Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 12, 2015 9:42:18 GMT -5
Jobs and hours will be cut, prices will go up, and the people it was supposed to help won't be any better off, and will probably be worse.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 10:08:15 GMT -5
Jobs and hours will be cut, prices will go up, and the people it was supposed to help won't be any better off, and will probably be worse. there is no evidence that higher MW reduces jobs. and yes, hamburgers will go up a buck. big poop. buy more rice, beans and potatoes. as to your last assertion, you are claiming that if your take home pay goes up 50%, you won't be better off? really?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 18:30:34 GMT -5
Jobs and hours will be cut, prices will go up, and the people it was supposed to help won't be any better off, and will probably be worse. there is no evidence that higher MW reduces jobs. and yes, hamburgers will go up a buck. big poop. buy more rice, beans and potatoes. as to your last assertion, you are claiming that if your take home pay goes up 50%, you won't be better off? really? If the combined total of your expenses goes up 60% (as it's likely to do... they've always gone up fractionally more than wages have, in the past)... no. You won't be "better off".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 18:59:15 GMT -5
there is no evidence that higher MW reduces jobs. and yes, hamburgers will go up a buck. big poop. buy more rice, beans and potatoes. as to your last assertion, you are claiming that if your take home pay goes up 50%, you won't be better off? really? If the combined total of your expenses goes up 60% (as it's likely to do... they've always gone up fractionally more than wages have, in the past)... no. You won't be "better off". there is little evidence to support that the combined total of your expenses would go up 0.6%, let alone 60%.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 19:21:07 GMT -5
There's actually no evidence of a 60% increase due to a 50% wage increase... because this is the first time there's been a 50% increase.
There is however lots of data (proof) of increases slightly more than wages... every single time, there's been a Minimum wage hike.
Now... that increased value is based on a worker actually making Minimum wage, who likely only buys the essentials. If your experience is different from that (as a higher wage earner) then that's awesome for you.
The problem is, Minimum wage is one of the factors driving inflation (not the ONLY factor, certainly... but an important one, none the less). As of right now, a person had more "buying power" in 1980 with a $3.35/hour job than a person with a $7.25 hour job has now. That's not speculation. That's fact. (Google "minimum wage vs inflation" for literally SCORES of links that all say the same thing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 20:42:13 GMT -5
There's actually no evidence of a 60% increase due to a 50% wage increase... because this is the first time there's been a 50% increase. other than the 88% increase in 1950, that is true. There is however lots of data (proof) of increases slightly more than wages... every single time, there's been a Minimum wage hike. there is no data that supports that assertion that i have ever seen. the impact on HAMBURGER prices is about 10% of the increase in wages. the increase in prices in the general economy is less than 10% that sensitive (less than 1%). therefore, a 50% increase in FMW would result in less than a 0.5% increase in inflation in the general case (if we use history as our guide). if i am misunderstanding what you are asserting here, let me know, Richard. i am going off my INTERPRETATION of your post.Now... that increased value is based on a worker actually making Minimum wage, who likely only buys the essentials. If your experience is different from that (as a higher wage earner) then that's awesome for you. The problem is, Minimum wage is one of the factors driving inflation (not the ONLY factor, certainly... but an important one, none the less). As of right now, a person had more "buying power" in 1980 with a $3.35/hour job than a person with a $7.25 hour job has now. That's not speculation. That's fact. (Google "minimum wage vs inflation" for literally SCORES of links that all say the same thing. i don't know why you feel the need to convince me. i mention this fact all of the time. adjusted for inflation, the FMW is about 25% below where it peaked in 1973. the last number i saw put the "adjusted" figure at just under $10/hr.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 21:11:17 GMT -5
There's actually no evidence of a 60% increase due to a 50% wage increase... because this is the first time there's been a 50% increase. There is however lots of data (proof) of increases slightly more than wages... every single time, there's been a Minimum wage hike. Now... that increased value is based on a worker actually making Minimum wage, who likely only buys the essentials. If your experience is different from that (as a higher wage earner) then that's awesome for you. The problem is, Minimum wage is one of the factors driving inflation (not the ONLY factor, certainly... but an important one, none the less). As of right now, a person had more "buying power" in 1980 with a $3.35/hour job than a person with a $7.25 hour job has now. That's not speculation. That's fact. (Google "minimum wage vs inflation" for literally SCORES of links that all say the same thing. i don't know why you feel the need to convince me. adjusted for inflation, the FMW is about 25% below where it peaked in 1973. the last number i saw put the "adjusted" figure at just under $10/hr. Thus proving my point. Less buying power every time (there is some lag before inflation catches up, I'll stipulate/admit to that) Minimum wage is increased. If buying power were equal or greater, THEN the premise of "raising the FMW gives low wage earners more buying power" would be true. It's not equal or greater, it's lower, therefore it's provably untrue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 21:19:37 GMT -5
