Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[kroot]

What the fuck?

Everything you post is your own dumb ass opinion

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.

^^^ who is this guy?

Lol defiantly on the wrong message board

 

[kroot]

Oh, you know, just your everyday capitalist doing his part to prevent the destruction of 'murica through socialism.

EDIT: I clicked the winner button for every post for the last few pages just like it should be in a socialist society. I'm not sure the ramifications of this. I feel like everyone is an equally special, yet unique snowflake and I felt this would be the best way to prove my gratitude for the equally intelligent and equally thoughtful posts that were made in this thread.

 

[Rshermr]

I only post what I believe to be the truth, or FACT. If I am wrong, I admit it. But I never say something is fact when it is simply an opinion. I would not waste my time. Like when I say you are a dipshit. Because I am sure that is a fact.

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

 

[kroot]

You never admit shit
You go on and on about how an ap story is Wrong

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

You're getting your numbers from Wikipedia, at least I tried to source McDonald's number of low wage US employees from reputable sources. The EBIT numbers were from Yahoo finance. The difference is the 859,978 is total US employees including franchise employees. This number was taken in 2013 and does show managers / higher wage employees as well. It seems the 2013 low wage employee numbers should be right around 580,000. Again McDonald's doesn't make this information publicly known so some amount of estimation is necessary, regardless of your source. I'm simply using this to prove the loss of income to the corporation, and that changes will be needed if a $15 minimum wage was instituted immediately. You do make good points about the demand for McDonald's products and the ability to increase minimum wage over a period of time, but that wasn't mentioned previously.

So to conclude the number discrepancy, let's assume 580,000 rather than 860,000. Let's also use 2013 EBIT and net income rather than 2015.
2013 EBIT: 8.2 Billion
2013 Net Income: 5.585 Billion

We cannot see the exact total cost these 580,000 take out of McDonalds revenue but we can estimate:
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$8.5 per hour) x 52 weeks = 7.7 Billion wage cost
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$15 per hour) x 52 weeks = 13.57 Billion wage cost

2013 EBIT with $8.5 minimum wage = 8.2 Billion
2013 EBIT with $15 minimum wage = 2.33 Billion with no operating changes whatsoever. However a drop from 8.2 Billion to 2.33 Billion would definitely warrant changes.

Seems reasonable enough, granted my calculations may be off by a few million but enough to make a point. I can find a company that does have publicly listed US employees and wages if you'd really like. I doubt the analysis will change much as long as it is a company that has primarily minimum wage employees.

As you're a BA in economics, and executive, you know that we can only use what information we are provided as the general public. McDonalds doesn't give us every piece of info, but to say my numbers are "pure garbage" is well, pure garbage. At least I provided an analysis as well, you simply attacked mine without any analysis of your own, except to say very open ended statements. Almost any market analysis is done with some measure of estimation, as you can never know all the numbers to a tee without working for the company itself.

We can have an argument about "kick the can economics", er, keynesian theory if you'd like, too. The banks incentives are greater than ever to not produce another economic meltdown.... right? It's not like they'll ever need another bailout after that 2008 slap on the wrist and massive injection of fed funds.
The only question I have for anyone who thinks we're in a recovery due to the bailout and QE policies is why can't they raise interest rates? Why are many European countries bond yields turning negative?

 

[anotherlife]

The greatest Depression in history was caused by the government, and the most recent recession was perpetuated by the government. Your argument is invalid.

this is true, at time of collapse Fan/Fred owned or guaranteed 75% of the Alt A and subprime mortgages. They were created to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. And that is only beginning to list lib govt interference with the free market.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash. It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

Socialism destroys every nation STUPID enough to practice it? Socialism STARTS always with a well planned genocide for the exact purpose of killing off everyone who is not stupid enough. This is why all the countries that did not exist before ww1 are not real countries but only crime cartels.

 

[anotherlife]

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

 

[phoenyx]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

I like that idea. I think the best system would be one that rewards people according to their contribution to society, whether technologically, or socially, and that also cares for all members of its society. I strongly believe that society should care for all members of society, meaning that things like homelessness, malnutrition, let alone starvation, should only occur if there simply aren't enough resources to feed and shelter everyone.

