Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 1:06:52 PM permalink
Why not a differing opinion from the same site?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-be-good-for-wal-mart-and-america/
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
March 20th, 2014 at 1:27:31 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

It's a survey. It's crap.


Yeah, they were all lying. They're not really going to lay anybody off. They just said that to brag. *facepalm*
Fighting BS one post at a time!
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 1:31:11 PM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

Why not a differing opinion from the same site?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-be-good-for-wal-mart-and-america/



the big flaw here is that welfare people would go out and seek jobs.

Well with an increase in wages comes an increase in expectations. People at work will be asked to do more with less. And the best of the best will be kept on.
People who have been sitting home on welfare for years will not get a foot in the door.
For more money minimum wage workers will have greater expectatio of them for the money being paid. If they cant provide that extra service, they will be replaced. Usually by 2 part timers instead of a fully benefited full timer.

This fairytale that a bunch of welfare people will come off the welfare rolls is amusing.

With higher wages comes higher expectations...does anyone think that the welfare people all of a sudden trying to enter the workforce will impress employers?
You think in this economy that employers are gonna say "I am so happy the minimum wage went up because look at all these great applications from welfare people"
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 2:54:04 PM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

Why not a differing opinion from the same site?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/02/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-be-good-for-wal-mart-and-america/



The author of this article does not understand business or history. He thinks Henry Ford "raised wages so his workers could buy his cars." This has been proven to be bunk many times. He made the $5 day to reduce turnover. He also does not understand the basic idea that if you give workers a raise without at least an equal raise in productivity the employer's days are numbered. That is a big part of what happened to GM.

It amazes me how these academics say, "just raise prices, just raise them a little." Try that when you run a business and see how the customers respond.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
March 20th, 2014 at 3:23:48 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The author of this article does not understand business or history. He thinks Henry Ford "raised wages so his workers could buy his cars." This has been proven to be bunk many times. He made the $5 day to reduce turnover. .



You better go correct the Ford Company site then:

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. "

You're not wrong about the other part, but not right that it's been debunked as a reason he did it.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Boz
Boz
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 5701
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 3:31:59 PM permalink
The larger flaw is that raising the minimum will require everyone to raise wages and cause more layoffs. Everyone that now does a job that pays $10-$12 an hour, like a skilled kitchen worker will still expect to be paid above minimum. Most restaurants like mine pay their cooks these numbers now because I expect more out of my cooks than the typical Fast Food system worker. They need to be able to multi-task, unlike McDonalds where they are so automated that you can train anyone quickly to just stand at the Fry Station and push a button. To keep these type employees, I will still need to pay them above minimum, probably in the same proportion as now.

So even though I have no minimum wage employees other than servers, my wages will go up as well. I probably will not lay anyone off at the start but I will have to raise prices and pass the costs off to my customers. If they then decide to visit less because of the cost, I will quickly react and will have to cut hours and do layoffs.

This is simply how it works in the real world and there is no one in my situation who wont do the same. This is what liberals don't want to hear, they feel I should just magically take the extra money out of my pockets because I am the "rich, lucky" business owner. I only work 80 hours because I like what I do, not because I have to just to make sure the bills and my employees are paid. They have their paychecks every Friday, where as some weeks I make nothing. But again, liberals don't understand that.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 3:33:49 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

You better go correct the Ford Company site then:

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

"Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold if employees could afford to buy them. "

You're not wrong about the other part, but not right that it's been debunked as a reason he did it.



This is FoMoCo PR telling the same story that has been told forever. Simple Econ101 states that you cannot make a bigger profit by paying people more and having them buy what they produce. It might have made good PR, he might have even said it to a few people, but Henry was too good of a businessman to think this way.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 3:35:31 PM permalink
Come on, RX, you know that corporations tell the truth always.

The whole point of raising minimum wage is to also boost their buying power as well. If you are making $7/hour, well then you're buying lunch on the dollar menu at McDonalds. Make $10.10 an hour and you might be buying a meal instead. That extra $480 / month that you're making -- you might decide to live at home and use the money to make a car payment, heaven forbid. You might take that money and use it to pay off your student loan, or take more courses. More money in the pocket of Americans is a good thing, especially if you can do it without handouts, tax breaks, or food stamps, because they will spend the money.

And if you're in the military, you should also get paid enough not to rely on SNAP, as Fox News reports.

If you are working full time at any job, you should have enough money to support yourself in an apartment, with the basics in life (including health care), without government help.

we've shown studies in provinces and states where minimum wage was increased with no impact on the job market and no impact on inflation. British Colombia is one example -- my province is another. In Ontario they're about to bring the minimum wage up to $11 from $10.25 and my daughter right now is at a job interview for a summer job working at the local dairy for minimum wage... the economy has not slowed down.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 3:44:52 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



The whole point of raising minimum wage is to also boost their buying power as well. If you are making $7/hour, well then you're buying lunch on the dollar menu at McDonalds. Make $10.10 an hour and you might be buying a meal instead. That extra $480 / month that you're making -- you might decide to live at home and use the money to make a car payment, heaven forbid. You might take that money and use it to pay off your student loan, or take more courses. More money in the pocket of Americans is a good thing, especially if you can do it without handouts, tax breaks, or food stamps, because they will spend the money.



What I find funny is I hear this from liberals yet at the same time they claim that cutting taxes does not help the economy by giving more buying and investing power.

The thing is though you seem to make more the Dollar Menu is now the $2 menu and everything else costs more as well. It is *impossible* to believe that you can force a wage increase without a productivity increase and not cause price inflation and job losses.

If a minimum wage worker wants a raise the only way to do it is to get skills that command more money.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
March 20th, 2014 at 5:13:15 PM permalink
Income inequality apparently can spell more assured DOOM.

Quote:

But the researchers (funded in part by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Maryland, College Park) cast a wider net. They aimed to create a useful mathematical model that could help analyze how any society might fall — including our current global, technically advanced, interconnected society.

