djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2015 9:13:27 GMT -5
i never claimed you made the statement. i was simply asking you a question. your position APPEARS TO BE that taxing social security for those that work is a disincentive to work. yet, since the recession hit in 2008/9, record number of senior citizens are working AND paying taxes. i was asking you, basically, WHY? if what you are CLAIMING is true, one would think that FEWER senior citizens would work because more of them would be SUBJECTED to taxation, but that is not the case. in other words, i was calling you on your statement- or if your wording was not exactly as i phrased it above, YOUR IDEA. got anything to back it up? edit: if i got your position wrong, just tell me what it actually is, and i will abandon or rephrase the question. A tired old argument the right pulls out of the hat every time a tax increase is on the horizon.
Something along the lines of- "Well I make 250K, and since the top tax rate is going up why would I want to work any harder and pay that much more" You can reduce that to 'Why should I work at all when I can live the welfare life with steak and lobster dinners and a new Escalade"
Because people only work as hard as their tax rate "Well I could make another million, but- nah- the taxes" Some absurd shit being floated.
it is so ridiculous that a first grader could figure it out: "if you cleaned the yard, and i gave you three apples- would you do the same job if i gave you four apples and took half of the last one?" what person would say NO to that proposition? or, if you prefer, how about this one: "if you were sitting on the porch, and i gave you three apples, but you needed four- would you work for two more, if i took half of one of them?" i can't imagine anyone saying no to that one either. but the right keeps repeating this bullshit over and over again as if it made sense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2015 9:14:53 GMT -5
precisely. we socialize labor in this country to a far greater extent than we should.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2015 19:35:23 GMT -5
it is so ridiculous that a first grader could figure it out: "if you cleaned the yard, and i gave you three apples- would you do the same job if i gave you four apples and took half of the last one?" what person would say NO to that proposition? or, if you prefer, how about this one: "if you were sitting on the porch, and i gave you three apples, but you needed four- would you work for two more, if i took half of one of them?" i can't imagine anyone saying no to that one either. but the right keeps repeating this bullshit over and over again as if it made sense. Oh, but there is some truth to it and you know economics enough to know that all of this stuff happens at the margins. Seeing even 10% of people pass up the OT, or not start the next business line because of increased taxes makes the whole increase not add more $$ to the treasury sometimes.
In your example, OF COURSE you'll take a net of 3.5 apples vs. 3 for the same work, but it's never the same work.
that is true. it is often easier.
People decide things like "should I pass up camping with the family this weekend to take the overtime shift, knowing that shift will be taxed at 50%?" If you change 50 to 25 and ask a sample of people, you'll get different responses. Head out to your factory floor right now and make the offer both ways to different people and you'll see.
Same for me.... do you buck for promotion, work later, have higher stress to make 10K more? what if it's only 3K more because it pushes you into supplemental medicare tax, wipes out a bunch more deductions/etc. huh, maybe not worth it for 3k, but would have been for 7k.
i think it is stone cold stupid to not work for more money, particularly if you need it. the ONLY way the argument makes sense is if working more gets you LESS. show me that argument, and you win.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on May 4, 2015 19:54:05 GMT -5
djAdvocate, IMO it's situational. I make enough that I don't need more 'salary.' It's fine but I'm not working 60 hrs a week when 20-30 hrs & trading will do most months. However my DS is starting out so he needs it. (New mortgage, 8 yrs to go on 1st home (15 yr term) & now 20 to go on the one that just closed). But when you're starting out you often do unpaid hrs if on salary & not hourly wage
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 4, 2015 20:14:27 GMT -5
djAdvocate, IMO it's situational. I make enough that I don't need more 'salary.' It's fine but I'm not working 60 hrs a week when 20-30 hrs & trading will do most months. However my DS is starting out so he needs it. (New mortgage, 8 yrs to go on 1st home (15 yr term) & now 20 to go on the one that just closed). But when you're starting out you often do unpaid hrs if on salary & not hourly wage Of course it is- but it has little or nothing to do with taxes at current rates and especially not SSA taxes. I could easily make more money- I choose not to because I value my time over the increased income- has jack to do with the taxes.
