If minimum wage were raised ...

[BillyZane]

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."

LOL , they won't quit and in most cases will get a raise on their own.

Look, at least try to keep your arguments sensible I mean this is supposed to be the adult area of the board is it not?

If the min wage is raised to $10 an hour , obviously anyone making less than that is going to be bumped up. I seriously doubt anyone making $15 an hour is suddenly going to get pissed and quit their jobs because they are only making $5 an hour more than the person who they were making $8 an hour more than

But , if they choose to, hey it's a free country they can quit if they want. Personally I'd fire any employee of mine who came to me with a whine about what another employee was making. And I mean on the spot, you're fired.

 

[Mathbud1]

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.

I did not in any way refuse to admit that the minimum wage is lower than it was 25 years ago. It is also higher, in real dollars, than it was the day it was first passed into law.

That isn't the point. The fact is, as someone just pointed out, MOST wages are worth less than they were 25 years ago.

The point is, making changes to try to adjust the minimum wage to match it's value at some arbitrary point in the past without thoroughly examining the ramifications such a change would cause is foolish and reckless.

 

[Mathbud1]

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."

LOL , they won't quit and in most cases will get a raise on their own.

Look, at least try to keep your arguments sensible I mean this is supposed to be the adult area of the board is it not?

If the min wage is raised to $10 an hour , obviously anyone making less than that is going to be bumped up. I seriously doubt anyone making $15 an hour is suddenly going to get pissed and quit their jobs because they are only making $5 an hour more than the person who they were making $8 an hour more than

But , if they choose to, hey it's a free country they can quit if they want. Personally I'd fire any employee of mine who came to me with a whine about what another employee was making. And I mean on the spot, you're fired.

So it isn't reasonable for a supervisor who works harder, has more responsibilities and makes $10/hr to be frustrated when the people that they supervise are suddenly bumped to match them?

That is not a realistic or adult thing to consider?

I think it is you who are not being realistic. If you let the person leave as you suggest, are you going to hire the replacement at the same wage? Good luck getting anyone to work a more demanding job for the new minimum wage.

 

[Iceweasel]

You can argue it all you want and still be wrong. There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works." Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions. A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.

The polysci professor may very well not know much more than the garbage he was taught. That's why I said 'how real world works'.

Nor does the comparison have any relevance to the question of minimum wage as neither an electrician nor a polisci professor make minimum wage. The median annual wage for an electrician is $49,840 and that of a political science professor is about twice that, depending on other factors.

If you don't want to read then don't but don't respond to discussions that you clearly have not read. I was talking with her about trades, she brought up high school education.

"pay increase will jack up prices across the board,"

is not a correct statement. There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins. It also depends on the employment levels.

Wrong. Incorrect. Error. Try again, blah blah blah. Does that normally work for you? Yes, it raises prices across the board, how could it not? The burgers here cost more than burgers in lesser minimum wage areas. It's true in delivery, restaurant, housekeeping, anything you can think of. I've got real world experience here, not polysci horsepoop.

The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production. This is an important point. There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage. The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade. A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least. This seems fairly obvious. If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.

Huh? What a bunch of fuzzy math. Adults don't stay at minimum wage, unless the economy is in the tank, like now. When it's going good you must pay more to keep them, and you raise your prices accordingly. What our ancestors did has no bearing on state or federal minimum wage laws. I don't know where you got the idea that an average ancestor could support himself, buy a house and live the equivelant standard of living of today's minimum wage recipient. That's a whole lotta if and or maybes.

"it certainly was never designed to..."

according to whom and what? And, where has there been anyone arguing that minimum wage should be enough to raise a family? One article states, "Tens of millions of low-wage workers in the United States are trapped in lives of poverty." At the very least, the minimum wage should be a livable wage for an individual. What more it should be is open to discussion, but framing it in terms of "never designed to raise a family" is simply hyperbole. It is whatever we decide it is and, given the continued increase in efficiency, it can be more and more with each passing decade.