[...]

The researchers used the HANDY model to analyze three different social scenarios: an egalitarian society with no elite class; an equitable society with workers and non-workers (students, retirees, disabled persons); and an unequal society with a robust class of elites.


[...]

The egalitarian and equitable societies could produce a sustainable civilization and avoid collapse, even with a high ratio of non-workers. Social collapse was more likely after people overreached and depleted natural resources. Importantly, even without any social stratification, collapse could occur if a society exhausted its natural resources.

In the unequal society, however, collapse was almost unavoidable — and these were the HANDY scenarios that mirrored our current globalized society.




http://news.discovery.com/human/life/society-is-doomed-say-scientists-1403201.htm
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 5:28:12 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Come on, RX, you know that corporations tell the truth always.

The whole point of raising minimum wage is to also boost their buying power as well. If you are making $7/hour, well then you're buying lunch on the dollar menu at McDonalds. Make $10.10 an hour and you might be buying a meal instead. That extra $480 / month that you're making -- you might decide to live at home and use the money to make a car payment, heaven forbid. You might take that money and use it to pay off your student loan, or take more courses. More money in the pocket of Americans is a good thing, especially if you can do it without handouts, tax breaks, or food stamps, because they will spend the money.

And if you're in the military, you should also get paid enough not to rely on SNAP, as Fox News reports.

If you are working full time at any job, you should have enough money to support yourself in an apartment, with the basics in life (including health care), without government help.

we've shown studies in provinces and states where minimum wage was increased with no impact on the job market and no impact on inflation. British Colombia is one example -- my province is another. In Ontario they're about to bring the minimum wage up to $11 from $10.25 and my daughter right now is at a job interview for a summer job working at the local dairy for minimum wage... the economy has not slowed down.



http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2013/12/fast-food-ceo-govt-regulation-is.html


According to the CEO of hardees/carlsjr...Govt Regs. obmamcare. and rise in Min Wage causes him to open less stores in the united states. and open more stores overseas. Costing this country jobs. It also makes him look into automation more seriously/

There are some jobs, because they require so little skill or education that are there for high school kids and college kids looking to make a little money for expenses. Just because a mother of 4 children applies for that same job doesnt make the employer obligated to pay her enough to raise her familty. As a kid having a job as a paperboy, or a bagger of groceries at the supermarket doesnt entitle me to enough money to raise a family or even fully support myself.
All the people claiming that they cant raise a family by working at mcdonalds is assuming that they are entitled to a wage that CAN raise a family. They are not entitled to that. They are entitled to look for a better job and give their lower paying job up to a high school kid or a college kid. They are entitled to take courses and better themselves so that they can get a higher paying job. They are entitled to buy a 20 dollar teaching program for their computer that teaches them excel, word, and powerpoint. There are alot of things they are entitled to do. But they are not entitled to have someone pay them to raise their family.....that is their responsibility.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 5:40:35 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Income inequality apparently can spell more assured DOOM.

Quote:

But the researchers (funded in part by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Maryland, College Park) cast a wider net. They aimed to create a useful mathematical model that could help analyze how any society might fall — including our current global, technically advanced, interconnected society.

[...]

The researchers used the HANDY model to analyze three different social scenarios: an egalitarian society with no elite class; an equitable society with workers and non-workers (students, retirees, disabled persons); and an unequal society with a robust class of elites.


[...]

The egalitarian and equitable societies could produce a sustainable civilization and avoid collapse, even with a high ratio of non-workers. Social collapse was more likely after people overreached and depleted natural resources. Importantly, even without any social stratification, collapse could occur if a society exhausted its natural resources.

In the unequal society, however, collapse was almost unavoidable — and these were the HANDY scenarios that mirrored our current globalized society.




http://news.discovery.com/human/life/society-is-doomed-say-scientists-1403201.htm



Funny, I thought NASA was the agency to explore space, not push the Democrat socialist agenda.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
March 20th, 2014 at 6:43:55 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/society-is-doomed-say-scientists-1403201.htm


I was wondering what this has to do with the minimum wage. Then I saw who posted it. *facepalm*
Fighting BS one post at a time!
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 7:24:36 PM permalink
I don't want to marginalize this conversation by making a seemingly obvious statement but I was once told by one of the CEO's I used to work with when I asked him...."how do you improve the current economy"? His answer was simple...."Pay people more"!!!
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 7:41:35 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

I don't want to marginalize this conversation by making a seemingly obvious statement but I was once told by one of the CEO's I used to work with when I asked him...."how do you improve the current economy"? His answer was simple...."Pay people more"!!!




and where does the money come from. individuals and companies cant print money. Do they make up the expense by decreasing quality of ingredients, decreasing benefits, increasing prices....the answer is ..usually all of the above
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 7:49:20 PM permalink
Quote: LarryS

and where does the money come from. individuals and companies cant print money. Do they make up the expense by decreasing quality of ingredients, decreasing benefits, increasing prices....the answer is ..usually all of the above



I guess his answer was based purely from a corporate standpoint. If a company wanted to either keep employees loyal or help improve the standing of its employees and then consequently help improve the economy, then all the company had to do was pay the employees more.

Also, perhaps you didn't think of one thing to mention above when looking at places where companies would need to find the differentials.......make less profit!

Heavens no, not in the US, not ever. It is all aboutt he money after all...........
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 8:28:46 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

I guess his answer was based purely from a corporate standpoint. If a company wanted to either keep employees loyal or help improve the standing of its employees and then consequently help improve the economy, then all the company had to do was pay the employees more.

Also, perhaps you didn't think of one thing to mention above when looking at places where companies would need to find the differentials.......make less profit!