 

[phoenyx]

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

Are you saying you haven't insulted anyone here ;-)? That being said, I think I understand. We all have limits as to how much insults we're willing to take. I've rarely blocked someone, but I have certainly stopped (or nearly stopped) responding to certain individuals in the past and I can easily imagine myself doing so in the future.

I consider calling someone a Socialist an insult, so I have. On the other hand, I don't substitute the entire discussion for it, nor do I add an insult to every post or sentence, like he does.

I agree he went too far. Now if I could just persuade you that calling people nutjobs isn't helping your case ;-)...

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

No because governments and central banks are intertwined. Without credit extensions, any business that is bigger than a carpet shop would fail in a day.

Private credit can be extended by the people delivering the raw materials and creating finished products.

Banks are overrated, if not entirely unnecessary.

 

[Rshermr]

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it

Prove it. You made the accusation, so, if you are not lying, prove where I was wrong. But then, you will fail, because you are lying, in my humble but correct opinion.

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened

So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

You're getting your numbers from Wikipedia, at least I tried to source McDonald's number of low wage US employees from reputable sources. The EBIT numbers were from Yahoo finance. The difference is the 859,978 is total US employees including franchise employees. This number was taken in 2013 and does show managers / higher wage employees as well. It seems the 2013 low wage employee numbers should be right around 580,000. Again McDonald's doesn't make this information publicly known so some amount of estimation is necessary, regardless of your source. I'm simply using this to prove the loss of income to the corporation, and that changes will be needed if a $15 minimum wage was instituted immediately. You do make good points about the demand for McDonald's products and the ability to increase minimum wage over a period of time, but that wasn't mentioned previously.

So to conclude the number discrepancy, let's assume 580,000 rather than 860,000. Let's also use 2013 EBIT and net income rather than 2015.
2013 EBIT: 8.2 Billion
2013 Net Income: 5.585 Billion

We cannot see the exact total cost these 580,000 take out of McDonalds revenue but we can estimate:
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$8.5 per hour) x 52 weeks = 7.7 Billion wage cost
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$15 per hour) x 52 weeks = 13.57 Billion wage cost

2013 EBIT with $8.5 minimum wage = 8.2 Billion
2013 EBIT with $15 minimum wage = 2.33 Billion with no operating changes whatsoever. However a drop from 8.2 Billion to 2.33 Billion would definitely warrant changes.

Seems reasonable enough, granted my calculations may be off by a few million but enough to make a point. I can find a company that does have publicly listed US employees and wages if you'd really like. I doubt the analysis will change much as long as it is a company that has primarily minimum wage employees.

As you're a BA in economics, and executive, you know that we can only use what information we are provided as the general public. McDonalds doesn't give us every piece of info, but to say my numbers are "pure garbage" is well, pure garbage. At least I provided an analysis as well, you simply attacked mine without any analysis of your own, except to say very open ended statements. Almost any market analysis is done with some measure of estimation, as you can never know all the numbers to a tee without working for the company itself.

We can have an argument about "kick the can economics", er, keynesian theory if you'd like, too. The banks incentives are greater than ever to not produce another economic meltdown.... right? It's not like they'll ever need another bailout after that 2008 slap on the wrist and massive injection of fed funds.
The only question I have for anyone who thinks we're in a recovery due to the bailout and QE policies is why can't they raise interest rates? Why are many European countries bond yields turning negative?

probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

You're getting your numbers from Wikipedia, at least I tried to source McDonald's number of low wage US employees from reputable sources. Forbes is not a source. It is a location to find opinion pieces. You can prove both sides of any issue using multiple forbes opinion pieces. Wikipedia is fine for showing corporate produced numbers. And parsing them between MacD and franchise company numbers. The EBIT numbers were from Yahoo finance. The difference is the 859,978 is total US employees including franchise employees. Yes, but then the actual total US employees number is more like 1.9 MILLION. This number was taken in 2013 and does show managers / higher wage employees as well. It seems the 2013 low wage employee numbers should be right around 580,000. 580,000 of 1.9Million seems to not pass the giggle test. That leaves over 1.3Million higher wage workers. Which is garbage. Again McDonald's doesn't make this information publicly known so some amount of estimation is necessary, regardless of your source. I'm simply using this to prove the loss of income to the corporation, and that changes will be needed if a $15 minimum wage was instituted immediately. Using bad numbers of employees and incorrect ramp up to new wage rates gets you garbage. Plain and simple. Any real estimate is simply impossible, and should be stated as such. If you want to be accurate at all. You do make good points about the demand for McDonald's products and the ability to increase minimum wage over a period of time, but that wasn't mentioned previously. No. Elasticity of demand was ignored.

So to conclude the number discrepancy, let's assume 580,000 rather than 860,000. Let's also use 2013 EBIT and net income rather than 2015.
2013 EBIT: 8.2 Billion
2013 Net Income: 5.585 Billion Why Bother showing bad numbers. Your numbers are at best guesses. And may be off by as much as 90%.

We cannot see the exact total cost these 580,000 take out of McDonalds revenue but we can estimate:
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$8.5 per hour) x 52 weeks = 7.7 Billion wage cost
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$15 per hour) x 52 weeks = 13.57 Billion wage cost

2013 EBIT with $8.5 minimum wage = 8.2 Billion
2013 EBIT with $15 minimum wage = 2.33 Billion with no operating changes whatsoever. However a drop from 8.2 Billion to 2.33 Billion would definitely warrant changes.

Seems reasonable enough, granted my calculations may be off by a few million but enough to make a point. Well, yes indeed, it does make your point, if you believe your numbers. Which no impartial source would. I can find a company that does have publicly listed US employees and wages if you'd really like. I doubt the analysis will change much as long as it is a company that has primarily minimum wage employees.
You are going at things backwards. You are doing a math exercise to prove your point. Nothing you can do with it will help this rat gaggle of an exercise.

As you're a BA in economics, and executive, you know that we can only use what information we are provided as the general public. McDonalds doesn't give us every piece of info, but to say my numbers are "pure garbage" is well, pure garbage. At least I provided an analysis as well, you simply attacked mine without any analysis of your own, except to say very open ended statements. Almost any market analysis is done with some measure of estimation, as you can never know all the numbers to a tee without working for the company itself.
You are far from knowing numbers to a tee. You have no known idea of how close your numbers are. And, you have no idea at all of factors that will influence the outcome of this wage increase. Only time will tell. And as I have said,

We can have an argument about "kick the can economics", er, keynesian theory if you'd like, too. Sure, glad to. Go find an alternative and return, me boy. The banks incentives are greater than ever to not produce another economic meltdown.... right? Very untrue. You need to look up "pushing on a string" to understand how little monetary functions have on an aggregate demand recession. It's not like they'll ever need another bailout after that 2008 slap on the wrist and massive injection of fed funds.
The only question I have for anyone who thinks we're in a recovery due to the bailout and QE policies is why can't they raise interest rates? Too simple. But part of a seperate discussion. But you are doing a great job of proving that you have an agenda, and what it is. Why are many European countries bond yields turning negative? If you question that we have recovered from our Great Recession of 2008, try arguing with nearly every economic group in the US. And you may want to start with the CBO. Good luck with that, because your really ignorant stance will not end well for you.

Your attempt an an analysis of economic outcomes from minimum wage increases are a bit interesting. Over 40 years ago, I and others did a graduation exercise proving various outcomes from various activities. Most worked out and we happily took our diploma and went on. Others failed. Those that failed almost always failed because they used unproven and often unprovable evidence for their conclusions. As you have. At some point, if you are going to be honest, you need to say that you can not prove your conclusion. Fact is, you should base the conclusion on proof, rather than the opposite. You do not do so, which proves you have an agenda. And agendas are the opposite of truth.
So, do you need to give up if you are simply trying to find the truth? No, not at all. You have google at your finger tips. We had the library in my day. But the issue is, you can find impartial sources with the resources to study and come to conclusions about any issue, which you do not have sufficient resources to find. The CBO is a good example. Simple enough, if you were actually interested in the truth. And proving nothing at all, as you did, is such a waste of time.

