New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers"

[Winston]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

Holy epiphany Batman. You mean if you pay a higher wage you get more productive workers. Who would have thunk it.

And wait, you mean a higher minimum wage improves the return on invested capital--damn, wonder how you spin that as a bad thing.

And wow. Just wow. So the "losers" if we increase the minimum wage are low rated restaurants. Evidently, having rats running through the kitchen and selling terrible tasting food might work at the current minimum wage, but increase that minimum wage and those marginal businesses go under. Can someone tell me what the downside is? Marginal businesses go under, successful businesses improve their ROIC, and workers make the same amount of income working less hours. Where the hell is the downside.

Did you miss this part?

Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage

-Geaux

Oh yeah, I saw it. Again, same income with less hours worked--what is the down side?

 

[Preacher]

Walmart’s Food Stamp Scam Explained in One Easy Chart – Jobs With...

 

[Preacher]

Minimum Wage Mythbusters

The capitalist lovers might want to read some FACTS.

 

[hadit]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

 

[Preacher]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

 

[hadit]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

 

[Preacher]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

 

[hadit]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

Here's a fact. A CEO that's paid 10 mil in a company that does 10 billion in sales every year makes a very small percentage of the total. When you want to force that same company to double the pay of 50,000 employees, you have a whole different situation on your hands. It's a simple matter of scale. Some CEO's are worth millions, some are not. Some MW workers are worth higher pay, some are not.

 

[Preacher]

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

Here's a fact. A CEO that's paid 10 mil in a company that does 10 billion in sales every year makes a very small percentage of the total. When you want to force that same company to double the pay of 50,000 employees, you have a whole different situation on your hands. It's a simple matter of scale. Some CEO's are worth millions, some are not. Some MW workers are worth higher pay, some are not.

So you make 10 BILLION in sales and you can't afford 30 million in salaries for 50,000 workers working 40 hours a week at 15$ an hour but you CAN pay 1 person 10 million....yeah makes perfect sense!

 

[hadit]

What a remarkably simplistic way of looking at things. Nowhere close to reality, but entertaining.

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

Here's a fact. A CEO that's paid 10 mil in a company that does 10 billion in sales every year makes a very small percentage of the total. When you want to force that same company to double the pay of 50,000 employees, you have a whole different situation on your hands. It's a simple matter of scale. Some CEO's are worth millions, some are not. Some MW workers are worth higher pay, some are not.

So you make 10 BILLION in sales and you can't afford 30 million in salaries for 50,000 workers working 40 hours a week at 15$ an hour but you CAN pay 1 person 10 million....yeah makes perfect sense!

Have you actually run the numbers? 50,000 employees earning $7.50/hr cost the company $780 mil/year. I don't know where you got 30 mil from, but it wasn't from math. Put that up against $10 mil for a good CEO and you start to understand why one is more affordable than the other. In addition, a CEO that only works 40 hours a week isn't going to be a CEO for very long.

 

[jc456]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

But paying CEO's MILLIONS is NOT bad for business or consumers....giving workers a livable wages=horrible for economy,giving CEO's millions in wages=great for economy....ahhh to be a cuckservative simpleton.

Don't worry about the 'Jone's'. Become one

-Geaux

That's the problem with many that complain about their wages when they offer a skill set a monkey could be trained to do. They want to live like the Jones's but don't want to improve themselves like the Jones's did to get there. They want what the Jones's have and want the Jones's to provide the funding for it.

When your water main breaks on a frigid winter night try to find one of those low paid monkeys to fix it. Should hard work not be rewarded? 10 men and women died in the steel mill where I spent several decades and countless others lost limbs or were maimed in some way and some arrogant windbag dismisses them as low skilled monkeys. What a POS you are! You wouldn`t last 3 days as a steelworker and probably not one day as a coal miner. An ironworker? I`d give you an hour.

did they all make minimum wages? Seems that perhaps you highlighted incorrectly here. What were the wages at the steel plant? What is the price for a iron worker. How much does one pay a plumber to come and fix a broken water pipe in the dead of winter? You think all these folks made minimum wage? Really?

 

[Preacher]

Facts hurt huh....Its amazing that the SIMPLEST of things still manage to confuse you conservatives....its amazing.