Heavens no, not in the US, not ever. It is all aboutt he money after all...........



so why is everything corporations. Why would a mom and pop owner of a business that is making them enough money to raise their family....need ot have the govt tell them that they have to share some of their money used for vacation, insurance, childrens education. Why would the govt put the small owner into a po0sition where they wont expand, open a new store...or move to a bigger location because of imposing taxes and ordering increase in wages. Or even go out of business as this could be the last straw,

Its always a nameless faceless corporation.

Well the nameless faceless big corporations when they get extra expenses can keep making less money, or they can reduce payroll, reduce benerfits, reduce full timers, reduce quality, increase prices. All that effects real people. So you can talk about the "big corps" but its the little man that works for the "big corps"....and just like the mom and pop stores...they will scramble to make up the loss.

If people are ordered to make more money.....the miney comes from loss of some benefets, reductions to part time, reduction of benefits, lower yearly wage increases, cut out bonuses, increase prices, decrease quality......in the end the little man pays for it one way of the other

Same with obamacare...ok all people can buy the same policy I have for the same price even if they have a sever pre-exisiting conditon....fair enough.....all is right with the world when obama explained it.....but no one asked....hey...who is going to pay for it.....the answer is....we will as usual


If companies over the last 20 years would just absorb increased expenses of wages, taxes, cost of goods.....and didnt do anything to make up that extra expenditure...they would be out of business. They would have no jobs to provide you. According to you big corporations should absorb expenses and dont find a way to make up the shortfall. A recipe for bankruptcy.
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 8:31:49 PM permalink
Quote: LarryS

so why is everything corporations. Why would a mom and pop owner of a business that is making them enough money to raise their family....need ot have the govt tell them that they have to share some of their money used for vacation, insurance, childrens education. Why would the govt put the small owner into a po0sition where they wont expand, open a new store...or move to a bigger location because of imposing taxes and ordering increase in wages. Or even go out of business as this could be the last straw,

Its always a nameless faceless corporation.

Well the nameless faceless big corporations when they get extra expenses can keep making less money, or they can reduce payroll, reduce benerfits, reduce full timers, reduce quality, increase prices. All that effects real people. So you can talk about the "big corps" but its the little man that works for the "big corps"....and just like the mom and pop stores...they will scramble to make up the loss.

If people are ordered to make more money.....the miney comes from loss of some benefets, reductions to part time, reduction of benefits, lower yearly wage increases, cut out bonuses, increase prices, decrease quality......in the end the little man pays for it one way of the other

Same with obamacare...ok all people can buy the same policy I have for the same price even if they have a sever pre-exisiting conditon....fair enough.....all is right with the world when obama explained it.....but no one asked....hey...who is going to pay for it.....the answer is....we will as usual


If companies over the last 20 years would just absorb increased expenses of wages, taxes, cost of goods.....and didnt do anything to make up that extra expenditure...they would be out of business. They would have no jobs to provide you. According to you big corporations should absorb expenses and dont find a way to make up the shortfall. A recipe for bankruptcy.



According to me or my ex CEO boss friend guy???

I have no iron in this fire.

You are right Larry, good points bud!
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 8:53:13 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

According to me or my ex CEO boss friend guy???

I have no iron in this fire.

You are right Larry, good points bud!



well I can go by the words of your mysterious ceo.

or I can believe my eyes.

Having been in retail for 35 years, and see what happens when a large company is faced with events that lower profits....I have seen personally the results
I have see the freeze on full time hiring. I have see benefits reduced, I have seen bonuses eliminated, I have seen jobs eliminated making the people who remain do more with less, I have seen prices go up, I have see automation replace workers. I have seen this all in the retail pharmacy business over the last 35 years. It happened in front of my own eyes in my company, and the companies of my friends.

As wages naturally rise, all the above occurs with people being asked to do more as their wages rise, robotics replacing humans, reduction in benefits and full time positions. It happens anyway. But accelerating the pay increases.....accelerates the response. Accelerates the automation, acclerates the hiring freezes, accelerates the benefit reduction.

your CEO lives in a different world than I live in.
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 8:58:50 PM permalink
LOOK at Target. One month after announcng the hackers breach f security, and having their christmas sales down a few percent...they announced the elimination of 475 jobs, and ended healthcare for their part time workers.

And that was only a month later

As their profits are adversly affected going into the future...expect more reducton of benefits, reduction of full time jobs, increase in prices.....someone has to pay for the loss of profits.....and its the poor workers and customers
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 9:12:07 PM permalink
Quote: LarryS

LOOK at Target. One month after announcng the hackers breach f security, and having their christmas sales down a few percent...they announced the elimination of 475 jobs, and ended healthcare for their part time workers.

And that was only a month later

As their profits are adversly affected going into the future...expect more reducton of benefits, reduction of full time jobs, increase in prices.....someone has to pay for the loss of profits.....and its the poor workers and customers



Ok, I must be high off my a** or simply don't understand economics. "Profits" are what you have made after all expenses and operating costs have been taken inot consideration right? So how can lowering your profits force you to cut back and fire people??????

Again, I know I am over simplifying this thing but I just simply don't understand the business model here. If you make less profits, all you are doing is declaring less dividends or giving your owners a smaller check at the end of the month? Your business should still run just fine as long as your future sales or future business contracts are still solid that won't affect your FUTURE earnings potential?

Again, I will defer to your greater expertise and knowledge in this field as I don't have even a 10th of your experience therein.

And let's forget about my ex CEO. I was trying to make a bold statement with a stupid anecdote. I won't do it again!
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3577
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 9:12:29 PM permalink
Can we just stop with the assertion that $10.10 is enough to raise a family let alone oneself when saying that not all jobs are meant to support a family?
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
March 20th, 2014 at 10:25:05 PM permalink
$10.10 really isn't enough to support yourself either, but it's better than $7.25.

And we've seen minimum wage increases take place throughout the world with little detrimental effect on the economy. So what if Carl Junior's doesn't open stores -- it's a crappy franchise selling crappy crap that people shouldn't be eating anyway. Have you ever seen a McDonald's go out of business?