"I don't care that you can't raise a family,"

aside from just an extension of the previous hyperbole, exemplifies why there is no reason for anyone to care about you or your opinion, expecially people working for minimum wage.

You can extend comments into whatrever fantasy you want. You've already got a really good start. All that drivel was to tell me you don't care what I think? Wow. Big hat, no cattle. Read more, swagger less.

 

[itfitzme]

You can argue it all you want and still be wrong. There is nothing in particular about being a "polysci professor" or an "electrician" that has any bearing on knowing "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works." Either may or may not know "a hell of a lot more about how the real world works", depending on what they do in addition to their particular professions. A political science professor would know a hell of a lot more about political science while an electrician would know more about being an electrician.

The polysci professor may very well not know much more than the garbage he was taught. That's why I said 'how real world works'.

The problem is that you have no clue "how the real world works." You like to use the phrase, as if it means something. You have no education in political science, yet have an unqualified opinion about the value of a political science eduation.

I suspect that you have no college education at well, yet have an unqualified opinion on the value of the information that is gained from a college education.

Why is it that people that lack any clue to "how the real world works" make claims regaring "how the real world works"?

 

[Spoonman]

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.

so explain to me exactly what the twisting is?

ok, so we historically increase minimum wage in roughly 10% incriments and now you want to boost it almost 40%?

 

[candycorn]

Uh...okay???

If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?

Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.

Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's it exactly. I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it. All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do. So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons. Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all. A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics. Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do. And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on. And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases. The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor. The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have. The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder. And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force. And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.

Total nonsense.

When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.

 

[itfitzme]

"pay increase will jack up prices across the board,"

is not a correct statement. There is no economic rule that requires a minimum wage pay increase to jack up prices across the board. How prices shift in response to increased labor costs depends on numerous factors including the elasticities of demand and supply as well as profit margins. It also depends on the employment levels.

Wrong. Incorrect. Error. Try again, blah blah blah. Does that normally work for you? Yes, it raises prices across the board, how could it not? The burgers here cost more than burgers in lesser minimum wage areas. It's true in delivery, restaurant, housekeeping, anything you can think of. I've got real world experience here, not polysci horsepoop.
.

No it does not necessarily raise prices across the board. Why should it?

Your claim to real world experience is meaningless. Your personal anechdotes mean nothing.

Everyone has "real world experience". You have noticed, all those people walking around in "the real world", getting "real world experience", right?

"Real world experience" without the intelligence to grasp the lessons from that experience is meaningless. Buying pints of vodka every weekend doesn't count as "real world experience" relevant to understanding economics any more than driving drunk counts as "real world experience" in understanding how an internal combusion engine works.

Prices are dependent upon numourous factors that can be generally categorized as including income, costs, current prices, supply and demand quanities, the elasticities of both the supply and demand, employment levels, unemployment rate and more.

The fact is that a simple increase in minumum wage does not summarily translate to "jacking up prices across the board."

The simplest point is that, all other things being equal, an increase in minumum wage increases the amount of money being spent in the economy. One simple effect is that of increasing demand which then drives increased production. Increasing the minimum wage may simply increase employment and GDP. It all kind of depends on a number of economic factors, not the least of which is that the current level of employment is far short of full output.

What most significant factors that affect real prices of goods are employment levels, the number of labor hours spent producing goods, and the efficiency of that production.

More people working means more stuff per person means lower real prices. Increasing minumum wage changes the relative balance of incomes. It does not guarantee "jacking up prices across the board."

 

[Spoonman]

If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?

Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.

Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's it exactly. I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it. All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do. So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons. Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all. A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics. Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do. And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on. And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases. The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor. The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have. The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder. And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force. And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.

Total nonsense.

When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.

but in all honesty, those guys should be deported and not given jobs.

 

[Mathbud1]

If Sally is making more than the minimum wage it is likely because her job is more challenging than the jobs that make minimum wage. The demands of the job justify a higher wage. If less demanding jobs (ie minimum wage jobs) are bumped to match her pay, why will she stay in the more demanding job unless she gets a proportional increase?