What's that old saying about a epitaphs- you never see 'I wish I had worked more'
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 4, 2015 20:19:19 GMT -5
BTW the people complaining about the taxes are not the folks at the margin deciding whether to work the overtime vs. going camping- it is the folks that earn 10K while eating breakfast at home on a work day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2015 23:58:17 GMT -5
i just don't understand the Lafferite principle at all, until you get past T*. if i knew i was in line for a raise for a somewhat more difficult job, and i knew that the raise would be taxed at 50%, i would still take it. to walk away from more money for working the same hours is just kinda stupid, imo.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 5, 2015 0:22:57 GMT -5
i just don't understand the Lafferite principle at all, until you get past T*. if i knew i was in line for a raise for a somewhat more difficult job, and i knew that the raise would be taxed at 50%, i would still take it. to walk away from more money for working the same hours is just kinda stupid, imo. So would anyone with a brain.
To illustrate a similar flaw in thinking people get all pissed off at a raise in minimum wage because they take it as a pay cut.
If I can afford a nice house and a good life I could give a shit if the minimum wage went up to afford everyone a nice house and a good life. It is like gay marriage- doesn't affect me one bit.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 5, 2015 8:45:26 GMT -5
i just don't understand the Lafferite principle at all, until you get past T*. if i knew i was in line for a raise for a somewhat more difficult job, and i knew that the raise would be taxed at 50%, i would still take it. to walk away from more money for working the same hours is just kinda stupid, imo. Here's where we part ways. I was offered a position that would have put me pretty close into 38% combined Fed and State effective rate territory (42% if you throw in SS/Medicare). More stress, higher risk, and more travel. That fact that I'd be busting my ass even harder to have >40% of every dollar earned confiscated for my efforts is a big reason why I said no. I provide well for my family but there is a point of diminishing returns and I'm there. Throw in the AMT trap and the rate could be even higher if congress does not fix it permanently.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 12:06:02 GMT -5
i just don't understand the Lafferite principle at all, until you get past T*. if i knew i was in line for a raise for a somewhat more difficult job, and i knew that the raise would be taxed at 50%, i would still take it. to walk away from more money for working the same hours is just kinda stupid, imo. Here's where we part ways. I was offered a position that would have put me pretty close into 38% combined Fed and State effective rate territory (42% if you throw in SS/Medicare). More stress, higher risk, and more travel. That fact that I'd be busting my ass even harder to have >40% of every dollar earned confiscated for my efforts is a big reason why I said no. I provide well for my family but there is a point of diminishing returns and I'm there. Throw in the AMT trap and the rate could be even higher if congress does not fix it permanently. given that i manage two S Corps, 2 LLC's one C Corp, and a sole proprietorship, as well as posting here heavily, working in three bands, and raising a 15 year old, you can probably imagine my stress level. it ain't low. so, yeah, i have trouble relating to anyone that won't take on more stress for more pay. but furthermore, it sounds like you probably would not have done the move even if taxes were lower. given that taxes are the lowest they have been for us 10%-ers in about 90 years, i think it is a little odd to complain about it today, and it certainly should have been more of a complaint for two of the last three generations.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 13:35:03 GMT -5
I'm sure that the bolded part contributes to 90% of your stress level at least.
Forgive me, I just found that part funny.
what stress? this is how i BLOW OFF STEAM, dem!