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

Here's a fact. A CEO that's paid 10 mil in a company that does 10 billion in sales every year makes a very small percentage of the total. When you want to force that same company to double the pay of 50,000 employees, you have a whole different situation on your hands. It's a simple matter of scale. Some CEO's are worth millions, some are not. Some MW workers are worth higher pay, some are not.

So you make 10 BILLION in sales and you can't afford 30 million in salaries for 50,000 workers working 40 hours a week at 15$ an hour but you CAN pay 1 person 10 million....yeah makes perfect sense!

Have you actually run the numbers? 50,000 employees earning $7.50/hr cost the company $780 mil/year. I don't know where you got 30 mil from, but it wasn't from math. Put that up against $10 mil for a good CEO and you start to understand why one is more affordable than the other. In addition, a CEO that only works 40 hours a week isn't going to be a CEO for very long.

1.4 billion is what it would cost to pay 15$ an hour to 50,000 workers per year. That's STILL less than 30k a year! Still leaves 8.6 BILLION in profit! How many companies actually have 50k employees? WalMart? Who else? There ain't that many.

 

[Preacher]

When there are facts flying around, be sure to let me know. I'll duck. Until then, not so much.

I already presented the facts moron. If you clowns want to claim prices go up when the workers have livable wages but not when the CEO's are getting paid MILLIONS then you are 100% LYING.

Here's a fact. A CEO that's paid 10 mil in a company that does 10 billion in sales every year makes a very small percentage of the total. When you want to force that same company to double the pay of 50,000 employees, you have a whole different situation on your hands. It's a simple matter of scale. Some CEO's are worth millions, some are not. Some MW workers are worth higher pay, some are not.

So you make 10 BILLION in sales and you can't afford 30 million in salaries for 50,000 workers working 40 hours a week at 15$ an hour but you CAN pay 1 person 10 million....yeah makes perfect sense!

Have you actually run the numbers? 50,000 employees earning $7.50/hr cost the company $780 mil/year. I don't know where you got 30 mil from, but it wasn't from math. Put that up against $10 mil for a good CEO and you start to understand why one is more affordable than the other. In addition, a CEO that only works 40 hours a week isn't going to be a CEO for very long.

1.4 billion is what it would cost to pay 15$ an hour to 50,000 workers per year. That's STILL less than 30k a year! Still leaves 8.6 BILLION in profit! How many companies actually have 50k employees? WalMart? Who else? There ain't that many.

Also almost NO WHERE has 50k FULL TIME employees. so cut that in half.....hell then you got seasonal workers so.

 

[danielpalos]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

Holy epiphany Batman. You mean if you pay a higher wage you get more productive workers. Who would have thunk it.

And wait, you mean a higher minimum wage improves the return on invested capital--damn, wonder how you spin that as a bad thing.

And wow. Just wow. So the "losers" if we increase the minimum wage are low rated restaurants. Evidently, having rats running through the kitchen and selling terrible tasting food might work at the current minimum wage, but increase that minimum wage and those marginal businesses go under. Can someone tell me what the downside is? Marginal businesses go under, successful businesses improve their ROIC, and workers make the same amount of income working less hours. Where the hell is the downside.

Did you miss this part?

Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage

-Geaux

in other words, employers are beginning to realize gains from efficiency.

 

[danielpalos]

Thank goodness there will be ample infrastructure jobs requiring blue collar workers. Building the wall is a good example

-Geaux

like building a wall, ever saved an economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

Making a profit may not be a rational choice or non-political passion of the moment, at any given time.

Good capitalists can always make like Henry Ford, and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

I can get gains in efficiency without raising wages. Tell those that work for me that it's their JOB to do to the best level. If they can't, there are plenty willing to do so at their wage.

at their current wage. that is the point. moving goalposts is a function of government.

why do you believe we are in times of war, without war time tax rates?

 

[danielpalos]

Walmart’s Food Stamp Scam Explained in One Easy Chart – Jobs With...

just capitalism working for persons with capital.

 

[Winston]

Walmart’s Food Stamp Scam Explained in One Easy Chart – Jobs With...

just capitalism working for persons with capital.

Except those "capitalist" are neither "working" capital nor creating it. They are EXTRACTING it.

Besides, for the most part, it is not capital working. Apple charges so much for their products because they are Apple. That is not capital. It is RENT. Or, what the neoclassical economist call it--"goodwill". Damn what Orwellian bullshit.