There's a phrase out there called Corporate Stewardship. It used to be a great American obligation where if you came to work, the employer would take care of you. Executives paid themselves a reasonable salary. Shareholders expected modest growth. I'm not saying that a gas station attendant or a McDonald's employee should make $50K or even $25K, but a reasonable proportion of a company's profits should go to pay the employee's salaries rather than end up in the owner's pockets vis-a-vis a multi-million dollar salary.

What i am saying is that the value of a service through full time, aka 40 hours a week - work should be such that you can live on your own. I am not saying support a family of four, but live on one's own, without government assistance.

The US economy is stagnant because by far most American's wages are decreasing (and have been for decades) vs cost of living.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 10:28:40 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

Ok, I must be high off my a** or simply don't understand economics. "Profits" are what you have made after all expenses and operating costs have been taken inot consideration right? So how can lowering your profits force you to cut back and fire people??????

Again, I know I am over simplifying this thing but I just simply don't understand the business model here. If you make less profits, all you are doing is declaring less dividends or giving your owners a smaller check at the end of the month? Your business should still run just fine as long as your future sales or future business contracts are still solid that won't affect your FUTURE earnings potential?

Again, I will defer to your greater expertise and knowledge in this field as I don't have even a 10th of your experience therein.

And let's forget about my ex CEO. I was trying to make a bold statement with a stupid anecdote. I won't do it again!



I dont mind educating the ignorant.

For example....california Medical reduces reimbursment fees to pharmacies. That reduced reimbursement causes the drug chain millions., eating away profits.....so to combat the reduced profits.....they will increase prices on other things like tylenol and motor oil, they will reduce benefits like stopping time and a half for holidays worked.,accelerate the automation, and reduce payroll. Hence the reduced profits caused by the reduction in reimbursement is reveresed.

What else can eat into profits?

increase in minimum wage
increase in healthcare for employee costs
big unforseen class action lawsuits....like target is experiencing
competition

someone pays for all the above......for the things that threaten to reduce profits...


target saw the initial results of the bad press from the hacking breach.......it was affecting profits adversely....profits are what they use, to build other stores and improve exisiting stores.....s oto head off the drain on profits due from decreased sales.......they let 475 people go, and eliminated health benefits to part timers.

it makes sense...i dont blame them. By doing so they stay in the position to keep growing and remodeling.

not saying what they did ws bad,,,,just showing a very current example of who pays for reduced profits....whether the cause of the reduced profits is a rise in payroll , or a new tax, or a loss of business. Many things negatively impact profits....and companies do things to make up for the loss.
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
March 20th, 2014 at 11:23:47 PM permalink
Quote: LarryS

I dont mind educating the ignorant.

For example....california Medical reduces reimbursment fees to pharmacies. That reduced reimbursement causes the drug chain millions., eating away profits.....so to combat the reduced profits.....they will increase prices on other things like tylenol and motor oil, they will reduce benefits like stopping time and a half for holidays worked.,accelerate the automation, and reduce payroll. Hence the reduced profits caused by the reduction in reimbursement is reveresed.

What else can eat into profits?

increase in minimum wage
increase in healthcare for employee costs
big unforseen class action lawsuits....like target is experiencing
competition

someone pays for all the above......for the things that threaten to reduce profits...


target saw the initial results of the bad press from the hacking breach.......it was affecting profits adversely....profits are what they use, to build other stores and improve exisiting stores.....s oto head off the drain on profits due from decreased sales.......they let 475 people go, and eliminated health benefits to part timers.

it makes sense...i dont blame them. By doing so they stay in the position to keep growing and remodeling.

not saying what they did ws bad,,,,just showing a very current example of who pays for reduced profits....whether the cause of the reduced profits is a rise in payroll , or a new tax, or a loss of business. Many things negatively impact profits....and companies do things to make up for the loss.



I was enjoying the banter until you called me ignorant........

You feel it is ok for companies to keep on raping the consumers in the name of profits. I say, pay your people more and make a little less profit.

Would prefer to cease our interaction anyway.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
socks
socks
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 364
Joined: Jul 13, 2011
March 20th, 2014 at 11:36:08 PM permalink
Ron Unz is smart and numerate and has been pushing for a $12 minimum wage for a while. If there's one person who makes the idea sound not crazy, it's him (and peter thiel who more recently echo'd him)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/raising-american-wages-by-raising-american-wages/

edit: Maybe that's a $12 min. wage for California
Beethoven9th
Beethoven9th
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 5072
Joined: Jul 30, 2012
March 20th, 2014 at 11:42:00 PM permalink
If a company thinks that paying people more will solve their problems, then why can't they just pay more instead of FORCING everyone else to do the same? Heck, if they paid people more, and everyone else kept their wages the same, then that would give them a HUGE advantage over the competition in fighting for the best workers.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 21st, 2014 at 3:07:11 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo


And we've seen minimum wage increases take place throughout the world with little detrimental effect on the economy. So what if Carl Junior's doesn't open stores -- it's a crappy franchise selling crappy crap that people shouldn't be eating anyway. Have you ever seen a McDonald's go out of business?



Yes, I have seen a few close shop. They lose money more often than you might think. Franchise owners rent their store from McDonald's corporation. If they lose money to the point that they cannot continue the store either becomes a McOpCo ?corporate" store where it is run until operations improve or it is re-sold to another franchisee. Don't think just because you see a McDonald's they are making money. McDonald's is facing leaner times lately with flat sales.

Quote:

There's a phrase out there called Corporate Stewardship. It used to be a great American obligation where if you came to work, the employer would take care of you. Executives paid themselves a reasonable salary. Shareholders expected modest growth. I'm not saying that a gas station attendant or a McDonald's employee should make $50K or even $25K, but a reasonable proportion of a company's profits should go to pay the employee's salaries rather than end up in the owner's pockets vis-a-vis a multi-million dollar salary.



