Small Businesses in NYC Struggling with $15 Minimum Wage

[pknopp]

What YOU fail to realize is that the small business owner can deduct ALL of those costs from their gross income and reduce their tax liability accordingly. Every dollar an employer spends on wages, only costs the business owner 78 cents because they would pay income tax of 22% on that additional profit, so the business owner is only out of pocket 78 cents, not one dollar.

On the other hand, earned income credits cost taxpayers $3 billion per year just for administration of this program. That's over and above the costs of the benefits paid to low income workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Small Benefits, Large Costs

By shifting the burden for employee wages back to the employer, the economy will save all of the costs of running this program, as well as the costs of the benefits paid. Employers are only paying 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar of wage increases they pay.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants, Ray. The Waltons don't need more dividends, stop paying their workers for them.

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

So your analogy is that we shouldn’t raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.00 because that would be the same thing as raising it to $100 an hour

No, I think the laws of supply and demand should set the price of labor, not some artificial government dictate. My $100 comment was to show the absurdity of the dem position on this.

Demand said that DIsney pay X dollars. To counter that Disney increased the supply by bringing people from other countries in. Is this really your solution?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Funny but right down the street at Wall Street they are still screaming for lower interest rates. Seems odd that we condemn the lowest rung for wanting to step up but we never condemn those at the top for still wanting more.

Opposing WashDC meddling in what is clearly a state authority - minimum wage - is not condemning "the lowest rung for wanting to step up." People do and have always had the right to expand and improve their education and skill set in order to step up.

That works for the few, not for the millions.

A WashDC imposed one-size-fits-all edict is not the solution in a free-market economy. What is best for those in New York may not work for those in New Mexico.

It is not one size fits all. It's a floor. States are able to go from there and they have.

Why should all states have the same floor?

Too complicated any other way.

Not at all...just get rid of the Fed Min wage because it is stupid...

 

[Thinker101]

totally wrong, college students have to borrow money because the price of tuition has risen much faster than the overall rate of inflation, and that happened directly as a result of the government giving out unlimited student loans. the colleges took advantage of that stupidity and raised their tuition costs, and the losers were the kids who now are burdened with huge debts. But fear not, the dems want to transfer that debt to YOU and ME.

Cost of everything has gone up.

I worked minimum wage at $2.10 an hour in the early 70s. I could buy seven gallons of gas for an hours wage. Today you get about 2 1/2 gallons

I could buy a new car for a half a years minimum wage salary. Now it would take you a full year

I could take a date to the movies for an hours wage. Today it would take you 2 1/2 hours pay

So WTF are you suggesting, minimum wage should be based on gas prices/new car prices/movie prices?

Yes

I think we should set a minimum wage and have increases automatically linked to the consumer price index

We can’t trust Congress to raise it. They have kicked that can down the road for over ten years

Gee, how about learning a marketable skill...dumbass.

You are applying a solution for a single person to 35 million low skilled workers. Do you have 35 million higher paying jobs available if they ALL learn a more marketable skill?

Who is going to perform low skilled jobs in our workforce?

College Students are learning marketable skills but must work low wage jobs while they learn them

The concept here is to learn/improve ones skills. If you're still earning minimum wage after 6 months, you're probably just too stupid.

 

[pknopp]

Funny but right down the street at Wall Street they are still screaming for lower interest rates. Seems odd that we condemn the lowest rung for wanting to step up but we never condemn those at the top for still wanting more.

Opposing WashDC meddling in what is clearly a state authority - minimum wage - is not condemning "the lowest rung for wanting to step up." People do and have always had the right to expand and improve their education and skill set in order to step up.

That works for the few, not for the millions.

A WashDC imposed one-size-fits-all edict is not the solution in a free-market economy. What is best for those in New York may not work for those in New Mexico.

It is not one size fits all. It's a floor. States are able to go from there and they have.

Why should all states have the same floor?

Too complicated any other way.

Not at all...just get rid of the Fed Min wage because it is stupid...

As soon as we end the Federal Reserve.

 

[rightwinger]

Cost of everything has gone up.

I worked minimum wage at $2.10 an hour in the early 70s. I could buy seven gallons of gas for an hours wage. Today you get about 2 1/2 gallons

I could buy a new car for a half a years minimum wage salary. Now it would take you a full year

I could take a date to the movies for an hours wage. Today it would take you 2 1/2 hours pay

So WTF are you suggesting, minimum wage should be based on gas prices/new car prices/movie prices?