 

[kroot]

Yes, but then the actual total US employees number is more like 1.9 MILLION.

Where did you get this number? Why can't you provide an analysis using this number instead of 860k or 580k? The reason is because you know I'm right.

No. Elasticity of demand was ignored.

I don't need to show elasticity of demand since we're talking about wages not the demand of McDonald's products. We're talking about COSTS not REVENUES. But it appears you think that by increasing costs vs revenues, that McDonald's food might somehow have an increased demand because of that? I really don't get what you're going on about elasticity of demand for. Please explain.

I'd love to see your analysis of what would happen if McDonald's suddenly had to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour for minimum wage workers. Come on now, don't be shy, anyone can attack a point but to provide your own analysis would prove a lot more. Let's use your numbers of 1.9 million US employees instead, I'm sure you'll come to vastly different conclusion with more employees earning minimum wage rather than less.... right?

You are far from knowing numbers to a tee. You have no known idea of how close your numbers are. And, you have no idea at all of factors that will influence the outcome of this wage increase. Only time will tell. And as I have said,

Thankfully, time will not tell. They won't raise minimum wage to $15 overnight, so it's a moot point really. Hell, I'd be surprised if they hit $15 minimum by the year 2030. Unless of course inflation is more than they say it is.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

No way, it makes you think you have more wealth but it just another number for a 25 cent minimum wage

 

[anotherlife]

I wish this was true.

No because governments and central banks are intertwined. Without credit extensions, any business that is bigger than a carpet shop would fail in a day.

Private credit can be extended by the people delivering the raw materials and creating finished products.

Banks are overrated, if not entirely unnecessary.

I wish this was true.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That.Seattle minimum wage thread , you went on and on the story's were wrong and your first hand knowledge was more reliable.

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it

You're getting your numbers from Wikipedia, at least I tried to source McDonald's number of low wage US employees from reputable sources. The EBIT numbers were from Yahoo finance. The difference is the 859,978 is total US employees including franchise employees. This number was taken in 2013 and does show managers / higher wage employees as well. It seems the 2013 low wage employee numbers should be right around 580,000. Again McDonald's doesn't make this information publicly known so some amount of estimation is necessary, regardless of your source. I'm simply using this to prove the loss of income to the corporation, and that changes will be needed if a $15 minimum wage was instituted immediately. You do make good points about the demand for McDonald's products and the ability to increase minimum wage over a period of time, but that wasn't mentioned previously.

So to conclude the number discrepancy, let's assume 580,000 rather than 860,000. Let's also use 2013 EBIT and net income rather than 2015.
2013 EBIT: 8.2 Billion
2013 Net Income: 5.585 Billion

We cannot see the exact total cost these 580,000 take out of McDonalds revenue but we can estimate:
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$8.5 per hour) x 52 weeks = 7.7 Billion wage cost
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$15 per hour) x 52 weeks = 13.57 Billion wage cost

2013 EBIT with $8.5 minimum wage = 8.2 Billion
2013 EBIT with $15 minimum wage = 2.33 Billion with no operating changes whatsoever. However a drop from 8.2 Billion to 2.33 Billion would definitely warrant changes.

Seems reasonable enough, granted my calculations may be off by a few million but enough to make a point. I can find a company that does have publicly listed US employees and wages if you'd really like. I doubt the analysis will change much as long as it is a company that has primarily minimum wage employees.

As you're a BA in economics, and executive, you know that we can only use what information we are provided as the general public. McDonalds doesn't give us every piece of info, but to say my numbers are "pure garbage" is well, pure garbage. At least I provided an analysis as well, you simply attacked mine without any analysis of your own, except to say very open ended statements. Almost any market analysis is done with some measure of estimation, as you can never know all the numbers to a tee without working for the company itself.