NONSENSE! Shareholders never "expected" modest growth. Shareholders invest in the company that will give the greatest return for the amount of risk they are willing to accept.

Another thing is you seem to not understand where profit comes from and what it is about based on your sentence about "profits should go to pay employee salaries rather than end up in the owner's pockets vis-a-vis a mulit-million dollar salary." Lets look at all that is wrong here.

Employees must be paid whether there is a profit or not. Profit is what is left over after all expenses, including labor, is paid. Second, the owner has no guaranteed salary. If there is a net loss the owner gets nothing. An owner may pay a CEO a few million to run things, but that is no business of the employee flipping burgers. It is no business of yours or mine, unless we own stock.

Quote:

What i am saying is that the value of a service through full time, aka 40 hours a week - work should be such that you can live on your own. I am not saying support a family of four, but live on one's own, without government assistance.



NO. If you do not make enough on 40 hours to "live on your own" then you need to find cheaper living. You may need to find a roommate or just rent a room in someone's house who is taking in a border. The value of your labor is unrelated to your cost of living. The value of your labor is 10-30% of what you produce for your employer. Your cost of living is based on the market value of rent/food/etc in the area you choose to live. The two are not related.

Quote: Tomspur


Again, I know I am over simplifying this thing but I just simply don't understand the business model here. If you make less profits, all you are doing is declaring less dividends or giving your owners a smaller check at the end of the month? Your business should still run just fine as long as your future sales or future business contracts are still solid that won't affect your FUTURE earnings potential?



So, are YOU willing to take a 10% pay cut? After all, all that is happening is you are getting a smaller check at the end of the month. Come on, just take a cut so someone else can make a better living! Not some "shareholder" but YOU. 10% less this and every future month.

Yes or no?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 21st, 2014 at 3:13:29 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

$10.10 really isn't enough to support yourself either, but it's better than $7.25.

And we've seen minimum wage increases take place throughout the world with little detrimental effect on the economy. So what if Carl Junior's doesn't open stores -- it's a crappy franchise selling crappy crap that people shouldn't be eating anyway. Have you ever seen a McDonald's go out of business?

There's a phrase out there called Corporate Stewardship. It used to be a great American obligation where if you came to work, the employer would take care of you. Executives paid themselves a reasonable salary. Shareholders expected modest growth. I'm not saying that a gas station attendant or a McDonald's employee should make $50K or even $25K, but a reasonable proportion of a company's profits should go to pay the employee's salaries rather than end up in the owner's pockets vis-a-vis a multi-million dollar salary.

What i am saying is that the value of a service through full time, aka 40 hours a week - work should be such that you can live on your own. I am not saying support a family of four, but live on one's own, without government assistance.

The US economy is stagnant because by far most American's wages are decreasing (and have been for decades) vs cost of living.



Oh so now the employee is a partner where "a reasonable proportion of company profits shouldgo to employee salaries"......very nice. And what about companies where there isant a profit yet. The employee goes home every week with a paycheck while the owner goes to the bank to get an extension of their loan. Where is the sharing. Or a large profitable company who has some bad times....the employee get the paycheck while others try to right the ship.


There is an advantage to being an employee/non owner......you dont have to go to bed at night worrying about who is gonna pay the company waiste management bill, how payments are gonna be made on the rent, who is going to handle the lawsuits. You go home with a paycheck and you can be mom or dad to your family without financial worries that owners have.

And all of a sudden you say they should be partners , all getting a predetermined percentage of profits.

Its not enough they get a steady paycheck during the time of zero profits and assume zero risk in the process. Now when your business starts to make a profit...they are all of a sudden entitled to a percentage....without any risk of losing paychecks if profits go down. Thats great socialism

And then we as individuals decide...its ok for business A not to open anymore stores because they are crappy. Instead of the marketplavce deciding that. Someone sits in their easychair at home and decides that a certain chain says govt policies cause them to retard their growth in this country and retard job creation....its ok becuase in their opinion thats a lousey chain. Its as easy as that. Busnesses start to go under from govt policies and people sit back at home and smile that its ok.

People are so self centered...."oh I dont eat chinese food so if panda express goes out of business its ok with me..its just crappy chinese food"....."I dont have childen so if Kids R Us goes out of business...it doesnt bother me"...its all about me me me....instead of what the marketplace decides.

The price of gas where I live is less than the price was at one point in 2008. Thats the marketplace at work. I take advantage of that which is in my favor now, and at the same time claim the govt should get involved with the pricing??? Nope. If the marketplace is good enough for prices of what i purchase,,,then the parketplace is good enough for the wages I make.

And as far as "corporate stewardship".....companies in the past used to help pay a large cost of monhly healthcare premiums for their employees. That is until obamacare. Now companies are starting to get out of the insurance business. Another example of your govt at work
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 21st, 2014 at 3:16:21 AM permalink
It seems AZD AND MYSELF POSTED THE SAME POST AT THE SAME TIME.....oops
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 21st, 2014 at 3:40:10 AM permalink
This is why people voted for obama. He ran a campaigne wanting to "close the loopholes" for big corporations. He ran on obamacare. He ran on increasing wages.

but he didnt say who was gonna pay for all that

"closing loopholes" is in essence a tax increase. Unlike the govt...corporate america cant print up money for those xtra taxes....so where do they get that money?....from price increases, from payroll tightening, from quality reduction...thats where they get the money.

and to pay for increased costs of obamacare.....to pay for increased cost of minimum wage increases......they have to get the money from the same places.


if they just absorbed the costs without any intervention, without addressing it......theywould be out of business sooner than later.

but it sounds so cool to tell the american people you are for higher taxes for big business, higher wages for the workers, healthcare for everyone....without discussing the cost.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 21st, 2014 at 3:44:58 AM permalink
Quote: LarryS

