and those expensive California apartments.

So you wished it was you?

Well of course. Absolutely. I have an Asian renter right now. His whole plan is to be that guy, with the job at Google. That's his goal.

There's a reason Asians have a higher standard of living in the US, than American whites.

 

[Markle]

Hmmmmmmm......................... LOL Yes, Washington state has the 12th highest average wage in the US, Texas has the 25th. Are people in Texas just less intelligent, or are they pussies that won't press for good wages?

No, they're just smarter than you.

Seattle, Washington ranks 12th in the cost of living index at 90.54.

Dallas, Texas ranks 114th in that same index at 70.20.

America: Cost of Living Index by City 2017

Plus, the weather is far milder in Texas and, if you like, you can move further South and enjoy the Gulf of Mexico.

Does the sun ever shine up there or is it too cold to notice?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So why the fuck does both places pay warehouse workers $12 bucks an hour?


I thought it was supposed to be more in a pro union state high minimum wage state?

It appears that a Right to work state low minimum wage state like Texas employers are less greedy by paying $4.75 more then minimum wage, while in Washington State they only pay $1 dollar more then minimum wage...


I thought according to liberals a rising tide rises all boats?


Warehouse Positions - 2nd Shift, $11 - $12/hr

Warehouse Positions - 2nd Shift, $11 - $12/hr (Fort Worth) hide this posting

compensation: Minimum of $11.00 per hour
employment type: full-time

To be considered for employment, you must complete an online employment application (www.ttiinc.com).

**NO PHONE CALLS**

**RESUMES NOT ACCEPTED - MUST COMPLETE ONLINE APPLICATION**

TTI, Inc., has been a leading specialty distributor of electronic components for over 40 years. We currently have multiple openings in our climate controlled, fast paced distribution centers.

Minimum starting wage is $11.00 per hour (Additional shift premium for 2nd shift of .65 cents per hour. 2nd shift begins at 12:00 p.m.)

Pay increases at 90 and 360 days during the first year

Temperature Controlled Environment

Background & Drug Test required

High School Diploma or GED required

Recent warehouse experience preferred

Specific openings and shift/pay rates are listed on the website



GENERAL WAREHOUSE WORKER

GENERAL WAREHOUSE WORKER (TACOMA) hide this posting
compensation: $12.00
employment type: full-time

General Warehouse Worker
Codel Entry Systems is looking for a General Warehouse Worker able to work various departments in a fast paced environment. Candidate must be eager and willing to work long hours if needed.
Job Duties
• Multiple warehouse related jobs such as Delivery Driver, machining doors and door frames, glazing doors, putting inventory away, loading trucks, Paint, Stain, etc.
Skills and Qualifications
• Must be familiar with hand tools, power tools, and MUST be able to read a tape measure
• Must be able to lift 75-100 lbs repeatedly
• Previous door shop experience desired, but not required
• Must have dependable transportation
• MUST be able to pass a drug test before being hired

Starting Wage $12.00/hr

Quality of life. Washington State has a Space Needle, Texas doesn't.

They have the tower of the America's.

Washington does not.

 

[charwin95]

We already said that. You keep making claims that are not in dispute.

We already said that the economy of Seattle was growing BEFORE the minimum wage hike.
We already said that wages were going up in Seattle BEFORE the minimum wage hike.

If the natural economy is driving up wages above the minimum wage... then we wouldn't expect the minimum wage to have any effect at all.

A clear example, is working at the Wendy's store, in down town Columbus ohio. The STARTING wage at the down town store, is $12.00

The minimum wage is $9. If the city of Columbus raised the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour..... what effect would that have on the employees and employer at the Wendy's down town? None. ZERO. You didn't help anyone, you didn't hurt anyone.

The economy is already pushing wages above the minimum wage, so it has no major effect.

Only the stores that have lower wages would be affected. Because those are a minority... which I already said very few people are affected by this minimum wage.... then they won't have a noticeable impact on the general statistical numbers. Again, everything you are saying, we already said.

The part you disagree with, is that the few people that are affected by the minimum wage, the effects are negative.