We can have an argument about "kick the can economics", er, keynesian theory if you'd like, too. The banks incentives are greater than ever to not produce another economic meltdown.... right? It's not like they'll ever need another bailout after that 2008 slap on the wrist and massive injection of fed funds.
The only question I have for anyone who thinks we're in a recovery due to the bailout and QE policies is why can't they raise interest rates? Why are many European countries bond yields turning negative?

probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

You're getting your numbers from Wikipedia, at least I tried to source McDonald's number of low wage US employees from reputable sources. Forbes is not a source. It is a location to find opinion pieces. You can prove both sides of any issue using multiple forbes opinion pieces. Wikipedia is fine for showing corporate produced numbers. And parsing them between MacD and franchise company numbers. The EBIT numbers were from Yahoo finance. The difference is the 859,978 is total US employees including franchise employees. Yes, but then the actual total US employees number is more like 1.9 MILLION. This number was taken in 2013 and does show managers / higher wage employees as well. It seems the 2013 low wage employee numbers should be right around 580,000. 580,000 of 1.9Million seems to not pass the giggle test. That leaves over 1.3Million higher wage workers. Which is garbage. Again McDonald's doesn't make this information publicly known so some amount of estimation is necessary, regardless of your source. I'm simply using this to prove the loss of income to the corporation, and that changes will be needed if a $15 minimum wage was instituted immediately. Using bad numbers of employees and incorrect ramp up to new wage rates gets you garbage. Plain and simple. Any real estimate is simply impossible, and should be stated as such. If you want to be accurate at all. You do make good points about the demand for McDonald's products and the ability to increase minimum wage over a period of time, but that wasn't mentioned previously. No. Elasticity of demand was ignored.

So to conclude the number discrepancy, let's assume 580,000 rather than 860,000. Let's also use 2013 EBIT and net income rather than 2015.
2013 EBIT: 8.2 Billion
2013 Net Income: 5.585 Billion Why Bother showing bad numbers. Your numbers are at best guesses. And may be off by as much as 90%.

We cannot see the exact total cost these 580,000 take out of McDonalds revenue but we can estimate:
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$8.5 per hour) x 52 weeks = 7.7 Billion wage cost
580,000 x estimated (*30 hours per week) x estimated (*$15 per hour) x 52 weeks = 13.57 Billion wage cost

2013 EBIT with $8.5 minimum wage = 8.2 Billion
2013 EBIT with $15 minimum wage = 2.33 Billion with no operating changes whatsoever. However a drop from 8.2 Billion to 2.33 Billion would definitely warrant changes.

Seems reasonable enough, granted my calculations may be off by a few million but enough to make a point. Well, yes indeed, it does make your point, if you believe your numbers. Which no impartial source would. I can find a company that does have publicly listed US employees and wages if you'd really like. I doubt the analysis will change much as long as it is a company that has primarily minimum wage employees.
You are going at things backwards. You are doing a math exercise to prove your point. Nothing you can do with it will help this rat gaggle of an exercise.

As you're a BA in economics, and executive, you know that we can only use what information we are provided as the general public. McDonalds doesn't give us every piece of info, but to say my numbers are "pure garbage" is well, pure garbage. At least I provided an analysis as well, you simply attacked mine without any analysis of your own, except to say very open ended statements. Almost any market analysis is done with some measure of estimation, as you can never know all the numbers to a tee without working for the company itself.
You are far from knowing numbers to a tee. You have no known idea of how close your numbers are. And, you have no idea at all of factors that will influence the outcome of this wage increase. Only time will tell. And as I have said,

We can have an argument about "kick the can economics", er, keynesian theory if you'd like, too. Sure, glad to. Go find an alternative and return, me boy. The banks incentives are greater than ever to not produce another economic meltdown.... right? Very untrue. You need to look up "pushing on a string" to understand how little monetary functions have on an aggregate demand recession. It's not like they'll ever need another bailout after that 2008 slap on the wrist and massive injection of fed funds.
The only question I have for anyone who thinks we're in a recovery due to the bailout and QE policies is why can't they raise interest rates? Too simple. But part of a seperate discussion. But you are doing a great job of proving that you have an agenda, and what it is. Why are many European countries bond yields turning negative? If you question that we have recovered from our Great Recession of 2008, try arguing with nearly every economic group in the US. And you may want to start with the CBO. Good luck with that, because your really ignorant stance will not end well for you.