Yes

I think we should set a minimum wage and have increases automatically linked to the consumer price index

We can’t trust Congress to raise it. They have kicked that can down the road for over ten years

Gee, how about learning a marketable skill...dumbass.

You are applying a solution for a single person to 35 million low skilled workers. Do you have 35 million higher paying jobs available if they ALL learn a more marketable skill?

Who is going to perform low skilled jobs in our workforce?

College Students are learning marketable skills but must work low wage jobs while they learn them

take the illegals out of the equation and the average wage will go up. but you don't support that because you see them as potential dem voters-----------right?

Like hell it will

We can’t count on employers voluntarily raising the wages of low skilled workers

 

[irosie91]

What they fail to understand is when an employer gives a dollar an hour raise, it costs the employer more than that dollar. Other things increase in cost as well, such as vacation time where you are getting paid to not work. Social Security and Medicare contributions since your employer has to match those contributions and you will be paying more into them. Insurances increase as well because if something happens to you like getting laid off or getting hurt on the job, the payout is based on how much you make per month.

When you take a huge pay increase like this, the employer has to take huge other losses on top of it.

What YOU fail to realize is that the small business owner can deduct ALL of those costs from their gross income and reduce their tax liability accordingly. Every dollar an employer spends on wages, only costs the business owner 78 cents because they would pay income tax of 22% on that additional profit, so the business owner is only out of pocket 78 cents, not one dollar.

On the other hand, earned income credits cost taxpayers $3 billion per year just for administration of this program. That's over and above the costs of the benefits paid to low income workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Small Benefits, Large Costs

By shifting the burden for employee wages back to the employer, the economy will save all of the costs of running this program, as well as the costs of the benefits paid. Employers are only paying 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar of wage increases they pay.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants, Ray. The Waltons don't need more dividends, stop paying their workers for them.

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

 

[rightwinger]

Cost of everything has gone up.

I worked minimum wage at $2.10 an hour in the early 70s. I could buy seven gallons of gas for an hours wage. Today you get about 2 1/2 gallons

I could buy a new car for a half a years minimum wage salary. Now it would take you a full year

I could take a date to the movies for an hours wage. Today it would take you 2 1/2 hours pay

So WTF are you suggesting, minimum wage should be based on gas prices/new car prices/movie prices?

Yes

I think we should set a minimum wage and have increases automatically linked to the consumer price index

We can’t trust Congress to raise it. They have kicked that can down the road for over ten years

Gee, how about learning a marketable skill...dumbass.

You are applying a solution for a single person to 35 million low skilled workers. Do you have 35 million higher paying jobs available if they ALL learn a more marketable skill?

Who is going to perform low skilled jobs in our workforce?

College Students are learning marketable skills but must work low wage jobs while they learn them

The concept here is to learn/improve ones skills. If you're still earning minimum wage after 6 months, you're probably just too stupid.

Doesn’t work for ALL 35 million low skilled workers

At best, it would help only 5 million tops

 

[rightwinger]

What YOU fail to realize is that the small business owner can deduct ALL of those costs from their gross income and reduce their tax liability accordingly. Every dollar an employer spends on wages, only costs the business owner 78 cents because they would pay income tax of 22% on that additional profit, so the business owner is only out of pocket 78 cents, not one dollar.

On the other hand, earned income credits cost taxpayers $3 billion per year just for administration of this program. That's over and above the costs of the benefits paid to low income workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Small Benefits, Large Costs

By shifting the burden for employee wages back to the employer, the economy will save all of the costs of running this program, as well as the costs of the benefits paid. Employers are only paying 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar of wage increases they pay.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants, Ray. The Waltons don't need more dividends, stop paying their workers for them.

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

 

[rightwinger]

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year

Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

 

[Wry Catcher]

What YOU fail to realize is that the small business owner can deduct ALL of those costs from their gross income and reduce their tax liability accordingly. Every dollar an employer spends on wages, only costs the business owner 78 cents because they would pay income tax of 22% on that additional profit, so the business owner is only out of pocket 78 cents, not one dollar.

