If minimum wage were raised ...

[Spoonman]

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

 

[Mathbud1]

I've looked at various studies and figures which all show about a 2% increase in prices for every 20% raise in the minimum wage.

And again, the reason is simple. Any company worth a crap is already charging as much for their products as their customers are willing to pay, or very close to it anyway.

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.

Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.

At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.

 

[BillyZane]

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin. I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem

 

[Spoonman]

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin. I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

 

[BillyZane]

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.

Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.

At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.

Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest.

What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago.

It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.

Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.

The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.

 

[Foxfyre]

So if they can't raise their prices because customers won't tolerate it how do they offset the increased cost?

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages. But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive. When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business. And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.

Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.

Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter. The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector. Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more. So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.

In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour. Australians like that. But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage. The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.

It is all relative. And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.

 

[Mathbud1]

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.

Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.

At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.

Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest.

What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago.

It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.

Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.

The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.

Do you know what happens when you are flying an airplane and change your heading by a small amount? Not much up front. Small change, small effect. When you get to the other side of the country? "Wait, I'm in Florida? I was going to New York though."

Just because there is no dramatic immediate effect does not mean that the overall effect could not be massive.

Also, when these other increases happened, was the economic situation the same as it is today?

 

[Papawx3]

What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."

Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.

Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour? And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour? And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour? Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck. It's NEVER that easy.

 

[Spoonman]

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages. But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive. When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business. And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.

Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.

Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter. The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector. Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more. So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.

In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour. Australians like that. But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage. The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.

It is all relative. And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.

right, and today, especially still in the midst of a 7 year recession any business is already running lean. they don't have much room to absorb. it is one thing to suggest raising the minimum wage in a strong economy, when companies may have strong margins and room to work. but when businesses are already failing right and left, companies are struggling to stay afloat, unemployment is high, inflation is already taxing consumer spending, it is absolutely absurd.

 

[Spoonman]

Again simple.

Out of their own profits. The same way I , or any other businessperson, must do when our costs rise but we can't raise prices else we'd price ourselves out of the market. Yes it,s a fine line, and say $15 would upset that balance, but $10 would not.

So companies take less profit, or they pass the cost on to consumers. Companies that take a hit to profit will be less able to grow and provide future jobs. Then, either companies that opted to pass on the cost will see a decrease in sales or consumer purchasing power will be reduced because they had to pay more.

Since the companies that can get away with charging more are probably the necessity-goods providers, the companies that offer non-necessity-goods, who are probably the ones who took a hit to profit to keep prices down, take another hit because the consumer has less non-necessity money left after paying the increased prices of the necessities.

At best, if workers are taking more money home they end up paying more for the necessities, non-necessity businesses eat the loss and don't grow as fast, and nobody really benefits.

Please point to one increase in the federal minimum wage which has caused anything close to what you suggest.

What you and others fail to admit is that the minimum wage has NOT kept up with costs. It simply hasn't . It's worth 77% of what it was just 25 years ago.

It's worth 60% of what it was in 1968, and I would dare say that United States was in a far better position economically in 1968 then we are today.

Now, on the other hand, I believe that any increase in the minimum wage should be fully coupled with a decrease in taxes since raising wages should lower the number of people eligible for welfare, and yes I would insist that the welfare threshold remain where it is.

The math is simple, add $4000 roughly to the minimum wage earners salary and then take away $3000 or whatever in welfare that they are no longer eligible for , then at least spend that money paying down the debt if you're not going to return it to the taxpayers.

don't forget to also take away their obamacare subsidies. these people will be spending more than they make

 

[BillyZane]

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin. I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.

 

[Mathbud1]

What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."

Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.

Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour? And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour? And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour? Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck. It's NEVER that easy.

Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.

 

[BillyZane]

no, they cut SG&A. something gives. why do you think you see so many layoffs in a tough economy? people aren't absorbing the losses with their profits.

In order to have personal freedom without the headaches of corporate or office politics, etc., many of us small business owners run small businesses for profits that may be no better than or sometimes even less than what we could earn working for wages. But there still has to be a reasonable rate of return when we are risking most or all of our assets, and if the business owner isn't putting some of the profit back into the business, it is a rare business that will survive. When the costs of doing business outweigh the opportunity for profit, there isn't much point in doing business. And when the business owner folds up his tent, all those jobs go away.

Expecting a business to absorb much higher costs via lower profits is not realistic or practical or good business, and it ain't gonna happen.