It seems AZD AND MYSELF POSTED THE SAME POST AT THE SAME TIME.....oops



Great minds think alike and wake up early! :-)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
  • Threads: 121
  • Posts: 10941
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
March 21st, 2014 at 5:48:26 AM permalink
Interesting that there are those that expect something guaranteed for the '40 hour week'. I have worked more than 40 hours a week for the last 28 years.
I actually know few people who work as few as 40 hours a week.
For my friends AZ and larry and B9 who continually mention that companies will 'cut salaries, benefits, lay off workers, raise prices, lower quality etc'... if the minimum wage goes up... they will do ALL those things if they believe it will make the company more profitable REGARDLESS of what they are paying their workers.
That being said, In college I was hired one summer to be on a laundry delivery truck, at minimum wage. I was sort of an extra person, if I wasn't there the truck would still make its stops. The owner decided that it was worth it to pay me to make the deliveries slightly more efficient. It was my perception that if they had to pay me the more than that it wouldn't be worth it for the owner to hire me. My value to that owner was around $3 an hour. If the minimum wage then was $4 an hour I had no job. I am thus against a minimum wage determined by the government. I want the market to set that amount.
Son number 2 is graduating college this May, and looking for jobs. Due to the added value he will bring to an employer as a result of his (costly) education, he will get some multiple of the minimum wage. Should the government set a separate minimum wage for those with college degrees? Most with one probably have to pay around minimum wage in loan payments! Higher minimum wage for my other son who will get a PhD?
No!!!! Let the market decide.... not the government.....
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
March 21st, 2014 at 6:23:41 AM permalink
The market decided a long time ago to farm out whatever jobs it could to cheaper labour markets via trade agreements.

And my company is affected. When we bid for work, we always include development work out of our India offices at about 30% of the cost of providing it here. The end result is not a heck of a lot of technical work for our consulting team on board. And our company has kept our salaries flat and have laid off a bunch of people over the years to the point where many of the workers have gone independent either through choice or by force. And it works out for our company because the margins that they make through hiring the independents is the same as using one of us employees. So when AZ asks if I am going to take a pay cut, I already did.

People here that say "let the market decide" needs to understand the very important role that the government plays in controlling the value of the dollar, inflation, and monetary policy.

Take for example Geico in Buffalo. They operatate their call centers from there and I hear advertisements on 102.5 from time to time for careers. Now, many other call centres for other insurance companies are setup overseas where they pay people at about 20% of what Geico pays. Now I imagine that the folks at Geico made a value decision to use American workers over foreign counterparts despite the increased cost. That is Corporate Stewardship. Geico could have maximized profits by shifting its call center overseas at the cost of a little bit of quality, but they decided to employ Americans and pay them well over the minimum wage AND pay them benefits as well.

When you make the playing field level (which is what you do when you put a floor on minimum wage), you force all companies to compete at the same level. If costs go up, it goes up across the board and are distributed to everyone using the service. The end result is that there is more money in the pockets of Americans that they will spend. There will be less people who will rely on handouts from the government to get by. There will be more people willing to get off their asses to find jobs as working will be WAY better than welfare and foodstamps.

Lower the corporate tax at the same time as it's way too high and anti-competitive. And get rid of the red tape involved with Sales Taxes as well and move to a progressive VAT.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
March 21st, 2014 at 6:29:38 AM permalink
Quote: LarryS

I dont mind educating the ignorant.

For example....california Medical reduces reimbursment fees to pharmacies. That reduced reimbursement causes the drug chain millions., eating away profits.....so to combat the reduced profits.....they will increase prices on other things like tylenol and motor oil, they will reduce benefits like stopping time and a half for holidays worked.,accelerate the automation, and reduce payroll. Hence the reduced profits caused by the reduction in reimbursement is reveresed.

What else can eat into profits?

increase in minimum wage
increase in healthcare for employee costs
big unforseen class action lawsuits....like target is experiencing
competition

someone pays for all the above......for the things that threaten to reduce profits...



LarryS,

I think your stance on issues like these may be overtaking your common sense. That was a pretty insulting way to start your post, though it was in response to Tomspur saying he deferred to your greater knowledge on the subject. See his response to you if you think I'm exaggerating how it read. Please consider this a warning. Thank you.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 21st, 2014 at 6:54:22 AM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



People here that say "let the market decide" needs to understand the very important role that the government plays in controlling the value of the dollar, inflation, and monetary policy.



Lets not forget a huge one, namely allowing open borders.

Quote:

Take for example Geico in Buffalo. They operatate their call centers from there and I hear advertisements on 102.5 from time to time for careers. Now, many other call centres for other insurance companies are setup overseas where they pay people at about 20% of what Geico pays. Now I imagine that the folks at Geico made a value decision to use American workers over foreign counterparts despite the increased cost. That is Corporate Stewardship. Geico could have maximized profits by shifting its call center overseas at the cost of a little bit of quality, but they decided to employ Americans and pay them well over the minimum wage AND pay them benefits as well.



No, it is not "corporate stewardship." It is about quality. GEICO feels they will get and retain more customers if they have a domestic call center vs one in India or wherever. They know despite workers being cheaper per hour in India that they need lots more training and will never have the same cultural understanding as US workers do. (eg: they do not have the same cars in India as we do in the USA.) This is also a cost. Add it all in and GEICO feels there is more value in having the call center in Buffalo. They may pay more to reduce turnover, which is high in the call center business as they are today's sweatshop assembly line jobs.

"Corporate Stewardship" has nothing to do with it, if such a thing really ever existed. While some corporations might have practiced it, such a thing is something we pretend existed more than it did.


Quote:

When you make the playing field level (which is what you do when you put a floor on minimum wage), you force all companies to compete at the same level. If costs go up, it goes up across the board and are distributed to everyone using the service. The end result is that there is more money in the pockets of Americans that they will spend. There will be less people who will rely on handouts from the government to get by. There will be more people willing to get off their asses to find jobs as working will be WAY better than welfare and foodstamps.