On the other hand, earned income credits cost taxpayers $3 billion per year just for administration of this program. That's over and above the costs of the benefits paid to low income workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit: Small Benefits, Large Costs

By shifting the burden for employee wages back to the employer, the economy will save all of the costs of running this program, as well as the costs of the benefits paid. Employers are only paying 78 cents on the dollar for every dollar of wage increases they pay.

You're picking up the peanuts while being trampled by the elephants, Ray. The Waltons don't need more dividends, stop paying their workers for them.

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

more left wing lies and talking points, the lower half of american tax payers pay zero federal income taxes, the top 5% pays 50%.

Who do you think pays corporate income taxes? the consumers, you moron. all the costs of business are passed along to those of us who must buy the products in order to live.

you cannot bring up the poor by bringing down the rich. but you are free to be jealous and envious of them for being more successful than you are.

P1: The lower 50% are those who spent their limited income in small businesses, and more and more are now spending their limited dollars buying at Wal-Mart and Amazon. They buy the bulk of toasters and other non durable goods; the top 5% do not.

P2: The consumers (those 50% who don't pay their fair share of income taxes as some say, and the middle classes, are burdened by paying local taxes and fees, plus taxes on any savings they earn as ordinary income is reprehensible, a higher rate than corporations pay in capital gains).

P3: Let's assume the CEO of XYZ coporation's annual income is cut 10%. His annual income is 300 Million Dollars, so he will be taxed < 30 Million Dollars. What impact will that have on the CEO? Will he drive a 10 year old Chevy, not have enough money to provide for his family?

Better yet, read this link and you'll see how Ryan fucked over the hoi polloi:

CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class

Or don't and remain ignorant and continue to support Trump and the Plutocracy - the real deep state.

 

[irosie91]

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

 

[rightwinger]

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

$40 went a lot further back then

My father was making $40 a week in the 50s working for the phone company. Paid for a wife, one bedroom apartment

 

[SAYIT]

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right. Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary. $1.25 bought you a lot

Typical BS pulled directly from your always ignorant ass. Many worked overtime or 2 jobs and most Americans lived far simpler lives.

Average family income in 1950 was $3,300 a year
Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1950

That is $65/wk which conflicts BIGLY with your previous post claiming $30 - $40/wk.

The prob with mindless leftards like you is that you can never understand how 2+2=4.

 

[irosie91]

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

$40 went a lot further back then

My father was making $40 a week in the 50s working for the phone company. Paid for a wife, one bedroom apartment[/QUOTE

I made $20 per week for 20 hours of work at age 18. -----last year of high school
-----at 1.25 per hour----and---therefore, after taxes. Those kinds of jobs were
START UP JOBS for unskilled persons (but boys usually made more) ----a wife in a one bedroom apt is not SUPPORTING A FAMILY. $25 per hour for 40 hours is $1000 per week. -------4000 per month. EVEN TODAY a high school student could do better than a low end one bedroom apt for two by slinging fries.
I do not see the 25 per hour minimum as realistic.

 

[irosie91]

there was a time when most people do not have a telephone----
my mom got rid of ours because neighbors needing a phone
interrupted baby care

 

[Papageorgio]

Small Businesses Struggle With $15 Minimum Wage Hike in NY: 'They're Shutting Down'

EXCERPT: According to a report published Monday by the Wall Street Journal, many business leaders and owners in the Big Apple have said that they are having to cut hours, raise prices, and reduce staff in their businesses due to the rising labor costs that they say come from the recent city law bumping up the minimum wage. . . .

The president of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Grech, told the Wall Street Journal that he has seen an increased number of small businesses closing in the last six to nine months. He believes the rising closures are due to the minimum wage legislation.

“They’re cutting their staff. They’re cutting their hours. They’re shutting down,” Grech said. “It’s not just the rent.”

Did you actually read the article you linked to?

One restaurant owner said:

While she has not had to reduce her staff, she has had to be more careful about overtime and pull back on some people’s shifts.

“What it really forces you to do is make sure that nobody works more than 40 hours,” Koteen said. “You can only cut back so many people before the service starts to suffer.”

You have to make sure nobody works more than 40 hours, so you don't have to pay overtime. Maybe she should hire a couple more people to ensure she doesn't get stuck with overtime.

And then there's this business owner:

Sarah McNally — who owns the local bookstore chain McNally Jackson Books, which employs 75 people at its four locations in New York City — said that there is “absolutely no benefit” to operating a retail business in the city, and is working to open two more stores to stay profitable.