Just as there is a ripple effect that benefits all or most when one segment begins to prosper, there is a converse negative ripple effect when one segment begins to falter. The service sector is a valid component of the economy, much more so than is actually optimun for a healthy economy, and it is almost all very labor intensive, and a huge percentage of it is in the non-critical or non-essential sector. Make that service more expensive than customers are willing to pay and a whole lot of those customers will decide they just can't afford that service any more. So those service jobs go away, there are fewer customers for the non-service sector, and those jobs suffer too.

In Australia, the minimum wage is like $15/hour. Australians like that. But they don't like the reduced hours many of them now work because employers just can't work them full time at that wage. The same things happens in America when you make wages more than the profit margins of the business can bear.

It is all relative. And we have to look at the whole big picture and see all the benefits and all the consequences of the policies we implement.

right, and today, especially still in the midst of a 7 year recession any business is already running lean. they don't have much room to absorb. it is one thing to suggest raising the minimum wage in a strong economy, when companies may have strong margins and room to work. but when businesses are already failing right and left, companies are struggling to stay afloat, unemployment is high, inflation is already taxing consumer spending, it is absolutely absurd.

bullshit , plain and simple. Read any economic report and you will see that profits are up nearly across the board over the last few years. The ONLY difference being that the stock holders of these corporations are the ones keeping the profits.

Wal Mart, as an example, made $16 BILLION in PROFIT last year. No company is making anywhere near $16B in profit in a lean economy, not even one as big as Wal Mart.

20 companies that made the most - Exxon Mobil (1) - FORTUNE

lean economy my ass. You meant to say GREEDY economy.

 

[BillyZane]

What minimum wage laws really do is tell workers, "you cannot get any job unless that job is worth at least x amount." and tell employers, "you cannot offer any job unless that job is worth x amount."

Don't kid yourself. If a job is not worth at least the minimum wage to a company that job won't be offered. If the company determines that having the floors swept and dishes done is worth $7.25 and the minimum wage is raised to $9, they won't offer a sweep-the-floors-and-do-dishes position anymore. They will offer a sweep-the-floors-do-the-dishes-cook-the-food--and-take-out-the-garbage position. And if that means there used to be two jobs and now there is just one, so be it.

Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour? And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour? And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour? Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck. It's NEVER that easy.

Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.

Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.

 

[Spoonman]

You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin. I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.

wages in general have decreased in value over time. but now here is a key difference. workers at minimum wage have a safety net. entitlements. they have methods to supplement their income. now the middle class is just forced to absorb it. over time, they can't. and they join the ranks of those needing entitlements. giving them a modest increase doesn not put them in a better states. what they gain in income they lose in lost entitlements and increased costs of goods and services.

 

[Mathbud1]

You don't see layoffs when the minimum wage goes up UNLESS sales drop to Not by well run companies.

Look at Wal Mart tried that, they switched a bunch of people to part time and destaffed but it didn't take long for them to realize that doing so cost them sales, and thus cost them more profit than if they had maintained staffing at original levels

As I said, I have 2 businesses. and in each I staff to sales, not to a predetermined profit margin. I don't pay minimum wage, so that doesn't affect me, but I DO give y people raises on a regular basis, and when I do I don't let another employee go or raise prices I just accept the extra cost of doing business and go on. Eventually over time when many wages have risen a certain amount then yes of course I have to raise my prices, but I don't do it every time a wage increases.

Of course I also recognize that there are lots of greedy people out there who will try to raise prices far in excess of the increase to their costs, but that's their problem

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.

Trying to look objectively at what the real impact of a change would be does not equate to not caring about poor people. If you make decisions based on emotion, chances are you are going to do more harm than good. If you INTEND to help the poor and make a decision that ultimately hurts them and everyone else you aren't being compassionate.

And if you use sob stories to guilt people into emotional action especially for political motivations you aren't being compassionate.

 

[BillyZane]

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.

wages in general have decreased in value over time. but now here is a key difference. workers at minimum wage have a safety net. entitlements. they have methods to supplement their income. now the middle class is just forced to absorb it. over time, they can't. and they join the ranks of those needing entitlements. giving them a modest increase doesn not put them in a better states. what they gain in income they lose in lost entitlements and increased costs of goods and services.

That's some twisting to justify there, but let me be blunt and frank.