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 5, 2015 14:33:41 GMT -5
Here's where we part ways. I was offered a position that would have put me pretty close into 38% combined Fed and State effective rate territory (42% if you throw in SS/Medicare). More stress, higher risk, and more travel. That fact that I'd be busting my ass even harder to have >40% of every dollar earned confiscated for my efforts is a big reason why I said no. I provide well for my family but there is a point of diminishing returns and I'm there. Throw in the AMT trap and the rate could be even higher if congress does not fix it permanently. given that i manage two S Corps, 2 LLC's one C Corp, and a sole proprietorship, as well as posting here heavily, working in three bands, and raising a 15 year old, you can probably imagine my stress level. it ain't low. so, yeah, i have trouble relating to anyone that won't take on more stress for more pay. but furthermore, it sounds like you probably would not have done the move even if taxes were lower. given that taxes are the lowest they have been for us 10%-ers in about 90 years, i think it is a little odd to complain about it today, and it certainly should have been more of a complaint for two of the last three generations. DJ not trying to get into a pissing contest as to who has the most stress ? - Yes - the tax rates on income are lower than they have been in years. That is not what is driving the shift in Federal revenues though. I've posted this several times in the past. It's the huge decrease in import tariffs and extraction taxes, things that in reality are consumption taxes - which have a far greater impact on the lower income quintiles than the higher income quintiles. If we are going to compare historical trends I think it's only reasonable to look at the overall picture. I'm also trying to find a chart of actual effective tax rates by income bracket (as opposed to marginal rates) because deductible items have changed significantly over the years (still working on that). Again, I'm not sure just looking at marginal rates provides an apples to apples comparison. Right now the top 10% has over 70% of the income tax burden (still looking for historical trends on that one as well) with a little of 45% of the income. This is pretty progressive in my view, but apparently not enough. Exactly what percentage of the country's tax burden do you think the top 10% should pay? taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes ETA - found the below chart (chart 8) which is pretty interestering. If you look at the overall ETR by income strata you will see the lower levels actually had their % of total burden decreased at a far greater rate than the top income levels, althought the 1% seemed to do the best overall. Taking this into consideration I'm not sure if what we really want is to go back to the pre-Reagan days. taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012#table8Still data mining. I'm moving toward favoring a national consumption tax more and more every day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 14:55:16 GMT -5
given that i manage two S Corps, 2 LLC's one C Corp, and a sole proprietorship, as well as posting here heavily, working in three bands, and raising a 15 year old, you can probably imagine my stress level. it ain't low. so, yeah, i have trouble relating to anyone that won't take on more stress for more pay. but furthermore, it sounds like you probably would not have done the move even if taxes were lower. given that taxes are the lowest they have been for us 10%-ers in about 90 years, i think it is a little odd to complain about it today, and it certainly should have been more of a complaint for two of the last three generations. DJ not trying to get into a pissing contest as to who has the most stress ? - Yes - the tax rates on income are lower than they have been in years. That is not what is driving the shift in Federal revenues though. I've posted this several times in the past. not just years. DECADES. in fact, nearly a century. my point was that the two generations before us worked harder for more money, at tax rates that were sometimes 2x what ours are. so, either we are pansies, or they were socialists, i guess? and revenues are below historical norms. i am not sure if i have pointed that out before.It's the huge decrease in import tariffs and extraction taxes, things that in reality are consumption taxes - which have a far greater impact on the lower income quintiles than the higher income quintiles. true. duties, sales tax, social security, medicare and excise taxes ALL disproportionately affect the poor.If we are going to compare historical trends I think it's only reasonable to look at the overall picture. I'm also trying to find a chart of actual effective tax rates by income bracket (as opposed to marginal rates) because deductible items have changed significantly over the years (still working on that). Again, I'm not sure just looking at marginal rates provides an apples to apples comparison. to some degree states have taken up the slack. i say to some, because as you know, there are some states where taxes are quite low.Right now the top 10% has over 70% of the income tax burden (still looking for historical trends on that one as well) with a little of 45% of the income. This is pretty progressive in my view, but apparently not enough. Exactly what percentage of the country's tax burden do you think the top 10% should pay? i don't think this is a good way to look at things, although i understand this is a fashionable argument. and the reason i don't think so is that the wealth and income inequality in the US is nearing record highs. if i make 10x what you do, i would expect you to pay NOTHING on your taxes. that makes SENSE. so, we can't really talk about distribution of taxes without talking about distribution of income, and when we do that, the argument that the rich are getting soaked kinda breaks down.taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes i am pretty sure TF is a rightwing think tank. i am not arguing the data, here, only it's presentation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 19:15:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 16:57:09 GMT -5
i just don't understand the Lafferite principle at all, until you get past T*. if i knew i was in line for a raise for a somewhat more difficult job, and i knew that the raise would be taxed at 50%, i would still take it. to walk away from more money for working the same hours is just kinda stupid, imo. So would anyone with a brain.