Also, the closer you are to entry level the more vertical advancement is open above you in your company. Staff to shift lead, shift lead to supervisor, supervisor to manager, etc. If you can take a job closer to entry level for the same wage, you increase the possibility for advancement.

Obviously there may be other mitigating factors, but a smart employee is not going to sit around and let you pay them the same in that kind of situation.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That's it exactly. I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it. All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do. So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons. Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all. A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics. Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do. And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on. And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases. The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor. The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have. The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder. And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force. And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.

Total nonsense.

When there are fewer than 10 guys outside of Home Depot willing to work for whatever they are going to get paid, I'll believe you.

Your comment about guys waiting outside of Home Depot does not seem to be related directly to anything Foxfyre said. What was that in response to?

 

[candycorn]

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

What about Company C who also sells Widgets. They have 100 employees. Being a bigger company they have more options to adjust to the rise in minimum wage and are able to maintain their prices.

Company C does have an advantage.

No two businesses are exactly the same.

Yes but if you raise the FMW, they are affected the same by the move; you have to pay minimum wage employees more. Company C, above, seems to have more of a disadvantage since the FMW hike would likely cost them more in terms of labor. Not sure why you say they have an advantage or these "options" unless you mean costs of the widgets is lower due to volume.

 

[candycorn]

What you fail to understand is that for every minimum wage worker in any "private sector" organization, there are several more further up that corporate ladder who worked their way up from that same minimum wage job and pay scale.
If you raise the minimum wage worker from his present $8.25 level up to $15.00 per hour, then you also have to similarly raise the wages of every one of those who are above him/her. In order to make up for all those wage increases, you then have to raise the price of your company's product or service. The higher you raise the prices of your products or services then the greater the chances are that you will price yourself out of the range of your customer's affordability and thus your company's competitiveness in the marketplace. Soon, you will price yourself right out of business.
In short, you can't afford to run a business if you have to pay your employees more than for what you can market your product or service.

Company A is a t 1234 Main Street. Sells Widgets. Has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. Lets say it raises their pay by $1.00.

Company B is at 1235 Main Street. Also sells Widgets. Also has 10 employees. When the FMW rises, 2 of the employees will be forcibly paid more due to the FMW being raised. It also raises their pay by a buck.

The only thing that is changed is that the business owners now must react; do they take a lower profit of margin, do they try to make up the $2/hr by raising prices or being more efficient elsewhere?

Company A has no advantage and neither does company B.

and what they do naturally is increase their prices.

Not necessarily.

so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.

The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.

it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

Well, prices seem to be going up pretty regularly anyway; at least this will come with the added benefit of having some of the "have-nots" with some more money in their pockets.

 

[itfitzme]

The most direct and significant factors in aggregate standard of living is the level of employment along with efficiency of production. This is an important point. There is simply no reason that a single individual should not be able to support their self at minimum wage. The efficiency of production in the US and the world, has steadily increased decade after decade. A single individual has always been able to provide for themselves, at the very least. This seems fairly obvious. If it were not true, the human race would have died out a long time ago.

Huh? What a bunch of fuzzy math. Adults don't stay at minimum wage, unless the economy is in the tank, like now. When it's going good you must pay more to keep them, and you raise your prices accordingly. What our ancestors did has no bearing on state or federal minimum wage laws. I don't know where you got the idea that an average ancestor could support himself, buy a house and live the equivelant standard of living of today's minimum wage recipient. That's a whole lotta if and or maybes.

There is nothing "fuzzy" about the fact that production of goods and services depends on labor hours worked, the efficiency of the production, along with the availability of the materials used in producing the product.

Yeah, I see the problem you're having. You clearly have some bullshit definition of what "minimum wage" is, a definition that you haven't had the sense to put into words and examine.

"Minimum wage" is the hourly wage that has been set by the government as being the minumum hourly wage that an employer must pay employees.

"Minumum wage" is not "the hourly amount that employers pay teenagers. "Minimum wage" is not "the hourly wage that is less than the amount that adults will accept."

You are using a bs definition and then drawing conclusions based on the implications of your bs definition.