But the field is then "level" no mater what the minimum wage is set at. All the arbitrary number does is change the nominal amount. Net living standards will not change.

If you want people to "choose work instead of welfare" then do as we did in 1996 and limit time on welfare. They will seek work when they get hungry.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 21st, 2014 at 7:04:29 PM permalink
That whole story about Geico is missing valuable information.

Are theoverseas call center people for other companies have different duties thanthe Geico people?

For example are theyjust getting cursory info, and sending the call on to a person in the nited states that closes the deal or finds more minute info needed.

Does the geico person do more, and there needs better communication skills? Does the geico person go further into the process in getting someone coverage?

Obviously Geico thinks its cost effective for them to get clear speaking people who have command of english and nuances of english....sometimes small nuances in answers to questions can lead to denial of coverage....or at least causing a misquote of coverage.

A misunderstood response BY THE CUSTOMER could cost the company alot of money. Or a mis-understood comment by the phone agent ...coumd in the end cause a customer to lose their trust...and go elsewhere.

If we dont know what the actual duties of a geico agent is compared to the overseas competition.....they really cant be compared.

However as has been said....if they are exactly the same...it would then seem geico has made the decision that it is more cost effective to have american call centers in america. They must have facts and figures to bear itout. Its not at all about geico making some sort of statement where they are forgoing extra profits in exchange for the fuzzy feeling inside of knowing that americans are employed.

rather than using agents....geico sells directly to the consumer. Maybe the othyer insurance company overseas phone people send their callers to an agent. Maybe they are just a relay switch....a traffic cop.

Maybe the geico people do more.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 22nd, 2014 at 5:46:12 AM permalink
Quote: LarryS

That whole story about Geico is missing valuable information.

Are theoverseas call center people for other companies have different duties thanthe Geico people?

For example are theyjust getting cursory info, and sending the call on to a person in the nited states that closes the deal or finds more minute info needed.

Does the geico person do more, and there needs better communication skills? Does the geico person go further into the process in getting someone coverage?

Obviously Geico thinks its cost effective for them to get clear speaking people who have command of english and nuances of english....sometimes small nuances in answers to questions can lead to denial of coverage....or at least causing a misquote of coverage.

A misunderstood response BY THE CUSTOMER could cost the company alot of money. Or a mis-understood comment by the phone agent ...coumd in the end cause a customer to lose their trust...and go elsewhere.

If we dont know what the actual duties of a geico agent is compared to the overseas competition.....they really cant be compared.

However as has been said....if they are exactly the same...it would then seem geico has made the decision that it is more cost effective to have american call centers in america. They must have facts and figures to bear itout. Its not at all about geico making some sort of statement where they are forgoing extra profits in exchange for the fuzzy feeling inside of knowing that americans are employed.



I never worked for GEICO but I worked for their archenemy, USAA. I dealt in car loans but a lot of our training was the same as the insurance side. As LarryS says here, there is a lot that comes into play besides understanding English.

India call centers "work" (the quotes are because they are still horrible) best for calls that are simple inquires. "What is my balance?" "What is the due date?" "What is your 800 number?" (joke.) This is simple stuff. It is mostly following a script. In the USA these jobs are often done better by people who are not the most intelligent because smarter people get bored and frustrated with it fast. The superstar from my training class was a person who wasn't "stupid" but not the smartest (she could not get in the USAF based on her ASVAB test and had to join the Navy instead.) Such people are in the "happy to be here instead of waiting tables" camp.

OTOH, some of the stuff was fairly complicated. If the person knew the kind of car loan they wanted and just wanted to reply you were little more than filling out an application. But some had questions on this or that. Some were "borderline" so you had to use a little judgment on what to take to an underwriter and how to explain the problem. And if it was an RV loan, mamma-hamma, those calls could take half an hour as you went over all the RV options. If you do not know RVs, they are not simple. Many was the time I simply asked them to put the salesman on the phone to run them down.

Much of what makes good customer service is simple, little things. Things that can't be taught, they have to be lived. Folks in India can and do use fake names. They can watch American media and get the lingo and dialect. But they cannot fake empathy very well. They do not connect well when solving a problem. It is for these reasons a GEICO will put a center in the USA.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
treetopbuddy
treetopbuddy
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 1739
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
March 22nd, 2014 at 7:39:59 AM permalink
Take your pick…..3 employees at 10.10 or 4 employees at 8.00……..
Each day is better than the next
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
March 22nd, 2014 at 9:30:25 AM permalink
That assumes the company can get their work done with 3 employees.

If they can't replace the production of that one employee with automation or increased productivity from the remaining 3, then three of their options are to reduce profits, reduce costs (such as cost of goods), or increase prices.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
March 22nd, 2014 at 9:50:44 AM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

That assumes the company can get their work done with 3 employees.

If they can't replace the production of that one employee with automation or increased productivity from the remaining 3, then three of their options are to reduce profits, reduce costs (such as cost of goods), or increase prices.



There is another option. Reduce service. Instead of someone bagging your groceries you are expected to do it yourself. Instead of full waitress service you refill your own drinks.

When labor is cheaper businesses are more apt to take a chance on an unskilled or untested employee. The owner can say, "well, he doesn't know how to work the kitchen but his attitude is good. Lets put him on as extra help. It gives us some leeway and as he learns we can move him up when needed." But increase minimum wage almost 50% as is being discussed and the owner will say, "I like the kid, he has a good attitude. But I just cannot afford to take 6 months to break him into the business."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
March 22nd, 2014 at 2:01:50 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: LarryS

I dont mind educating the ignorant.