The easiest way to explain how things are different now was the simple few questions I asked my father, a long time conservative raised by a former migrant farm worker who worked himself together a pretty nice farm. Dad plowed with a mule and picked cotton. Now retired, he leases out the old farm and piddles around. He sold Mom's family farm, to Mexicans.

But anyways I asked him. When his dad borrowed money to seed in a crop, and the crop failed, did his Dad have to pay the money back or did the bank have to write it off as a loss. He paused for a moment and then said he remembered, it was the bank that took on the risk of failure. Then I asked him that when he borrowed money to seed in a crop did he have to pay it back when the crop failed. He frowned, and then he admitted, it was he who was assuming the risk of crop failure. So then I asked him, if he was assuming all the risk of failure what the hell was the bank giving up for the interest premium. You could see the light bulb go off.

 

[danielpalos]

Walmart’s Food Stamp Scam Explained in One Easy Chart – Jobs With...

just capitalism working for persons with capital.

Except those "capitalist" are neither "working" capital nor creating it. They are EXTRACTING it.

Besides, for the most part, it is not capital working. Apple charges so much for their products because they are Apple. That is not capital. It is RENT. Or, what the neoclassical economist call it--"goodwill". Damn what Orwellian bullshit.

The easiest way to explain how things are different now was the simple few questions I asked my father, a long time conservative raised by a former migrant farm worker who worked himself together a pretty nice farm. Dad plowed with a mule and picked cotton. Now retired, he leases out the old farm and piddles around. He sold Mom's family farm, to Mexicans.

But anyways I asked him. When his dad borrowed money to seed in a crop, and the crop failed, did his Dad have to pay the money back or did the bank have to write it off as a loss. He paused for a moment and then said he remembered, it was the bank that took on the risk of failure. Then I asked him that when he borrowed money to seed in a crop did he have to pay it back when the crop failed. He frowned, and then he admitted, it was he who was assuming the risk of crop failure. So then I asked him, if he was assuming all the risk of failure what the hell was the bank giving up for the interest premium. You could see the light bulb go off.

those with the most capital get to make the most rules.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Like everyone knew Obamacare would never make the cut, so to goes the minimum wage. It's bad for the consumer and business

-Geaux
----------

The New York Times would like for you to know that, after attending the annual meeting of the American Economic Association where they sat in on multiple presentations on the economic impacts of minimum wage, they can now confirm what most of us have known for most of our adult lives, namely that basic economic supply/demand models actually work.

Apparently, the NYT was pleasantly surprised when the first presentation suggested that higher minimum wage didn't actually result in job losses, just lower hours, but then quickly realized it's basically the same thing.

At first glance, the findings were consistent with the growing body of work on the minimum wage: While the workers saw their wages rise, there was little decline in hiring. But other results suggested that the minimum wage was having large effects. Most important, the hours a given worker spent on a given job fell substantially for jobs that typically pay a low wage — say, answering customer emails.

Mr. Horton concluded that when forced to pay more in wages, many employers were hiring more productive workers, so that the overall amount they spent on each job changed far less than the minimum-wage increase would have suggested. The more productive workers appeared to finish similar work more quickly.

Unfortunately, the second study left a bit less to the imagination. After studying "tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area," researchers
Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research found that many lower rated restaurants have a unique way of dealing with minimum wage hikes: they simply go out of business.

A second study presented at the conference suggests another way that employers may respond to a rising minimum wage: simply going out of business.

The husband-and-wife research team of Michael Luca of Harvard Business School and Dara Lee Luca of Mathematica Policy Research identified the ratings of tens of thousands of restaurants in the San Francisco area on the website Yelp and found that many poorly rated restaurants tend to go out of business after a minimum-wage increase takes effect.

Finally, confirming what we've noted multiple times (and basic common sense for that matter), Zane Tankel, an owner of several dozen Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, informed the startled New York Times that higher minimum wage simply improves the ROIC profile of capital investments thereby speeding up employee replacement projects....shocking.


New York Times Admits "Higher Minimum Wage May Have Losers" | Zero Hedge

Making a profit may not be a rational choice or non-political passion of the moment, at any given time.

Good capitalists can always make like Henry Ford, and double wages to realize gains from efficiency.

The year is not 1920


.