i don't know why you feel the need to convince me. adjusted for inflation, the FMW is about 25% below where it peaked in 1973. the last number i saw put the "adjusted" figure at just under $10/hr. Thus proving my point. Less buying power every time (there is some lag before inflation catches up, I'll stipulate/admit to that) Minimum wage is increased. no, that is not true, either. between 1938 and 1968, FMW had not only kept ahead of inflation, but was in parallel with increases in productivity. but you are making a really strange point, here. you seem to be asserting that if there were no FMW, that people who are now earning it would be better off. but if that were true, you would also be asserting that they would be making higher wages without FMW than they are with it. is that what you believe?If buying power were equal or greater, THEN the premise of "raising the FMW gives low wage earners more buying power" would be true. It's not equal or greater, it's lower, therefore it's provably untrue. my point was entirely separate. but if you want to have a discussion about THIS issue, then i think it should be reasonable to expect that FMW should have kept up with not only inflation, but productivity since 1968. that is a failure on the part of POLICYMAKERS, imo. MY point had to do with the idea that FMW is inflation CAUSING, not that inflation erodes the FMW over time, which is trivially true, because the folks that set policy are not interested in the poor, and are quite interested in corporate profits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 22:16:48 GMT -5
I agree that FMW should keep up with inflation... if we are even going to have it... because it, at least in part, helps DRIVE inflation.
Wages are a cost. Businesses transfer ALL costs to their consumers... otherwise they eventually go out of business (you can only run at a loss for so long before it catches up with you). If wages are required, by law, to go up, then prices to consumers must go up to compensate, or employee numbers MUST go down. It's simple, basic, inescapable... math.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 22:17:39 GMT -5
I agree that FMW should keep up with inflation... if we are even going to have it... because it, at least in part, helps DRIVE inflation. yes, it does, in part: about 1%, as stated above.Wages are a cost. Businesses transfer ALL costs to their consumers... otherwise they eventually go out of business (you can only run at a loss for so long before it catches up with you). If wages are required, by law, to go up, then prices to consumers must go up to compensate, or employee numbers MUST go down. It's simple, basic, inescapable... math. i am quite familiar with how wages impact prices. wages are about 20-25% of my business costs. it is higher in some other industries. lower in others. thanks. in my case, if FMW went to $10/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $13/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $15/hr, my prices would stay the same (and one employee would get a raise). if FMW went to $18/hr, my prices would stay the same (and three employees would get a raise). it would take FMW going to $20/hr before i would pass one dime on to my customers. if fast food places have to raise prices, maybe more people will cook their own food, or eat staples instead of shit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 22:21:52 GMT -5
I agree that FMW should keep up with inflation... if we are even going to have it... because it, at least in part, helps DRIVE inflation. Wages are a cost. Businesses transfer ALL costs to their consumers... otherwise they eventually go out of business (you can only run at a loss for so long before it catches up with you). If wages are required, by law, to go up, then prices to consumers must go up to compensate, or employee numbers MUST go down. It's simple, basic, inescapable... math. please don't lecture me on business principles. i have been running businesses longer than many posters here have lived. thanks. That wasn't so much meant for you actually. That was meant for "the general reader that may be lurking". ETA: I heard somewhere (maybe here? when I would just state a {to me} obvious point) that points are better made to the reader that's not actually in the conversation if they are "fully fleshed out".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 12, 2015 22:25:40 GMT -5
please don't lecture me on business principles. i have been running businesses longer than many posters here have lived. thanks. That wasn't so much meant for you actually. That was meant for "the general reader that may be lurking". i considered that after i posted. that is why i added the paragraph about how it would impact me and the 20 employees whose wages i now control.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 13, 2015 1:33:59 GMT -5