Your attempt an an analysis of economic outcomes from minimum wage increases are a bit interesting. Over 40 years ago, I and others did a graduation exercise proving various outcomes from various activities. Most worked out and we happily took our diploma and went on. Others failed. Those that failed almost always failed because they used unproven and often unprovable evidence for their conclusions. As you have. At some point, if you are going to be honest, you need to say that you can not prove your conclusion. Fact is, you should base the conclusion on proof, rather than the opposite. You do not do so, which proves you have an agenda. And agendas are the opposite of truth.
So, do you need to give up if you are simply trying to find the truth? No, not at all. You have google at your finger tips. We had the library in my day. But the issue is, you can find impartial sources with the resources to study and come to conclusions about any issue, which you do not have sufficient resources to find. The CBO is a good example. Simple enough, if you were actually interested in the truth. And proving nothing at all, as you did, is such a waste of time.

Ok,what happens to the no jobs Mr. Spin master with raising the minimum wage nationally ?

 

[anotherlife]

I did not say my knowledge was more reliable. But, show the source. If you provided it, it probably was a nut case right wing source.
Here is the thing, me right wing nut case. No one, me included, knows what the result of a $15 minimum wage will be over time. My guess is that it will have little effect on employment beyond the first three months. It will have a major impact, however, on employee ability to live reasonable lives. And I do not believe many businesses will go out of business at all. Time, you see, will tell. The deductions made by the nut case right wing web sites are typical con talking points. And cons have always opposed any raise in the minimum wage, and have opposed the minimum wage in general. And lying has never bothered the sources of the far right.

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

No way, it makes you think you have more wealth but it just another number for a 25 cent minimum wage

It inflates money so it clears unpayable debt. Nasty indeed, but there may not be anything else around today to balance the blind automatic federal underwriting machine.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The affect is actually quite easy to see with most companies. I can't give you an exact result as no one can. There's too many variables in the market place to give you the precision you want to hear from us capitalists. It depends on the company, their profit margin, their wiggle room, etc. In general let's assume most of the employees of lower paying jobs are also working for companies with lower profit margins, as the businesses require less education overall, but make up for this by moving more "product" typically. In general, I would assume the following would take place, not necessarily all of them, but in general some mix of the following:

1. Layoffs or shortened working hours to try to recoup lost revenue
2. Increased prices to the consumer to recoup lost revenue
3. Increased investment in automation technologies to reduce lost revenue
4. Loss of stock value as profits to outstanding shares decreases, or reduced dividends
5. The same reduction in bond values to again recoup lost revenue
6. The closing of less profitable stores, selling of real estate to reduce liabilities / increase revenue

Again this is just a general list of the probable consequences, not in any particular order, most likely a mix of the above. It's hard to argue that a company would do these things to recoup lost revenue, especially a very vertically positioned business like Walmart or McDonalds where they exist for one reason mostly. Walmart is a retailer for goods, and McDonalds for fast food. There aren't a lot of magical tricks these types of companies can pull out of their hat to produce new revenue such as a stellar new product offering.

I wasn't able to find exact employee payroll listings on the balance sheets of McDonalds or Walmart, but the estimate for McDonalds has been pegged at (per Forbes):

McDonald’s Corp. All your numbers are wrong. Bad source, I suspect.
> Number of employees: 859,978
> Total wage expense at current pay level: $12.27 billion
> Total wage expense at $15 an hour: $20.59 billion
> Annual wage cost increase: $8.13 billion

Looking at McDonalds 2015 balance sheet, they had an EBIT (Earnings before interest / tax) of 7.16 Billion. They also had a total net income of 4.53 Billion. It seems clear to me that the costs would certainly need to be either passed on to the consumer, passed on to the employees, or passed on to the shareholders. Most likely a combination of the three.