They increase prices on consumers, and reduce working hours.

You claim that I'm citing sources that cheery pick data to paint it in the worst light.

Do you even know who the source of that information is?
Why raising the minimum wage in Seattle did little to help workers, according to a new study

Yet the actual benefits to workers might have been minimal, according to a group of economists whom the city commissioned to study the minimum wage and who presented their initial findings last week.

Accounting for these factors, the average increase in total earnings due to the minimum wage was small, the researchers concluded. Using their preferred method, they calculated that workers' earnings increased by $5.54 a week on average because of the minimum wage. Using other methods, the researchers found that the minimum wage hike actually caused total weekly earnings to drop -- by as much as $5.22 a week.​

So let me help you out there...

The information I've been posting, is from the very city government of Seattle, which paid economists to research the effects of the minimum wage.

So you are telling me, that the politicians of the city, are cherry picking data, to make themselves look bad?

Are are you just wrong, and full of crap?

Yes I checked out your links (all links posted here in USMB) but ------------ Did you really understand what they are trying to imply? I'm very sure you don't.
Since when that kind increase will have a big impact to an employee? Of course it's minimal. Do you expect them to start buying a new car? If an employee making $10/hour -------- increase to $11 working 5 hours----- reality, logically and technically he/she only made extra $5. Duh----------- OPINION from W. post as anti MW is just a crap.
Employers or any kind of businesses ------------ ANY kind of businesses --------- increases or decreases working hours because of DEMANDS ------------ that has NOTHING to do with a modicum lousy peanut MW increase. Nothing.
Prices of any kinds of enterprises increased their prices almost every year-------- Like restaurants ------- Are the menu prices the same as last year or 2 years ago?
Oh! McDonald's hamburger cost $0.25 more here so I will drive 2 or more miles away because it's cheaper. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Try again.

No, you missed my point. I'll explain it again....

I did not say they were working 5 hours. Read what I say....

The economists that the city hired, determined that most employees at the minimum wage level, only saw a difference of $5. That's it. Some earned $5 LESS. Some earned $5 MORE. But the difference was about.... $5.

So the question that *I* posted was, how are they only seeing a $5 difference? I *ASKED* how do you account for that? Do you think they are only working 5 hours a week?

Obviously..... that is not the answer. The way that they only see a $5 dollar difference in their check, when they are earning a dollar more per hour...... according to the economists the City hired to research the effects of the Minimum wage..... they determined that businesses were CUTTING BACK ON HOURS, to offset the higher minimum wage.

That is what the economists the City of Seattle hired to research this topic, determined.

Companies were cutting back the number of hours that people were working.
$11 per hour X 40 hours = $440 weekly wage.
$12 per hour X 36 hours = $432 weekly wage. Employees worse off.

Do you understand now? The mount of money available for wages is 'finite'. It's not unlimited.
So when you arbitrarily increase the cost of labor, they cut the number of hours, to offset that cost.

This is the reality. This is exactly what we've been saying. Everything the economists found from researching the Seattle minimum wage, is happening exactly as we said it would.

Prices go up. Employment goes down. (reduced hours *IS* reduced employment).

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes I checked out your links (all links posted here in USMB) but ------------ Did you really understand what they are trying to imply? I'm very sure you don't.
Since when that kind increase will have a big impact to an employee? Of course it's minimal. Do you expect them to start buying a new car? If an employee making $10/hour -------- increase to $11 working 5 hours----- reality, logically and technically he/she only made extra $5. Duh----------- OPINION from W. post as anti MW is just a crap.
Employers or any kind of businesses ------------ ANY kind of businesses --------- increases or decreases working hours because of DEMANDS ------------ that has NOTHING to do with a modicum lousy peanut MW increase. Nothing.
Prices of any kinds of enterprises increased their prices almost every year-------- Like restaurants ------- Are the menu prices the same as last year or 2 years ago?
Oh! McDonald's hamburger cost $0.25 more here so I will drive 2 or more miles away because it's cheaper. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Try again.

No, you missed my point. I'll explain it again....

I did not say they were working 5 hours. Read what I say....

The economists that the city hired, determined that most employees at the minimum wage level, only saw a difference of $5. That's it. Some earned $5 LESS. Some earned $5 MORE. But the difference was about.... $5.

So the question that *I* posted was, how are they only seeing a $5 difference? I *ASKED* how do you account for that? Do you think they are only working 5 hours a week?

Obviously..... that is not the answer. The way that they only see a $5 dollar difference in their check, when they are earning a dollar more per hour...... according to the economists the City hired to research the effects of the Minimum wage..... they determined that businesses were CUTTING BACK ON HOURS, to offset the higher minimum wage.

That is what the economists the City of Seattle hired to research this topic, determined.

Companies were cutting back the number of hours that people were working.
$11 per hour X 40 hours = $440 weekly wage.
$12 per hour X 36 hours = $432 weekly wage. Employees worse off.

Do you understand now? The mount of money available for wages is 'finite'. It's not unlimited.
So when you arbitrarily increase the cost of labor, they cut the number of hours, to offset that cost.

This is the reality. This is exactly what we've been saying. Everything the economists found from researching the Seattle minimum wage, is happening exactly as we said it would.

Prices go up. Employment goes down. (reduced hours *IS* reduced employment).

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

Let's get this over with once and for all, I am getting tired of your bullshit

When can you ever figure out simple supply and demand?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes I checked out your links (all links posted here in USMB) but ------------ Did you really understand what they are trying to imply? I'm very sure you don't.
Since when that kind increase will have a big impact to an employee? Of course it's minimal. Do you expect them to start buying a new car? If an employee making $10/hour -------- increase to $11 working 5 hours----- reality, logically and technically he/she only made extra $5. Duh----------- OPINION from W. post as anti MW is just a crap.
Employers or any kind of businesses ------------ ANY kind of businesses --------- increases or decreases working hours because of DEMANDS ------------ that has NOTHING to do with a modicum lousy peanut MW increase. Nothing.
Prices of any kinds of enterprises increased their prices almost every year-------- Like restaurants ------- Are the menu prices the same as last year or 2 years ago?
Oh! McDonald's hamburger cost $0.25 more here so I will drive 2 or more miles away because it's cheaper. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Try again.

No, you missed my point. I'll explain it again....

I did not say they were working 5 hours. Read what I say....

The economists that the city hired, determined that most employees at the minimum wage level, only saw a difference of $5. That's it. Some earned $5 LESS. Some earned $5 MORE. But the difference was about.... $5.

So the question that *I* posted was, how are they only seeing a $5 difference? I *ASKED* how do you account for that? Do you think they are only working 5 hours a week?

Obviously..... that is not the answer. The way that they only see a $5 dollar difference in their check, when they are earning a dollar more per hour...... according to the economists the City hired to research the effects of the Minimum wage..... they determined that businesses were CUTTING BACK ON HOURS, to offset the higher minimum wage.

That is what the economists the City of Seattle hired to research this topic, determined.

Companies were cutting back the number of hours that people were working.
$11 per hour X 40 hours = $440 weekly wage.
$12 per hour X 36 hours = $432 weekly wage. Employees worse off.

Do you understand now? The mount of money available for wages is 'finite'. It's not unlimited.
So when you arbitrarily increase the cost of labor, they cut the number of hours, to offset that cost.

This is the reality. This is exactly what we've been saying. Everything the economists found from researching the Seattle minimum wage, is happening exactly as we said it would.

Prices go up. Employment goes down. (reduced hours *IS* reduced employment).

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

Again go look at the job boards yourself..

 

[Andylusion]

Yes I checked out your links (all links posted here in USMB) but ------------ Did you really understand what they are trying to imply? I'm very sure you don't.
Since when that kind increase will have a big impact to an employee? Of course it's minimal. Do you expect them to start buying a new car? If an employee making $10/hour -------- increase to $11 working 5 hours----- reality, logically and technically he/she only made extra $5. Duh----------- OPINION from W. post as anti MW is just a crap.
Employers or any kind of businesses ------------ ANY kind of businesses --------- increases or decreases working hours because of DEMANDS ------------ that has NOTHING to do with a modicum lousy peanut MW increase. Nothing.
Prices of any kinds of enterprises increased their prices almost every year-------- Like restaurants ------- Are the menu prices the same as last year or 2 years ago?
Oh! McDonald's hamburger cost $0.25 more here so I will drive 2 or more miles away because it's cheaper. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Try again.

No, you missed my point. I'll explain it again....

I did not say they were working 5 hours. Read what I say....

The economists that the city hired, determined that most employees at the minimum wage level, only saw a difference of $5. That's it. Some earned $5 LESS. Some earned $5 MORE. But the difference was about.... $5.

So the question that *I* posted was, how are they only seeing a $5 difference? I *ASKED* how do you account for that? Do you think they are only working 5 hours a week?

Obviously..... that is not the answer. The way that they only see a $5 dollar difference in their check, when they are earning a dollar more per hour...... according to the economists the City hired to research the effects of the Minimum wage..... they determined that businesses were CUTTING BACK ON HOURS, to offset the higher minimum wage.

That is what the economists the City of Seattle hired to research this topic, determined.

Companies were cutting back the number of hours that people were working.
$11 per hour X 40 hours = $440 weekly wage.
$12 per hour X 36 hours = $432 weekly wage. Employees worse off.

Do you understand now? The mount of money available for wages is 'finite'. It's not unlimited.
So when you arbitrarily increase the cost of labor, they cut the number of hours, to offset that cost.

This is the reality. This is exactly what we've been saying. Everything the economists found from researching the Seattle minimum wage, is happening exactly as we said it would.

Prices go up. Employment goes down. (reduced hours *IS* reduced employment).

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

Yeah.... they can be wrong. True. But in this case, this is something shown to be true across countries, and ages.

There are dozens of similar research that all show the exact same thing.

In this specific case... the BS is what you are saying here. That's all there is to it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What is the point of the OP? If both states are already paying workers $12/hr, there's no basis for people in those states to complain about the federal minimum wage being increased to $12/hr.

 

[charwin95]

Andy this is a continuation from post #247 and #258. I did not say the economist are lying. I can tell you that they are wrong.

You, economist, W. Post and Forbes are telling me that --------- the MW hike was a big mistakes, that companies are cutting hours, companies are losing money ------- bc of MW hike. So I'm simply asking you ------- PROVE IT---------What and where companies or any establishment that are cutting hours and losing money. NOT just simply making anti MW hike comments that companies are cutting hours and losing money.
If a company or McDonald's making money for years or decades -------- they will just simply change the way they make money cut hours because of a very tiny labor increase? Business doesn't work that way.
If a McDonald's has 30 employees working at a given day------- cut hours by closing early ------------- Closing McDonald's will take 3, 4 or 5 employees at the most---------- How much money do you think are they saving? Deduct $2 from each of the 5 employees -------- That is $10-------- to help you out make it $50 ---------- Is that make sense to you at all?
AGAIN-------- businesses cut or increase hours because of products demand. Businesses that cut hours because of business are down or they are in trouble to begin with.
Actually i know couple of people that owns McDonald's franchises since the 80s. Your example of 3 part time replaced with 1 full time employee. Just doesn't make sense. ---------- To begin with who ever made your staffing is a very poor or inexperienced manager------- Why make or wait to make change bc of MW hike? So---------- this one employee will cover 3 part time employees jobs like manning 3 cashiers at the same time? Then YOU and other guys have to cover and help out cleaning, moping, cleaning grills etc. ------ Is that mean you and other guys have a slack hours just willy nilly leave your spot simply sitting there waiting for someone that need help? That is called ridiculously over staffing.
Your closing hours change from 1 pm to 10pm ------- again-------- Why wait for the MW hike to save money? If business operations doesn't make sense to close at 1am ------ Why even bother to close at 1am to start with? Since when a McDonald's will close at 1am when there are only few customers coming at 11pm or 12am?

It's VERY WRONG to say businesses close earlier because of MW hike---------- Business close ONLY at a given schedule based from when they are making money. NOT bc of a minute MW hike. Oh! I will alter the way I make money because im saving $30 tonight so I'm closing early from now on. Like Olive Garden normally close at 10 pm ------- is that mean they will close at 9 pm to save $30 but then losing a bunch of customers? Is this make sense to you at all?

I increase my prices from manufacturer------- list ------- to distributors prices every year. All my competitors are doing the same thing to catch up like shipping, materials and other changes. That is the nature of our business but we rarely use the MW as an excuse of slow, stagnant or good profitable year.
Are menus the same last year or the year before they increased the MW? No they are not ------- it always goes up even before the MW hike and never goes down. Prices changes all the time not just MW hike.
Just bc your economist and news media says it's bad that doesn't mean they are right-------- If they are right then give me *REAL EXACT EXAMPLES* ------- Why do you think they are right? Not just giving an anti MW hike statements. Then prove to me where I'm wrong.
Did they publish a scientific or investigated data how they came up with those statements?


My friend is having a hard time finding workers so he posted this sign $11.50/hour to start to 3 of his McDonald's stores. It doesn't look like they are losing money, they haven't cut hours and they always close their stores at 10 pm but never on 1am.

They do not even need to run a query------ they can just simply plug in the percentage across the board how much they can increase to make for the maggot MW hike. Then they add more cents on top of that.

 

[charwin95]

No, you missed my point. I'll explain it again....

I did not say they were working 5 hours. Read what I say....

The economists that the city hired, determined that most employees at the minimum wage level, only saw a difference of $5. That's it. Some earned $5 LESS. Some earned $5 MORE. But the difference was about.... $5.

So the question that *I* posted was, how are they only seeing a $5 difference? I *ASKED* how do you account for that? Do you think they are only working 5 hours a week?

Obviously..... that is not the answer. The way that they only see a $5 dollar difference in their check, when they are earning a dollar more per hour...... according to the economists the City hired to research the effects of the Minimum wage..... they determined that businesses were CUTTING BACK ON HOURS, to offset the higher minimum wage.

That is what the economists the City of Seattle hired to research this topic, determined.

Companies were cutting back the number of hours that people were working.
$11 per hour X 40 hours = $440 weekly wage.
$12 per hour X 36 hours = $432 weekly wage. Employees worse off.

Do you understand now? The mount of money available for wages is 'finite'. It's not unlimited.
So when you arbitrarily increase the cost of labor, they cut the number of hours, to offset that cost.

This is the reality. This is exactly what we've been saying. Everything the economists found from researching the Seattle minimum wage, is happening exactly as we said it would.

Prices go up. Employment goes down. (reduced hours *IS* reduced employment).

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

Yeah.... they can be wrong. True. But in this case, this is something shown to be true across countries, and ages.

There are dozens of similar research that all show the exact same thing.

In this specific case... the BS is what you are saying here. That's all there is to it.

I haven't called you bulshit or insult your inexperienced post. Since you started it. Prove to me where they are right.

This is Bear favorite topic, post this twice a year at least --------- then along the line ignorant like you come up ---------- suddenly become an expert of MW then using only ONE McDonald's experience as your reference. You don't know shit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Totally totally disagree. This is exactly what I called cherry picking.
Name me an enterprise or any businesses that reduced hours because of MW increased? Not just blanketly -------- $11/hour x 40 hours = $440 $12/hour x 36 hours = $432
1. Again the reduction or increase of hour depends on ----------- demands --------- Which has been the nature of businesses since the beginning of dawn--------- but using that as excuse because of MW hike is totally false.
I will use McDonald's as example---------- If a McDonald's has 10 employees all working on first shift 8 hours-------- they will cut it 6 hours. Is McDonald's shut down the store for the 2 hours gap or they will bring in the second shift 2 hours earlier? ----------- Then cut the second shift 2 hours ---------- then bring the third shift 2 hours earlier---------- Then close McDonald's 2 hours early? Or Olive Garden normally closed at 10 pm then close it at 8 pm? How is that even possible?