For example....california Medical reduces reimbursment fees to pharmacies. That reduced reimbursement causes the drug chain millions., eating away profits.....so to combat the reduced profits.....they will increase prices on other things like tylenol and motor oil, they will reduce benefits like stopping time and a half for holidays worked.,accelerate the automation, and reduce payroll. Hence the reduced profits caused by the reduction in reimbursement is reveresed.

What else can eat into profits?

increase in minimum wage
increase in healthcare for employee costs
big unforseen class action lawsuits....like target is experiencing
competition

someone pays for all the above......for the things that threaten to reduce profits...



LarryS,

I think your stance on issues like these may be overtaking your common sense. That was a pretty insulting way to start your post, though it was in response to Tomspur saying he deferred to your greater knowledge on the subject. See his response to you if you think I'm exaggerating how it read. Please consider this a warning. Thank you.



ig·no·rant/ˈɪgnərənt/ Show Spelled [ig-ner-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I find it "insulting" when people write on this board in various places that healtcare workers make too much money, even though they never spent a day in our shoes. However I dont think they need to be "warned"

In fact there are alot of "insulting" comments on the boards, and most people can psychologically handle them.

I didnt call someone an ignorant AHOLE, i didnt call a specific person an ignorant idiot. I just made a generalized comment that I enjoy educating the ignorant.
If the suit fits for some people....then they may be insulted.

Are monitors getting involved these days with hurt feelings? Geez.

the word "ignorant' is only an insuilt if someone construes it as an insult. I cant control How people construe words.

I am ignorant of advanced math and statistics, and have on occassion prefaced my comments on threads involving vig, and HA....with "i am ignorant of advanced math but isnt it true......"







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 1st, 2014 at 6:05:06 PM permalink
Harry Reid tries to stop a minimum wage hike!

And some of you peeps doubt is is just politics!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 1st, 2014 at 7:31:31 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Harry Reid tries to stop a minimum wage hike!

And some of you peeps doubt is is just politics!



I agree, very few politicians are pure of heart. If that's what you're saying.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
April 16th, 2014 at 9:40:38 AM permalink
Here's a burger joint that is going to start paying $15/hour

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/moo-cluck-moo-wages_n_3899574.html
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
April 16th, 2014 at 9:55:48 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Let me preface by saying that I lean liberal on most issues. But listening to the president's SOTU address and his comments again this morning, I hate this idea of raising minimum wager.

First of all, you raise the minimum wager and all prices go up. Most minimum wager jobs, are in some sort of retail. If you raise the the amount employees must be paid, the cost of goods, whether fast food, or groceries MUST increase to cover this. So it is in effect just another tax on the rest of us.

Secondly, this is totally unnecessary as this problem is already addressed. Low income workers get all there federal tax money withheld back at the end of the year. I mean not only are they paying no taxes, but the Earned Income Credit provides most of them with a refund many times what they paid in. If you are a lower income worker, which I suspect most here are not, you get a huge refund check, usually thousands of dollars in the spring of each year. You see the lower income folks run out and buy new 'toys'. lol And that's ok with me. As a liberal, I am not against a bit of redistribution, where low income pay less or nothing and get a little assistance. I am just saying this issue is already addressed. We don't need to put another tax on the rest of us.

I mean, if the end result is prices go up (inflation), I am fortunate enough at this point in my life, it will just be an annoyance. But what about the elderly and disabled on fixed incomes. Their Minimum wage will not be going up, but the cost of goods to cover this extra tax still will. They are the ones that will be crushed.

And lastly, lets just admit it. Some jobs and some of these workers half-assed doing these jobs are not worth $10 an hour. So on this issue, my republican side is emerging.....let the market place dictate the wage.



I thought Obama was a good president, and Obamacare a good idea. Obamacare sux. Not only is it just a tax on me, I actually receive poorer health care. Now this? Who's he trying to help? High school seniors and brothel workers? F@#@ Obama. He's just taking from the middle class. He may as well be a republican.
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
April 16th, 2014 at 10:00:56 AM permalink
Quote: Dalex64

Here's a burger joint that is going to start paying $15/hour

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/moo-cluck-moo-wages_n_3899574.html



If you look at their menu, if you buy their cheapest hamburger, fries, and soda...its gonna cost you 10 dollars when you leave the counter.

So who is paying for this in the end.

Are thry saying that they will not raise prices in the future to pay for this? Do we know if they will be out of business in a year?

They only have 2 locations.....this could simply be a publicity stunt to drum up some free advertising. And it might work for a little while,...until people get tired of paying 10 dollars for a simple buger/fries combo/

Busnesses do alot of things to try to get atention. Some work..some dont. Only time will tell.
Dalex64
Dalex64
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 1067
Joined: Feb 10, 2013
April 16th, 2014 at 10:57:06 AM permalink
Of course the customer is paying for it. If they aren't reducing people or service, then they are reducing profit margins or raising prices or both.

A similar combo at Mc Donalds costs $7.50.

So, could Mc Donalds afford to pay $12 instead of $7.25 if they charged $10 instead of $7.50?



Related to mininum wage, but unrelated to the last story I posted, Oklahoma is outlawing local minimum wages

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/15/news/economy/oklahoma-minimum-wage-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
April 16th, 2014 at 1:46:30 PM permalink
He's trying to socialize the country. This not necessarily bad. Lots of good things about Europe and a lot of bad things about here. But he has done a piss poor job, and has wasted a ton of money. Do we have free healthcare for all? No, fail. Insurance companies still run the whole thing, the only differences are 1) They charge more and 2) more people on welfare.
Why not actually tax corporations that end up not paying any taxes? So what if they leave...most of their employees work in a different country anyway. What benefit are they providing? Why not stop building tanks that are never used? Wow I just paid off the national debt. Eventually, the country will be forced to do these things. The empire will fall, and we will end up like England. The former most important country in the world. Unfortunately, it may take the threat of an occupying force to exhaust our resources, if history is any lesson. I wonder when those terrorists will quit?
  • Jump to: