Does AOC know $15 minimum wage in states like Mississippi will put people out of work?

[danielpalos]

Employers get to expense the Cost of Labor, regardless.

Businesses get to expense losses, regardless.

that changes the "value".

The same thing, just because you can expense costs doesn’t mean you pay above market share for labor and materials.

you can expense the cost of labor, whatever the Cost.

You can cost materials whatever the cost, it doesn’t mean you pay the highest price possible, like you they pay market value, not above.

just the right wing protesting too much. trade wars and tariffs also affect costs.

 

[danielpalos]

trade wars, tariffs, "gun boat diplomacy". Government solves all problems for the right wing.

Where is the global trade that will promote the general welfare?

Like I have said bring all troops home, and make good trade deals, not just deals.

Your guy only has trade wars and tariffs.

Who is my guy? Looks like more generalizations and bigotry.

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies?

You are the one that diverted, so it is on you and your bigotry and ignorance, not like your guy.

i thought you voted for him.

 

[Synthaholic]

View attachment 264072

A Heritage Foundation analysis from 2016 estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage would wipe out 7 million jobs. Hardest hit would be workers, businesses, and economies in areas with low costs of living. (like Mississippi where cost of living is 87% of USA standard.
Mississippi cost of living is 87.8% Mississippi Cost of Living

Liberal activists demand a “living wage,” but the truth is that only a tiny handful of hourly wage workers make the minimum wage or less (4 percent), according to the Employment Policies Institute. On the contrary, a whopping 44 percent of hourly workers currently earn at or below the proposed $15 minimum wage.

Now consider what the $15 minimum wage would do.

For a restaurant that employs 10 minimum wage workers, a $15 minimum wage hike would cost them about $170,000 per year. If the restaurant currently earns profit margins of 5 percent, it would have to increase sales by $3.5 million per year, or an extra $67,000 every week.

But that is not realistic. The likely scenario is that they’ll either have to cut working hours or fire some workers altogether. Either way, most people are worse off than before.

Lawmakers Are Pushing a $15 Minimum Wage. Here Are 3 Disastrous Consequences That Would Result.
Robotic waiters...

View attachment 264073

Heritage foundation.

 

[Papageorgio]

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

You keep changing your parameters. Earlier you claimed that welfare costs $14 per hour yet you don’t want to give those on welfare $14 per hour, why not?

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

 

[rightwinger]

McDonalds survived doubling the price of ground beef
But can’t survive a minimum wage increase

Evidently you don't comprehend this example of the average McDonalds' operating expenses!

What is McDonald's alternative?

Meet the newest fry cook at the US burger chain CaliBurger: Flippy.
This robot, which will be installed in up to 10 of CaliBurger's 50 locations, can turn patties on a grill and clean it.
Robots are already working in fast-food restaurants — here's exactly what they're doing right now

New McDonald’s In Phoenix Run Entirely By Robots
New McDonald’s In Phoenix Run Entirely By Robots - News Examiner

Let’s see...

McDonalds is introducing robots even though the price of labor hasn’t been increased in ten years

Showing that the min wage has nothing to do with it
They would have introduced robots anyway

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

No they wouldn’t

If McDonalds employees offered to work for $2 an hour.....would they stop automating?

If that's less than the cost of automation, yes.

I remember when gas was 35 cents a gallon in the early 70s.
That is when they started installing self serve pumps

Minimum wage was slightly over $2

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I have said bring all troops home, and make good trade deals, not just deals.

Your guy only has trade wars and tariffs.

Who is my guy? Looks like more generalizations and bigotry.

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies?

You are the one that diverted, so it is on you and your bigotry and ignorance, not like your guy.

i thought you voted for him.

You think that way because of you are allowing yourself to be ignorant and bigoted and not asking the question. That’s what happens when you ASSume.

 

[rightwinger]

Evidently you don't comprehend this example of the average McDonalds' operating expenses!

What is McDonald's alternative?

Meet the newest fry cook at the US burger chain CaliBurger: Flippy.
This robot, which will be installed in up to 10 of CaliBurger's 50 locations, can turn patties on a grill and clean it.
Robots are already working in fast-food restaurants — here's exactly what they're doing right now

New McDonald’s In Phoenix Run Entirely By Robots
New McDonald’s In Phoenix Run Entirely By Robots - News Examiner

Let’s see...

McDonalds is introducing robots even though the price of labor hasn’t been increased in ten years

Showing that the min wage has nothing to do with it
They would have introduced robots anyway

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

We should not be subsidizing labor for employers. Raising the minimum wage means less need for social services.

Social services support employers low wages and higher profit

As it should be. If society decides everyone should have an artificially set standard of living, it should be on society to provide it through taxation and welfare. Business should hire and pay based on the value of the work.

Your choice

You would rather have the taxpayer support those workers than have their employer

 

[healthmyths]

Let’s see...

McDonalds is introducing robots even though the price of labor hasn’t been increased in ten years

Showing that the min wage has nothing to do with it
They would have introduced robots anyway

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

We should not be subsidizing labor for employers. Raising the minimum wage means less need for social services.

Social services support employers low wages and higher profit

As it should be. If society decides everyone should have an artificially set standard of living, it should be on society to provide it through taxation and welfare. Business should hire and pay based on the value of the work.

Employers get to expense the Cost of Labor, regardless.

Are you contending that because a business can consider "Cost of Labor" as an "expense" for tax purposes?
If so, so what? Whether a tax deduction or not it is an "EXPENSE" to operate the business.
Again... ignorant people just don't understand the concept of managing a business that requires employees, brick and mortar, electricity, material etc.
It would definitely close business doors if "EXPENSES" like Labor, et.al. were not deducted from gross revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

You keep changing your parameters. Earlier you claimed that welfare costs $14 per hour yet you don’t want to give those on welfare $14 per hour, why not?

because compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, better promotes the general welfare.

It promotes dependence on government and allows them to control more of our economy.

in what way? the dependence in this case, is equal protection of the law. we have an entitlement to that form of dependence on Government.

 

[danielpalos]

Your guy only has trade wars and tariffs.

Who is my guy? Looks like more generalizations and bigotry.

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies?

You are the one that diverted, so it is on you and your bigotry and ignorance, not like your guy.

i thought you voted for him.

You think that way because of you are allowing yourself to be ignorant and bigoted and not asking the question. That’s what happens when you ASSume.

this is about economics not right wing appeals to ignorance.

correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation is market friendly not government Commanded.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

We should not be subsidizing labor for employers. Raising the minimum wage means less need for social services.

Social services support employers low wages and higher profit

As it should be. If society decides everyone should have an artificially set standard of living, it should be on society to provide it through taxation and welfare. Business should hire and pay based on the value of the work.

Employers get to expense the Cost of Labor, regardless.

Are you contending that because a business can consider "Cost of Labor" as an "expense" for tax purposes?
If so, so what? Whether a tax deduction or not it is an "EXPENSE" to operate the business.
Again... ignorant people just don't understand the concept of managing a business that requires employees, brick and mortar, electricity, material etc.
It would definitely close business doors if "EXPENSES" like Labor, et.al. were not deducted from gross revenue.

the greater the Expense to be expensed, the lower to total tax liability to be taxed.

income minus expenses equals profit and taxable income.

 

[hadit]

Let’s see...

McDonalds is introducing robots even though the price of labor hasn’t been increased in ten years

Showing that the min wage has nothing to do with it
They would have introduced robots anyway

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

We should not be subsidizing labor for employers. Raising the minimum wage means less need for social services.

Social services support employers low wages and higher profit

As it should be. If society decides everyone should have an artificially set standard of living, it should be on society to provide it through taxation and welfare. Business should hire and pay based on the value of the work.

Employers get to expense the Cost of Labor, regardless.

Irrelevant. Of course they should be able to.

 

[hadit]

So every unemployed person is eligible? Where has this been successfully done? How much will this actually cost? What is the monthly benefit?

sure; in the US, the cost will depend on employment, so the more employers hire the less it should cost. i am advocating for the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage to actually work, for unemployment compensation.

Every unemployed person, from age one month to 125 years old, How many people would that be? Could you please give the monthly amount of the benefit? What if a person worked part time, what would be his benefit?

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

Be honest, you're not talking about labor force, you're talking about paying those who won't work.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; in the US, the cost will depend on employment, so the more employers hire the less it should cost. i am advocating for the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than the minimum wage to actually work, for unemployment compensation.

Every unemployed person, from age one month to 125 years old, How many people would that be? Could you please give the monthly amount of the benefit? What if a person worked part time, what would be his benefit?

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

Be honest, you're not talking about labor force, you're talking about paying those who won't work.

the honest part is that actually working may not be the best option if unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is available. we should not have any homeless problem; those persons should participating in our economy.

 

[hadit]

Every unemployed person, from age one month to 125 years old, How many people would that be? Could you please give the monthly amount of the benefit? What if a person worked part time, what would be his benefit?

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

Translation to English: You want to be paid when you DECIDE not to work, not just when you're unemployed through no fault of your own.

 

[danielpalos]

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

Translation to English: You want to be paid when you DECIDE not to work, not just when you're unemployed through no fault of your own.

there is no "fault" under the doctrine of employment at will.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure, and rising labor costs would simply accelerate the process.

We should not be subsidizing labor for employers. Raising the minimum wage means less need for social services.

Social services support employers low wages and higher profit

As it should be. If society decides everyone should have an artificially set standard of living, it should be on society to provide it through taxation and welfare. Business should hire and pay based on the value of the work.

Employers get to expense the Cost of Labor, regardless.

Are you contending that because a business can consider "Cost of Labor" as an "expense" for tax purposes?
If so, so what? Whether a tax deduction or not it is an "EXPENSE" to operate the business.
Again... ignorant people just don't understand the concept of managing a business that requires employees, brick and mortar, electricity, material etc.
It would definitely close business doors if "EXPENSES" like Labor, et.al. were not deducted from gross revenue.

The cost of minimum wage labor has been frozen for ten years

How much profit have they made?

 

[hadit]

Every unemployed person, from age one month to 125 years old, How many people would that be? Could you please give the monthly amount of the benefit? What if a person worked part time, what would be his benefit?

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

Be honest, you're not talking about labor force, you're talking about paying those who won't work.

the honest part is that actually working may not be the best option if unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is available. we should not have any homeless problem; those persons should participating in our economy.

IOW, you want to take money OUT of the economy, use some of it to feed the government bureaucracy, then put a little of it back INTO the economy and hope it doesn't just disappear into the pocket of the nearest pot dealer?

You might as well try to fill a swimming pool by dipping water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. You really need to learn about opportunity cost, because that money has to come from someone who no longer has it to do something he wants.

If someone is working, they deserve to be paid what their work is worth. If they can work but won't, why should they be compensated?

 

[hadit]

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

Translation to English: You want to be paid when you DECIDE not to work, not just when you're unemployed through no fault of your own.

there is no "fault" under the doctrine of employment at will.

If I'm laid off, I can get unemployment compensation. The employer pays into it and it's there to be used. That's completely different from what you're talking about, which is paying someone for nothing more than existing.

 

[Andylusion]

McDonalds survived doubling the price of ground beef
But can’t survive a minimum wage increase

Yes, by passing on costs to consumers.

Which if the consumers refuse to pay the higher price, then no.... they can't survive.

Doubling the cost of beef? When did this happen?

2010

Um.... no.

View attachment 264475

The price of beef, has increased barely $1 per lbs, over a period of decades. It's been slowly going up year over year, since the mid-90s.


It most certainly did not double in one year, from 2009, to 2010.
Ridiculous.

Now you might ask the question how can McDonald's handle the cost of beef going up, but not a minimum wage going up?

The answer is simple.... higher prices.

View attachment 264477

All costs are passed onto the consumer. All of them. There is no cost, whether it is the cost of payroll, or the cost of beef, that is not passed onto consumers.

Further, the cost of beef, is actually not a major cost to the store. It just isn't. It may seem like it should be, since they are primarily a burger joint, but in reality the full cost of a single big mac, in terms of food costs, is only 80¢. So out of that $4.80 for a big mac, only 80¢ is the food. That means the cost of the beef used, is less than 80¢ because that 80¢ includes the buns, the cheese, the onions, the sauce, and whatever else that is on it.

So what is the other $4? All profit? No, because if it was all profit, McDonald's would be raking in Trillions instead of Billions.

Of course you have store overhead, and you have to pay for the paper supplies, like the wrapper you put the burger in, and the bag, and so on.

But the single biggest expense, is exactly as the person before pointed out.... payroll. If you increase the price of beef, even by 100%.... we're still talking pennies per burger.

But if you increase payroll by 100%, we're talking $600,000.

Additionally, you seem to be equating a slow increase over 20 years, with a minimum wage increase over 2 years. Not at all comparable.

The price of a Big Mac has increased $1 in the ten years since min wage has increased

How many Big Macs does an employee sell in an hour?

Now you are getting into more complicated territory. When you stated the price of beef doubled, we could look at the price of a single burger, and determine how much effect the price of beef had on a single burger.

But when you talk about the minimum wage, things get drastically more complicated, and it isn't as simple as how many burgers does an employee sell.

I actually was working at a fast food joint in the 90s, when the minimum wage increased. I know that many things change, in order to offset that cost.

For example, the first thing they did was lay off all the part-time employees. We had three part time employees, and they were all laid off. So how did the store function, without those employees? We, the full time employees, were expected to do our normal duties, while we cover the jobs no longer done by part-time employees.

So that's one way to offset the minimum wage cost, which will not drive up the cost of a burger.

Another way was to reduce portion sizes. I discovered this almost by accident. So the fry station had these metal, non-adjustable fry cup holders. One day I was asked to refill the fry station with cups. But when I put the newly purchased cups into the holders, they fell straight through. The cups were physically smaller. So the large cup, was smaller than the old large cup. Medium smaller than the original medium, and so on.

They had reduced the portion sizes of the fries and the drink. This is yet another way to compensate for the increase in the minimum, without driving up prices on anything, burgers or otherwise.

And also they do sometimes also reduce the size of the beef patty as well, but usually they bring it back up to the same size later.

I remember when at Wendy's we had the Single, Double and Triple. And working the grill, I could tell that they had reduced the size of the patties. Then they came out with the "Dave's Classic" and "Dave's Classic Double". Which magically were the exact same patties as before, with a new "Dave's Classic" price. And of course they quickly stopped selling the original Single and Double.

It was a clever way of raising the price, with few people noticing.

But again, here's the bottom line.... Every single cost, is passed onto the consumers. If you demand a higher minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that YOU pay a higher price for everything. Which is exactly what happens.



Now they do eventually increase prices.