To illustrate a similar flaw in thinking people get all pissed off at a raise in minimum wage because they take it as a pay cut.
If I can afford a nice house and a good life I could give a shit if the minimum wage went up to afford everyone a nice house and a good life. It is like gay marriage- doesn't affect me one bit. There's a slight flaw in that comparison though. Typically when there is an increase in Minimum Wage, the employers raise the prices to their consumers as well, to offset the increase in salaries they have to pay (well... that's what they claim the increase is for anyway).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 17:16:21 GMT -5
So would anyone with a brain.
To illustrate a similar flaw in thinking people get all pissed off at a raise in minimum wage because they take it as a pay cut.
If I can afford a nice house and a good life I could give a shit if the minimum wage went up to afford everyone a nice house and a good life. It is like gay marriage- doesn't affect me one bit.
you're right. i'm an effing idiot for the record, i think you are smart.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 18:03:01 GMT -5
i had to repost this, because it is kinda ridiculous. first of all, if you go to the original study, you will find that wages average about 26% of revenue for restaurants. that means that for every 4% in wage increase, you will have to offset prices about 1%. the industry average for wages is about $9. if wages went to $15/hr, that would NOT be a 66% increase, as the article claims, because those making MORE than $9/hr would be subject to less increase. they estimated 15% cost increase in the study, and that might be true. but it also might be 10%. you would have to look at a detailed breakdown of wages to determine it. next up is the pricing shown above. most of those meals are about $7, so ROUGHLY SPEAKING they would all go up by about $1. but i guess that stating the facts was not dramatic enough. they just had to push the envelope and show 40% price increases (how they got there, i have no idea). in addition, price increases would not be across the board. some stuff loses the restaurant money, which is why they are always trying to sell you drinks and fries- which are high margin items. so saying this meal or that would go up even $1 is kinda absurd. some stuff would not go up at all (loss leaders are there to bring people into the store), and some things would go up by perhaps 40%, but there is no way to know which without being an expert on the margins present in the industry. so, this is really a propaganda piece, which makes sense, given that it came from Heritage (it is really about all they do), but at the end of the day, i have to ask: so what? what if prices really did jump 40%? why should they NOT? right now, we are underpaying restaurant workers, and subsidizing them as a nation to the tune of about $500/month in various social social services. why not charge HAMBURGER BUYERS for that? in other words, why should NON-HAMBURGER BUYERS bear the cost for HAMBURGER BUYERS for their UNDER-PRICED FOOD? it is really weird how capitalists want the government out of shit until it means paying people what they need to survive.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 19:15:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 18:11:38 GMT -5
i had to repost this, because it is kinda ridiculous. first of all, if you go to the original study, you will find that wages average about 26% of revenue for restaurants. that means that for every 4% in wage increase, you will have to offset prices about 1%. the industry average for wages is about $9. if wages went to $15/hr, that would NOT be a 66% increase, as the article claims, because those making MORE than $9/hr would be subject to less increase. they estimated 15% cost increase in the study, and that might be true. but it also might be 10%. you would have to look at a detailed breakdown of wages to determine it. next up is the pricing shown above. most of those meals are about $7, so ROUGHLY SPEAKING they would all go up by about $1. but i guess that stating the facts was not dramatic enough. they just had to push the envelope and show 40% price increases (how they got there, i have no idea). in addition, price increases would not be across the board. some stuff loses the restaurant money, which is why they are always trying to sell you drinks and fries- which are high margin items. so saying this meal or that would go up even $1 is kinda absurd. some stuff would not go up at all, and some things would go up by perhaps 40%, but there is no way to know which without being an expert on the margins present in the industry. so, this is really a propaganda piece, which makes sense, given that it came from Heritage (it is really about all they do), but at the end of the day, i have to ask: so what? what if prices really did jump 40%? why should they NOT? right now, we are underpaying restaurant workers, and subsidizing them to the tune of about $500/month in various social social services. why not charge HAMBURGER BUYERS for that? in other words, why