I don't care if those who are too stupid to move beyond a minimum wage job survive or not. Frankly we'd be far better off if they didn't. However, I recognize that that isn't going to happen, so my alternate plan is to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, and push those people from being eligible for any welfare. Yes, I agree if you take someone's welfare and make them subsist, on $10 an hour, they are actually losing money per year. Don't care, all I care about is getting able bodied people off welfare.

In fact, I'll go further, I would completely end welfare for anyone who could work , but isn't.

It should be WORK FARE. If you don't have a job, you go down to your local city hall and they assign you a job, you work it just like you would a regular job, then you get paid minimum wage tax free. Even if you're just out scooping dog shit at the local park, at least you're trying. No more sitting at home waiting for that welfare check.

If you won't work, tough shit starve.

If you just can't physically work , then there are programs to help you and they should remain in place, however the process of qualifying for those should tighten up.

Why should we the tax payers be subsidizing a too low minimum wage? It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[BillyZane]

now if minimum wage goes up, all of your employees are impated by the increased cost of goods, and they get no raise. so their spending power has dimminished. and what is the level people will pay for a product. When cigarettes were 35 cents a pack the thought was raising them to 50 cents would be a deterent. it wasn't. the a dollar. same thing. and so on and so on until people are paying up to $10 a pack now. they never reached the limit but the threshold they did cross was making the product more attractive to steal and opening up a huge black market.

Uh huh. Meanwhile the minimum wage has actually DECREASED over the years (in real value) and yet prices have sky rocketed.

Let's look at McD for a moment, and I only choose them because the data is so easily obtained.

In 1964 the min wage was $1.25 an hour and McD was selling cheeseburgers for $.15

The Food Timeline--historic food prices
Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955?2013 | Infoplease.com

That means a person could work at McD and buy 8.34 cheeseburgers for every hour worked (before taxes)

Today the min wage is $7.25 and McD gets $1.10 for a cheeseburger. Meaning of course that before taxes a person could buy 6.59 cheeseburgers per hour worked.

And of course add into that that up until say the last 7 or so years, fast foods routinely let their employees have a free meal while working, but have taken that away as well in order to increase their own profits.


So I like to look at real dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Using this tool we see that McDonalds burgers actually cost the same in 2013 as they did in 1964 because $1.10 today is the equal of $.15 in 1964.

But if we look at wages we see that McD is only paying $.96 per hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers compared $1.25 an hour while selling $.15 cheeseburgers in 1964.

No matter how you look at it the crying that prices will increase if wages are increased is bunk because prices have currently remained constant over the years while wages have DECREASED. And I'm quite sure that if we looked at other business models over that time frame we would see the same.

I'd rather someone honestly admitted that they just don't care about poor people then see them try to justify the current minimum wage or worse try to claim that doing away with the minimum wage would help any workers.

Trying to look objectively at what the real impact of a change would be does not equate to not caring about poor people. If you make decisions based on emotion, chances are you are going to do more harm than good. If you INTEND to help the poor and make a decision that ultimately hurts them and everyone else you aren't being compassionate.

And if you use sob stories to guilt people into emotional action especially for political motivations you aren't being compassionate.

sob stories? I'm using facts to show you that the tax payer is subsidizing wages that are lower than they should be. Simple as that.

You meanwhile are refusing to admit that yes the minimum wage is 23% lower than it was even 25 years ago.

 

[Politico]

Programs to help. BS. Disabled people are screwed left and right in this country.

 

[Mathbud1]

Again, I have to add the question of what happens to the guy who used to sweep the floors and take out the garbage and only a few months ago was promoted from that position to that of waiter, bartender or other customer service related position and is NOW getting paid $9 per hour? And the head waiter whom he replaced and is now making $11 per hour? And the manager who also moved up the ladder and is now making $13 or $14.00 an hour? Do you expect for all these people to sit on their hands and not say a thing about the lower-level guy who just got a huge pay raise just because some politician says he should?
It's not ever a simple as giving a new guy a couple of extra bucks in his paycheck. It's NEVER that easy.

Too true. I brought the same issue up in my previous post about Bob and Sally. When Bob gets bumped up Sally's gonna want a raise too.

Sally can want in one hand and shit in the other for all that goes. We're ONLY discussing a government mandate here, nothing more. I don't want the government mandating what anyone above minimum wage earns. I only want them mandating a minimum wage. If you make => minimum wage you're on your own.

OK!

Let's see how long you can keep workers in jobs that used to pay above the minimum wage and don't after the change. "I know you have more responsibilities and all, but since the government didn't mandate a change for you you're stuck making the same as the people you supervise. Please don't quit though."