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

[Geaux4it]

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


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Government staying out of what isn't their business is the function of government.

However, if the government wants to move that goalpost, so can I and expect more from them or get rid of them if they don't meet those expectations. In a right to work State, I hold the power.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that talks about war time tax rates.

 

[Conservative65]

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


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

He's not for efficiency. He's for government forcing employers to pay wages above the skills provided and nothing else.

The robots wouldn't get orders wrong like the unskilled workers demanding $15/hour. Did my own experiment a few years ago. Didn't the shit they fixed but did come up with the result of those workers getting the order wrong 11/21 times.

 

[hadit]

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.

Okay, cut the number of workers, but you also have to cut the amount of money the company makes. Now let's go even more real world. A lot of those employees make more than minimum wage, but nearly all of them are going to demand a raise if you put them just above MW. You see, a company that makes a lot of money can hire a lot of employees, while one that does not make as much does not hire as many. Those numbers, BTW, are from when I worked at Circuit City at the height of their dominance. A small company, say one that employs 350 people, will not pay their CEO 10 mil. They will probably pay more like 300 K. The fact still remains, though, that there is one CEO and many employees and your belief that you can cut the CEO's pay and give all the other employees a substantial raise is a pipe dream.

 

[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.

The year is not 1920


.

if those with capital cannot do it, now; why blame the poor.

 

[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.

The year is not 1920


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

sure; robots don't complain about paying taxes for the poor.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

May have losers? Is there some plan that has all winners? Or is this objection just silly as fuck?

 

[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

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


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

sure; robots don't complain about paying taxes for the poor.

Robots don't pay taxes for anyone. A company that can produce the same or more work with fewer employees pays less in taxes.

 

[hadit]

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

May have losers? Is there some plan that has all winners? Or is this objection just silly as fuck?

There will always be discrepancies as some will earn more while others earn less. The best plan is one wherein even the "losers" benefit, albeit to a lesser degree.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

May have losers? Is there some plan that has all winners? Or is this objection just silly as fuck?

There will always be discrepancies as some will earn more while others earn less. The best plan is one wherein even the "losers" benefit, albeit to a lesser degree.

Thats what I'm saying. They seem to think that some people POSSIBLY losing out is a reason to get rid of anything. There is nothing on the earth that covers everyone the same and everyone wins lol

 

[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.

The year is not 1920


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

sure; robots don't complain about paying taxes for the poor.

Robots don't pay taxes for anyone. A company that can produce the same or more work with fewer employees pays less in taxes.

only the right wing never gets it; we merely need to change the tax laws, so artificial persons can pay the tax burden of the poor.

 

[hadit]

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


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

sure; robots don't complain about paying taxes for the poor.

Robots don't pay taxes for anyone. A company that can produce the same or more work with fewer employees pays less in taxes.

only the right wing never gets it; we merely need to change the tax laws, so artificial persons can pay the tax burden of the poor.

That's ludicrous because the customer who buys the product will pay the tax. The robots will earn and spend no money. They can't because they are not people. Apparently the left doesn't understand that.

 

[danielpalos]

The year is not 1920


.

So, if one is for efficiency then they must also agree with the increase use of robotic systems. eh?

-Geaux

sure; robots don't complain about paying taxes for the poor.

Robots don't pay taxes for anyone. A company that can produce the same or more work with fewer employees pays less in taxes.

only the right wing never gets it; we merely need to change the tax laws, so artificial persons can pay the tax burden of the poor.

That's ludicrous because the customer who buys the product will pay the tax. The robots will earn and spend no money. They can't because they are not people. Apparently the left doesn't understand that.

we merely need to change the tax laws, so artificial persons can pay the tax burden of the poor. only the right wing, never gets it.