She has not had to reduce hours or employment to deal with the pay increase, though.

McNally's complaint is that SHE'S not getting paid enough so she's opening two more stores to increase HER income. That should create close to 40 more jobs, so the OWNER can increase her income.

It's just awesome that people have to hire more people and let their existing workers have some sort of personal life after working 40 hours per week.

If you schedule employees for 32 hours a week, that would take care of the overtime. Pretty simple solutions for the employer.

You could schedule for 38 hours per week to ensure you don't go over. Then hire 2 more people to work 38 hour weeks to make up the shortfall, thus creating 2 new jobs, without increasing your costs.

Note that the bookstore owner is opting to open two more stores to increase HER income, because the wage increase is coming out of HER income directly. She's going to rent two locations, hire someone to make renovations and improvements, buy fixtures and equipment, and hire somewhere close to 20 more full time workers per store!!! Instead of sitting back on her huge profits, she's being forced to invest that money in the economy and create jobs to maintain her cushy lifetstyle.

How is this not a win for working Americans?

My experience is 35 hours at the most for a 40 hour work week and your costs.

Where does it state she is making huge profits? Where does it say she has a cushy lifestyle? Just because you own a business doesn't mean you are rich or living a cushy lifestyle. The idea that you believe that business owners are rich and lead a cushy lifestyle is pretty laughable.

Small business owners are a diverse set of people. Some are successful, many fail within their first year and some became wealthy. You get what you pay for, in terms of labor, location, and dozens of other decisions made, which determine success or failure.

Amazon and Wal-Mart have been very successful, and in their rise they have put mom and pop small business out of business, closing Main St. America in many small towns.

One of the deputies I supervised opened a restaurant and I watched and listened to him in his efforts just to sell the first taco. His family owned a very successful Mexican Rest. where worked during high school and college, so he knew what he was doing. He and his wife were very successful, but he was putting in 40 hours + in his day job, and many more in his new business.

After five years he was bought out by a chain, and within weeks his always crowded lunch crowd became less crowded, since prices went up, and quality went down. Today no one needed to wait in line during the noon hour.

Thank you for that story, it seems to be a common theme. I frequent the mom and pops, the better food the slightly higher prices and better customer service. I'm all for the small business, really hate the big chains.

 

[Dragonlady]

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

not as much as $25 today. NOPE no one could support a FAMILY back then on $40 per week except in real poverty----like no car----probably no phone, ---
maybe a three room apartment ---low end. $25 per hour-----at 40 hours is
$1000 per week for a teenager slinging burgers. why bother to stay in school? anyone got a job for me?

The problem is that very few teenage boys are slinging burgers. It's mostly young single moms with children to support. The average age of minimum wage workers is 27. $1000 per week translates to $750 per week take home, less $200 per week for child care, taking it down to $550 per week, net, after expenses, and our worker still doesn't have healthcare insurance for him/herself or any children they may be supporting. I don't know what rents are like where you live, but where I live, you can't find any apartment much under $800 per month, plus utilities, Much one big enough for a parent and child. Anything family size is over $1000 plus utilities, unless you can get into goverment owned, geared to income housing. The waiting list is currently two years here.

So really, by the time a single mother pays for withholding and taxes, child care, and rent, exactly how much of that glorious $1000 per week, is he or she going to have left, to cover food, clothing, school supplies, transportation, health care, and we're not talking luxury living here Rosie.

Every dollar this worker gets from government income supports costs taxpayers at least $1.25 to collect, process and pay out. Each dollar this employer gives their workers costs the employer $0.78, and the taxpayers $0.22, So, it's a whole lot cheaper for taxpayers to pay a slightly higher price for their goods and services, and lower taxes overall, with the added benefit that it cuts the size of government overall. Since, as you pointed out, the rich pay most of the taxes, they'll get most of the tax savings, thereby further reducing their net cost on the raises. Increasing the money going into the pockets of working Americans will enable them to spend and save, as they were able to do before Reagan changed the tax code, while providing stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of hard working Americans.

It's time for the rising tide of American prosperity to lift the dinghys as well as the yachts, because these people cannot bail fast enough right now.