I agree that FMW should keep up with inflation... if we are even going to have it... because it, at least in part, helps DRIVE inflation. yes, it does, in part: about 1%, as stated above.Wages are a cost. Businesses transfer ALL costs to their consumers... otherwise they eventually go out of business (you can only run at a loss for so long before it catches up with you). If wages are required, by law, to go up, then prices to consumers must go up to compensate, or employee numbers MUST go down. It's simple, basic, inescapable... math. i am quite familiar with how wages impact prices. wages are about 20-25% of my business costs. it is higher in some other industries. lower in others. thanks. in my case, if FMW went to $10/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $13/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $15/hr, my prices would stay the same (and one employee would get a raise). if FMW went to $18/hr, my prices would stay the same (and three employees would get a raise). it would take FMW going to $20/hr before i would pass one dime on to my customers. if fast food places have to raise prices, maybe more people will cook their own food, or eat staples instead of shit. It's interesting how little FF I eat any longer..really have no desire for most of the food offered though I kind of like Wendys Chili..{ I know, the put in the left over hamburg into it...} and the sausage / egg crousant breakfast sandwich at Burger King..[especially when I have a 2/1 coupon..} ..Actually yesterday I hadn't eaten anything and I needed to eat..health reasons and had a appointment coming up ..stopped at a checkers..really dislike their stuff but ordered a BLT for a $1.00..actually that wasn't bad at all..had real bacon, lettuce, tomato on a soft seeded bun..little mayo..and the price was perfect..will have to remember that one if caught out again.. Will we survive when the minimum in a few years goes to $15 per..absolutely..California is a important State on this one as it is so big and heavily populated...I am wondering on the small retail businesses..how it will affect them....Possible some will cut staff..possible service and wait times might suffer...but then they risk losing customers...Still, I am paying $2.06 at one of my favorite places for cup of coffee and no I don't go to starbucks..one right up the street from me..never been in there..and I do like my coffee...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 13, 2015 10:13:51 GMT -5
i am quite familiar with how wages impact prices. wages are about 20-25% of my business costs. it is higher in some other industries. lower in others. thanks. in my case, if FMW went to $10/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $13/hr, my prices would stay the same. if FMW went to $15/hr, my prices would stay the same (and one employee would get a raise). if FMW went to $18/hr, my prices would stay the same (and three employees would get a raise). it would take FMW going to $20/hr before i would pass one dime on to my customers. if fast food places have to raise prices, maybe more people will cook their own food, or eat staples instead of shit. It's interesting how little FF I eat any longer..really have no desire for most of the food offered though I kind of like Wendys Chili..{ I know, the put in the left over hamburg into it...} and the sausage / egg crousant breakfast sandwich at Burger King..[especially when I have a 2/1 coupon..} ..Actually yesterday I hadn't eaten anything and I needed to eat..health reasons and had a appointment coming up ..stopped at a checkers..really dislike their stuff but ordered a BLT for a $1.00..actually that wasn't bad at all..had real bacon, lettuce, tomato on a soft seeded bun..little mayo..and the price was perfect..will have to remember that one if caught out again.. Will we survive when the minimum in a few years goes to $15 per..absolutely..California is a important State on this one as it is so big and heavily populated...I am wondering on the small retail businesses..how it will affect them....Possible some will cut staff..possible service and wait times might suffer...but then they risk losing customers...Still, I am paying $2.06 at one of my favorite places for cup of coffee and no I don't go to starbucks..one right up the street from me..never been in there..and I do like my coffee... i don't see a lot of people with suits and ties eating fast food. you can look into the demographics, but i am guessing that most are urban poor- the very same people that benefit from an increase in FMW. if you want me to guess, i would guess that MOST small retailers would BENEFIT from FMW increasing. there is no competitive disadvantage if you and your competitors pay the same for labor, so it puts the retailers that pay FMW on the same footing as those who are currently not doing so. in other words, it makes the situation MORE competitive. and yeah, maybe that results in some businesses that were poorly run having a harder time competing- but isn't that what being in business is about? why should businesses that are poorly run be shown any favoritism? burger prices would go up about 10% across the board with a FMW increase to $15/hr, according to Heritage Foundation- not exactly a bastion of liberalism. meanwhile, take home pay would go up more than 50%, so the result should be that the poor can buy more burgers, and afford to eat the fast food and consume the other services they are currently providing at poverty wages.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 13, 2015 18:29:23 GMT -5
LA just approved this increase. congratulations to the great city and county of LA- however, the state may actually beat LA to the punch. if the SMW legislation currently going through the legislature is approved, it will take years for LA to surpass it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 13, 2015 22:26:28 GMT -5
I am not a proponent of even having a minimum-wage law, but this thread title still causes wonder. How exactly is California leading the nation? They weren't first on this. And the $10.50 they will go to a year from now is still below what Seattle already has in effect now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 16:34:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 22:48:45 GMT -5
I am not a proponent of even having a minimum-wage law, but this thread title still causes wonder. How exactly is California leading the nation? They weren't first on this. And the $10.50 they will go to a year from now is still below what Seattle already has in effect now. I believe that an argument can be made that "leads" isn't necessarily restricted to "first place ONLY". Anyone that's ahead of others "leads" them... even if someone else is in front of them.
|
|