"Minimum wage" is simply the minumum amount that employers are required to pay.

 

[candycorn]

and what they do naturally is increase their prices. so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming. it actually makes spendable money less available because everyone takes a hit on the price increases.

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?

Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey. True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.

 

[itfitzme]

so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.

The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.

Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception. It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.

They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid." and "the wage that is to low to live on."

Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.

I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum. And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.

 

[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?

Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey. True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.

There is the key though isn't it.

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?

 

[Politico]

Yes, Right until they have to take it back out again to cover higher costing goods.

 

[itfitzme]

That's it exactly. I don't really CARE all that much what the starting wage is so long as there is ample opportunity to improve it. All I want is the chance to show an employer what I can do. So I have started a lot of jobs at minimum age or at a lower rate than I consider acceptable, but I don't stay there long.

On top of the wage paid directly to the employee is the employer's portion of FICA, unemployment insurance, and in many cases the cost of general liability insurance and other add ons. Make the starting wage too high--higher than the profit the employee can earn for the employer for some time--and the employee won't be hired at all. A wage must always be based on what revenues the employee generates for the employer plus a reasonable profit.

But it does seem that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics. Increase the minimum wage and it affects every aspect of everything we buy and do. And few employers can or are willing to just eat that extra expense, so they do pass it on. And the cost of every aspect of doing business and/or living our lives also increases. The other negatives include a higher percentage of using independent contractors, part timers, and temporary workers to deal with increased labor costs that can't be passed along to customers.

A far better plan is to get government out of it as much as possible and let the free market set the prices for everything, including labor. The stronger the economy, the more full employment we have. The more full employment we have, the more opportunity the worker has to sell his labor to the highest bidder. And that always results in higher wages across the board for the lion's share of the work force. And those starting at minimum wage will have much more opportunity to move up to a living wage at a faster rate.

Why do people that have never taken college level courses in macro and micro economics always say things like, "that a lot of folks here have never had even a basic course in economics, let alone have a sense of macroeconomics"?

Do tell, seeing as you have this excellent education in micro and macro economics, what is the profit margin maximization cuttoff point for a firm?

 

[Mathbud1]

so now everyone pays the increased prices, not just the handfull of people who get the slight raise. all off a sudden goods across the board cost more so people get less for what they spend. so in effect it hurts the economy. it doens't put all of this extra cash put there all of a sudden like libs are claiming.

The raise in the minimum wage puts more money in the pocket of the employees making minimum wage.

Yeah, that seems to be the mis-perception. It appears that some are adding a host of erroneous conditions attached to what "minimum wage" is.

They appear to include, "the wage that teenagers get paid." and "the wage that is to low to live on."

Then, a host of completely incorrect conclusions are drawn based on completely non-sense definitions.

I believe you have caught on to it, that "minimum wage" is the wage that is the minimum. And, yeah, raising it put more money into the pockets of employees making minumum wage.

It is not as simple though as just "put[ting] more money into the pockets of employees making minimum wage."

You cannot ignore all the different things that are connected to the artificial floor that is put on wages. Yes, we all know that the minimum wage is the lowest wage allowed by the government. No, we are not going to pretend like changing that minimum is going to have no effect other than putting money in some poor people's pockets.

 

[itfitzme]

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

Back when there was some shortages in bell peppers due to freezes and whatnot, what pizza companies did with an increase in cost of goods was stop purchasing bell peppers.

Honestly, the deduction that if the FMW goes up on Tuesday, you'll see price increases on Wednesday is malarkey. True, the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays.

There is the key though isn't it.

"the increase in pay has to be made up somewhere"

It seems, and this seems to be the reason you are all-for raising the FMW, that you expect that difference to be made up by a reduction in corporate profit rather than any of the other ways that it could be made up.

Is that accurate?

I can answer this one for candycorn. It is perfectly obvious that her point is,

"but not necessarily always on what the consumer pays."

Clearly, you expect the difference to be made up by always on what the consumer pays.

Yeah, that's the point. And you finally got it. That your understanding of how economics goes is erroneous, based on false assumptions of "always".