 

[Papageorgio]

According to the Bureau of Labor an employee that gets paid $9.15 an hour costs an employer $20.91 per hour. That is including taxes, benefits, physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs.

So, the isn't 78 cents on the dollar, that is a simplistic look at a more complex cost.

Raising the wage for that employee does not raise the cost of their benefits, their physical work space, computers and other office equipment, insurance and other costs, because only the wage component is rising here. Raising wages by $6.00 per hour doesn't raise any of the addition costs per employee. Raising the $9.15 per hour was to $15.00 (a 65% increase) will only increase the employers' costs by $4.68 per hour because the remaining $1.32 (22%) would have been paid to the government in taxes on the profits. The increase in wages is fully tax deductible, hence the cost to the employer is only 78% of the money the employee receives.

So that $20.91 cost per hour rises to $25.59 per hour. Yes, this is a 23% increase in low end labour costs, but the lowest paid workers are getting a 65% wage increase. And here is the bald truth - the employer has paid for increased costs for every one of the non-wage expenses for employees without complaint, while using increases in these costs to justify not giving employees raises, all while booking the highest profits in history.

I did complex financial analysis on profitablility for living, Bucko. I can read a balance sheet backwards, while wearing high heels. I can parse out depreciation, the costs of short and long term liability, and whether or not a company is carrying too much inventory just by looking at their balance sheets.

Do you have any other conservative fiscal myths you'd like me to destroy?

Lets try a liberal myth. OK? if $15/hour is good, why isn't $100/hour better? or $500? Lets make every working person in America a millionaire by making the minimum wage $500/hour. Why wouldn't that work?

Stupid question, to which you already know the answer. Companies were capable of paying a minimum wage equivalent to $25 per hour in terms of today's buying power, in the 1950's, when teenagers truly did make up the majority of the minimum wage work force. As America became richer and richer, less and less of that wealth went to the American workers and more and more to the investor classes.

Successive Republican governments have offloaded the costs of social programs welfare onto the middle class, while the investor classes continue to increase their share of nations' wealth and income. Amazon, which currently pays no taxes whatsoever, is now the most profitable company in America, and New York City was prepared to make the working people of New York pay for the infrastructure and increased transportation costs for their new headquarters. Corporations need to pay their own way - both in infrastructure, and wages.

$1.25 in the 1950s was equivalent to $ 25 today ??? in what universe.

Sounds about right

Workers in the 1950s earned $30-$40 a week. They supported families on that wage with one salary.

$1.25 bought you a lot

Nope, $1.25 is the same as $13.29 per hour today.

$1.25 in 1950 → 2019 | Inflation Calculator

 

[Wyatt earp]

It isn't just small businesses and it has nothing to do with the Minimum Wage.

Uh, if you read the article, you'll find out that new minimum wage does have something to do with it. Have you read any of the zillion studies that document the harmful effects of an excessive minimum wage?

The article has nobody in it saying they have shut down due to the MW and small businesses in NYC have a lower MW than larger employers. There are businesses like Dunkin Doughnuts and cell phone companies that are expanding in NYC. It is a matter of what you provide. Restaurants have a short shelf-life in the Age of the Foodie so their numbers have been going down in NYC for years. Major retailers have been pulling out or downsizing to showroom only stores because sales have moved online.

All that to say you never took business or economics 101 let alone run a lemonade stand as a kid.


Seriously dude it's not rocket science .


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Small Businesses Struggle With $15 Minimum Wage Hike in NY: 'They're Shutting Down'

EXCERPT: According to a report published Monday by the Wall Street Journal, many business leaders and owners in the Big Apple have said that they are having to cut hours, raise prices, and reduce staff in their businesses due to the rising labor costs that they say come from the recent city law bumping up the minimum wage. . . .

The president of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Grech, told the Wall Street Journal that he has seen an increased number of small businesses closing in the last six to nine months. He believes the rising closures are due to the minimum wage legislation.

“They’re cutting their staff. They’re cutting their hours. They’re shutting down,” Grech said. “It’s not just the rent.”

Jesus dude...your own article refutes your bullshit.'

The only two businesses cited admit they have not even had to cut anyone and that all their employees are doing 40 hour weeks

Jesus what a lame thread

Ever noticed the self checkouts everywhere and the lack of cashiers?

I wonder what caused that?

Computers, dumbass

What does computers have to do with it dumb ass?