HOWEVER this is simply looking at McDonald's profits. It's unclear as to the affect it would have on the economy as a whole. It seems clear McDonald's would have to do something about this sudden rise in costs, it is unclear if the employees would in the long run benefit from potential layoffs or reduced working hours. Consumers certainly wouldn't benefit. Taxpayers may or may not benefit from reduced welfare liabilities, assuming McDonald's doesn't close a ton of stores, layoff a number of employees or reduce working hours too dramatically.

This in my mind falls into the keynesian thought process of "we need to increase aggregate demand by any means possible". The problem is look at the numbers, McDonalds WILL need to adjust their business practices very quickly in a short amount of time. Economics is produced around stability, but when government intervention happens it creates scenarios like the above McDonalds net income issue. McDonalds will go from an EBIT of positive 7.16 billion to negative 1 billion with simple legislation. The costs will very likely be passed right back to the employees and consumers that wanted these laws.

I just wanted to prove that if you look at the numbers of a company it is very clear to see what the affect will be of government intervention. Enough of this foolish "we need to pass the law to see how it works" crap. If you're educated in finance it is very simple to see the net effect.
If you start with valid numbers, it would be easier. You numbers are way off.

Not sure what you looked at to get your numbers, but MacD has about 1.9M employees, of which 1.5M work for franchises, not MacD. so,that should be about 400K employees. I think the rest of your numbers are more than a bit suspect. Either you got your numbers out of a comic book, or you mis read them. Ever hear of GIGO? You know, garbage in garbage out. Your analysis is dead on arrival.
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, macD's ebit numbers will depend on a number of factors. And not over a very short period. We will learn, over time, you and I, what consumers and employees think. But we can be pretty certain what the stockholders will think. They are used to big bucks, and may have to see their slice of the profits drop some.
Relative to the comment of Keynesian thought process, that would have been much more pertinent after the Great Recession of 2008. Now it really looks more like it has been common for the min wage to decrease in real terms over the years. And while the upper 1% of workers got 93% of earnings increases since the great recession, the other 99% got to share the remaining 7%.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
So, maybe the less well off are due. The stimulus effect would be fairly small, but worth considering. You see, aggregate demand is not an issue today as it was in a big way in 2008.

OK. I have an MBA. And a ba in economics. And 45 years as an executive. That educated enough?
Have you ever tried to track minimum wage increases in past times?
Any idea of the elasticity of demand for macd products?
What are the options for consumers if every competitor increases min wage, as they will?
What are MacD's real numbers?

So, what you do not have is an analysis of what happens if MacD raises prices for their products. Your assumption is that increased costs can not be easily passed on. Which I doubt is true. But like you, I have no proof.
But from my looks at past minimum wage increases, the net effects have not been anything like as bad as you expect. Your assumption is that the macd product elasticity of demand is quite low. But you have not shown any evidence. And you seem to have neglected the fact that all fast food restraunts would have to also raise their prices, etc.
If it is very simple to see the net effect, you are much much smarter than most. But your model is very, very simplistic. And no, you can not tell from a few incorrect numbers what will happen. Every time I have seen a min wage increase, the far right has preached imminent dire results. And every time, they have been wrong. Every time. And that is over a period of 50 years.
So, the assumption is that this higher increase will be more damaging. Problem is, there are several issues that make such an analysis unlikely. For instance:
1. The wage increase is not all at once, but gradual over several years.
2. This wage increase, while high, is not so high when looked at in real dollar terms. That is, $15 today is not much different than the min wage in the 1960's.
3. Speaking of Keynsian theory, raising a class of employees wages tends to be stimulative, which to most of the economists of the world, is a good thing.

If you got a BA in economics I would ask for my money back, again fool 3% of workers make minimum wage almost 50% of workers make $15 bucks or less you think the $15 dollar worker will be getting a $7 dollar an hour raise? Of course not

You are not doing a Damn thing by raising the national minimum wage.