2. Prices go up employment goes down--------- Again that depends on the nature of business---------- but using that as an excuse because of MW hike is totally false. Name me a company that did this because of MW hike.
To make up the difference is just increase the price of french fries to 15 cents. BUT they DO NOT ------- DO NOT increase the price of french fries from $1.25 to ridiculous $4.00 -------- which is what the economist or W. post or Forbes are trying to imply.
I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.
Most or ALL of my post are based from real life, specifics, facts and honesty. I do rely on economist most of the time but there are times that I totally totally disagree. If the *OPINION* repeat *OPINION* of a reporter from Washington Post, Forbes or the economist is anti MW ------------- then that is what you got. All of them are saying the same thing ------------ They make it sound that the MW increase from whatever-------- to $15/hour overnight. And prices like french fries go up from my example $1.25 to $4.00 per bag.

So the economists hired by the city are all lying?

But beyond that, you are saying stuff here that is not just 'possible' but normal. This happens all the time.

But you want a specific answer, McDonalds. This is actually an absolutely perfect example, because I actually lived this. I worked at McDonald's in 1996 when the minimum wage went from $4.25 to $5.15. (phased in over 2 years).

So I can tell you exactly how this worked when I was there. We had 3 part time people that worked there. They fired all of them, and replaced them with one single full time person.

Now as you can mathematically grasp, 3 people working 30 hours, is 90 hours a week. 1 person working 40, is significantly less hours.

So how did they deal with that? The rest of us that were still employed.... simply had to do more work. We had a guy that would empty all the trash cans, and mop the floors, and clean the bathrooms. Now we had to do that in additional to our regular duties. We had another guy that would clean all the trays, and do cleaning on the grills and fry cookers. Now we had to do those things, in addition to our normal duties.

By the way, another thing we did was eliminate the 1 AM close. We started closing at 10 PM instead of staying open till 1 AM. Late night shifts when the number of customers is predictably small, become less profitable real fast when you increase labor costs. So it doesn't surprise me in retrospect that the store quit staying open late when the minimum wage went up.

I increase my prices from manufacturer -------- list ----------- distributors prices every year but I do not increase my prices that reduces my ability to compete.

Two things:

Your inability to compete in this specific case, is mitigated by the fact that all your competitors are facing the same problem.

If only McDonald's was being forced to pay higher wages, and all the other stores were not... then yes, competition would keep the price inflation in check. (of course it would likely push McDonald's out of business in those areas).

But a minimum wage law, forces up wages on ALL the stores. Thus, McDonald's can safely jack up their prices, because Wendy's, Burger King, Subway.... all the stores are also dealing with the same wage hike, and thus all are going to be pushing the same price hike.

If ALL your competitors were raising prices, would you be nearly as hesitant to raise your own? Of course the answer is no.

Second, if you were faced with going out of business, as some stores are, your trying to stay competitive really doesn't matter much.

Lastly, what I posted before, and I posted now, is not "opinion". It's fact. The post before was fact based analysis of labor data. The post this time was fact based reality which I lived through.

1. He always says people are lying no matter what links you use

.

That is incorrect Bear------ I have the experience to counter act economist or news media. Just because it came from reputable news media or economist that doesn't mean they are right. They do make mistakes. I know what is fact, real and bullshit.

Yeah.... they can be wrong. True. But in this case, this is something shown to be true across countries, and ages.

There are dozens of similar research that all show the exact same thing.

In this specific case... the BS is what you are saying here. That's all there is to it.

I haven't called you bulshit or insult your inexperienced post. Since you started it. Prove to me where they are right.

This is Bear favorite topic, post this twice a year at least --------- then along the line ignorant like you come up ---------- suddenly become an expert of MW then using only ONE McDonald's experience as your reference. You don't know shit.

^ All that to say your a fucking idiot?

Wow I impfessed you taken it to new heights of stupidity let me guess you party with Daniel?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What is the point of the OP? If both states are already paying workers $12/hr, there's no basis for people in those states to complain about the federal minimum wage being increased to $12/hr.

Well, seems to me that in that case, those states don't NEED the federal minimum wage to be increased to $12/hr.

On the other hand, the federal minimum wage applies to more than just those two states.