should NON-HAMBURGER BUYERS bear the cost for HAMBURGER BUYERS for their UNDER-PRICED FOOD? it is really weird how capitalists want the government out of shit until it means paying people what they need to survive. I'd have no problem with that... IF... it was just limited to fast food places. Problem is the cost increases aren't limited to JUST fast food places... EVERYONE raises their prices. And don't kid yourself... the wage increases don't just stop with the MW workers... everyone else wants their pay increased too. Can't have the MW peons close the gap between what they make and what the "higher ups" make. Or... do you think the supervisor that was making $16/hour when the MW worker was making ~$8/hour will accept the MW worker getting a $7/hour raise and the $16/hour guy gets nothing? And then, of course, his boss will want a raise... and so on, and so fourth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 18:21:23 GMT -5
Richard- what you just said is not true. not EVERYONE raises prices. this is actually pretty well studied, so i am not going to bother posting the data on it. the ripple effect from MW is fairly narrow, and also extremely small. so, i am actually done with this debate, because it is not resembling the honest one that i want to have, and has nothing to do with social security's balance sheet.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 19:15:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 18:37:18 GMT -5
I do agree it's "pretty well studied"... I "studied" it myself when I lived it.
In an area where the MW went up $2.10 (the stepped increase starting at $5.15/hr and ending with $7.25/hr in 2006-2009). The ability to cover expenses and have "left-over available cash" went DOWN.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 18:50:27 GMT -5
sure. but not EVERYBODY raised prices. nobody here gets less than $15/hr. very few of our suppliers pay less than that. if FMW went to $15/hr, it would have ZERO impact on my pricing, Richard. i am sure i am not alone. Costco averages $19/hr, i think. lots of companies pay well above FMW. so yeah, many many companies will have to raise prices if FMW goes up to $15 (i don't even care for this discussion, honestly, because i am not advocating for that high of a FMW increase). however, the general impact of FMW increases on prices are limited to industries that have a high proportion of FMW employees, like hospitality. and YES, there is SOME ripple effect on the rest of us, but it is FAR from "everyone". if you have studied that, then you know it, and we have no argument.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on May 5, 2015 19:27:43 GMT -5
I don't have a fix for SSI / SSDI which is running out of money NOW. My fix for Medicare which will run out in 2030 is to have Medicare A start at 67, increase Medicare B, eliminate Medicare C & D. My fix for SSA which will run out in 2035 is: ■ Raise early retirement to 65 ■ Raise full retirement to 70 ■ Raise maximum retirement from 70 to 72 ■ if someone cannot 'make it' to 65, they can try to get SSI due to inability to work
Step into it by 3 months per year. Although necessary, no one on either side of the aisle has the chutzpah to do the hard stuff. Feel free to trash my idea
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 19:15:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 19:28:53 GMT -5
sure. but not EVERYBODY raised prices. nobody here gets less than $15/hr. very few of our suppliers pay less than that. if FMW went to $15/hr, it would have ZERO impact on my pricing, Richard. i am sure i am not alone. Costco averages $19/hr, i think. lots of companies pay well above FMW. so yeah, many many companies will have to raise prices if FMW goes up to $15 (i don't even care for this discussion, honestly, because i am not advocating for that high of a FMW increase). however, the general impact of FMW increases on prices are limited to industries that have a high proportion of FMW employees, like hospitality. and YES, there is SOME ripple effect on the rest of us, but it is FAR from "everyone". if you have studied that, then you know it, and we have no argument. So you are saying your employees (and the employees of your suppliers) would not expect raises so that they are still making wage differences (compared to the local burger flipper) commensurate to the difference before the increase?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 5, 2015 19:58:11 GMT -5