Trickle up poor, trickle up misery

no. Raising the minimum wage is the best way to clear the debt that individual Americans love to pile onto themselves daily. With every new student loan sold, and every new free credit balance transfer authorized, we need one penny increase on the minimum wage, to balance out that cash flow. In other words, when the government is your automated underwriter, then it also must be your automated money printer. otherwise you will repeat the 2009 credit crashes progressivelybigger, worse, and faster.

No way, it makes you think you have more wealth but it just another number for a 25 cent minimum wage

It inflates money so it clears unpayable debt. Nasty indeed, but there may not be anything else around today to balance the blind automatic federal underwriting machine.

So we got a major problems
Global problems like naffta and free trade

The enemy with in raising minimum wage with out a back lash of company's relying on automation and leaving

We have a back will have riots in the streets if a burger flipper snot nose kid makes as much as a cop on the streets

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't believe allowing corporations to buy out all of their competition and the few(big corps) in the market place to work together to close the market is good for efficiency of our economy. If you're going to reject everything of the 20th century get ready to be poorer then dog shit!!! Most of you dumb sub-iq'ed white males wouldn't be running the few big corps anyways. The few that don't screw around on message boards will.

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
]Yes, but then the actual total US employees number is more like 1.9 MILLION.

Where did you get this number? Already told you, and provided a reference link.
Here is another source.
"How many employees does McDonald's have?
QUICK ANSWER
McDonald's and its franchisees employ approximately 1.9 million employees as of 2014. McDonald's has more than 35,000 locations in over 100 countries as of 2014. About 80 percent of locations are franchised."

Why can't you provide an analysis using this number instead of 860k or 580k? The reason is because you know I'm right. Ah, another case of coming to a conclusion without evidence. Thanks again for proving my point. I do not because it is immaterial. Your conclusions are wrong, and you have insufficient information to base anything on.

No. Elasticity of demand was ignored.

I don't need to show elasticity of demand since we're talking about wages not the demand of McDonald's products. Completely wrong. Because we are talking about what happens to demand for MacD products when the price of those products increase. We're talking about COSTS not REVENUES. But it appears you think that by increasing costs vs revenues, that McDonald's food might somehow have an increased demand because of that? Jesus. Go get a definition of elasticity of demand. Jesus, that was stupid. I really don't get what you're going on about elasticity of demand for. Please explain.
Elasticity of demand is a very basic and simple economic concept, describing what happens to the demand for a product when the price increases for that product. Without knowing that, you can not guess what will happen. Very simple.

I'd love to see your analysis of what would happen if McDonald's suddenly had to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour for minimum wage workers. Come on now, don't be shy, anyone can attack a point but to provide your own analysis would prove a lot more. Let's use your numbers of 1.9 million US employees instead, I'm sure you'll come to vastly different conclusion with more employees earning minimum wage rather than less.... right?

Sorry, me boy. I am not stupid enough to suggest I know what will happen if you raise one variable. You did that, and your conclusion was made before your "analysis". As I have said, I do not know. I can make conclusions that are weak from past history. Even well sourced and heavily resources sources for the subject see too many unknown variables to feel confident in any analysis.
Now, on the other hand, nut case con web sites are out there making rock solid analysis from talking points telling you the answer. As they always have when min wage increases have happened. And, they have always been consistently wrong. Just like you, they cherry pick the evidence they want, ignore that they do not want, and fling a number at the wall. Not often does that work out.

You are far from knowing numbers to a tee. You have no known idea of how close your numbers are. And, you have no idea at all of the factors that will influence the outcome of this wage increase. Only time will tell.

Thankfully, time will not tell. They won't raise minimum wage to $15 overnight, so it's a moot point really. Hell, I'd be surprised if they hit $15 minimum by the year 2030. Unless of course inflation is more than they say it is.
Maybe you are not just a con troll, but a conspiracy theorist as well. Worries about inflation simply proves you are a nut case. So, we now know:
1. You do not believe in Keynesian Economic Theory.
2. You believe the gov is lying to you about the inflation rate.
3. You do not think you need to account for elasticity of demand, though you seem to not know what it is.

Got it. You are simply a joke.