i had to repost this, because it is kinda ridiculous. first of all, if you go to the original study, you will find that wages average about 26% of revenue for restaurants. that means that for every 4% in wage increase, you will have to offset prices about 1%. the industry average for wages is about $9. if wages went to $15/hr, that would NOT be a 66% increase, as the article claims, because those making MORE than $9/hr would be subject to less increase. they estimated 15% cost increase in the study, and that might be true. but it also might be 10%. you would have to look at a detailed breakdown of wages to determine it. next up is the pricing shown above. most of those meals are about $7, so ROUGHLY SPEAKING they would all go up by about $1. but i guess that stating the facts was not dramatic enough. they just had to push the envelope and show 40% price increases (how they got there, i have no idea). in addition, price increases would not be across the board. some stuff loses the restaurant money, which is why they are always trying to sell you drinks and fries- which are high margin items. so saying this meal or that would go up even $1 is kinda absurd. some stuff would not go up at all, and some things would go up by perhaps 40%, but there is no way to know which without being an expert on the margins present in the industry. so, this is really a propaganda piece, which makes sense, given that it came from Heritage (it is really about all they do), but at the end of the day, i have to ask: so what? what if prices really did jump 40%? why should they NOT? right now, we are underpaying restaurant workers, and subsidizing them to the tune of about $500/month in various social social services. why not charge HAMBURGER BUYERS for that? in other words, why should NON-HAMBURGER BUYERS bear the cost for HAMBURGER BUYERS for their UNDER-PRICED FOOD? it is really weird how capitalists want the government out of shit until it means paying people what they need to survive. Or... do you think the supervisor that was making $16/hour when the MW worker was making ~$8/hour will accept the MW worker getting a $7/hour raise and the $16/hour guy gets nothing? And then, of course, his boss will want a raise... and so on, and so fourth.
And they can want all they want- If the folks that sweep the floors and handle the garbage at work got a huge raise I could give a shit really- I don't plan on switching jobs with them. The supervisor should be happy they are a supervisor and moving up the ladder. The CEO already makes too much of a multiple over minimum I doubt they would really care either.
Plus- when you raise the floor that in no way requires all wages go up proportionally-in fact they should not. Same with prices- this is not a linear deal although folks (like Heritage) pimp that concept.
BTW it is no secret come companies pay new hires more than people already working there- those folks want raises too- wonder if they will get them.....since we are talking fairness and all.
I also said this before- there is just no good reason a hamburger should sell for a buck. The 'dollar menu' is a relic.l
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 19:59:58 GMT -5
sure. but not EVERYBODY raised prices. nobody here gets less than $15/hr. very few of our suppliers pay less than that. if FMW went to $15/hr, it would have ZERO impact on my pricing, Richard. i am sure i am not alone. Costco averages $19/hr, i think. lots of companies pay well above FMW. so yeah, many many companies will have to raise prices if FMW goes up to $15 (i don't even care for this discussion, honestly, because i am not advocating for that high of a FMW increase). however, the general impact of FMW increases on prices are limited to industries that have a high proportion of FMW employees, like hospitality. and YES, there is SOME ripple effect on the rest of us, but it is FAR from "everyone". if you have studied that, then you know it, and we have no argument. So you are saying your employees (and the employees of your suppliers) would not expect raises so that they are still making wage differences (compared to the local burger flipper) commensurate to the difference before the increase? no. i am saying that i don't run my business in the expectations of my employees, Richard. if the market demands that i pay more, then i will pay more. but candidly, i am already paying at the top of the range for every position, and they should know that. a better question would be: would i be in a better position to hire at the bottom part of my payscale if FMW was $15/hr, and the answer is maybe not. but the work here is a lot more satisfying than flipping burgers. we make products here, and the guys love that. what it WOULD do is make it easier for them to demand more pay- because they could be assured that if they got canned, they could still earn 50-90% of what they make at my place. but no, the answer is that it would not "inspire me" to pay more, or to raise prices. now, you can keep asking me the same question over and over again. many here have. but you will get the same answer. i have thought about it for about a year now, and the answer is my workers might expect that raise, but i would not feel any obligation to give it to them unless they earned it.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on May 5, 2015 20:32:33 GMT -5
workers might expect that raise, but i would not feel any obligation to give it to them unless they earned it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2015 20:34:38 GMT -5
workers might expect that raise, but i would not feel any obligation to give it to them unless they earned it. the best thing about paying well above FMW is that i can actually do that without society calling me to task for it.
|
|