Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and...

[John Galt?]

Yeah, front line employees never feel the crunch

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/08/156458470/raising-minimum-wage-a-help-or-harm

Joe Olivo owns a small printing press in New Jersey that employs 47 people. Olivo tells Raz that a higher minimum wage basically raises the whole wage scale and would force him to make cuts.

"What happens is the employee who's been here for 3 years and has more experience than a person making an entry-level wage, they will rightfully want more for their seniority," Olivo says. "So what it does to me as a business owner, by pushing up wage scale, it increases my expenses."

Olivo says that means he either has to increase revenues — difficult in the current economy — or he must find ways to cut expenses: cutting employees, not hiring new employees or bring in new technology to decrease the number of employees he needs.

"So it really hurts my current employees and it also prevents me from bringing on new ones," he says.

Good point, also the super big mega employers pay over minimum wage plus have standard pay raises. The employers that do stick to minimum wage are predominantly SMALL BUSINESSES.

Raising the min by 50% as CBW suggested will just cause Walmart to adjust dividends, but it would put Mr. Olivio OUT OF BUSINESS adding himself and all his employees to the welfare roles

[John Galt?]

They aren't interested in actual solutions. Just in trotting out the same ole' tired a$$ conservative memes. Raising the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour would save the country millions, if not billions in welfare spending, but that would also mean that the cons would lose their moral condemnation and an extra $0.15 for a box of Cheez-its, so of course, they have no interest.

Well using that logic why not just raise minimum to $30/hr then all workers would be making $50k+ and paying taxes at that much higher rate? Hey trillions in new tax revenue and billions saved in welfare. What could possibly go wrong??

That's not using that logic. That's using extremes to argue against logic.

No, that is using extremes to argue against an extreme. You are talking about a 50%+ increase in minimum wage!!!!!!

Logic is that inflation occurs regardless of whether or not labor costs increase.

False, Cost-push inflation is caused by the increase in costs of production including raw material prices and substantial labor cost increases. And a 51.7% increase is substantial!!!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costpushinflation.asp





 

You're a smart guy, JG?.

That is without question

 

If the cost of goods steadily increases, yet the income of workers does not increase at at least the same rate, how does that affect the economy?

That is effect and cause, not cause and effect. If the economy is growing, then new higher wage opportunities will be created. If the income-opportunity of workers increases, then the only ones hurt by increasing prices would be those that CHOOSE to not seek the opportunities and remain in the low paying jobs.

No one is arguing that a cashier should be making 50k a year. What's being argued is whether or not the minimum wage should at least reflect the real rate of inflation. Wage suppression artificially lowers the cost of goods, but it also suppresses demand and increases dependence on the state to subsidize the cost of basic needs and living expenses of low wage earners. As Durango 95 said, welfare has become the minimum wage equalizer.

reflecting the real rate of inflation is okay, but a 51.7% jump is what you proposed and that is WAAAAAAY above inflation

[CBWx2]

sounds great until employers lay off workers and/or cut hours to make up for the additional wages

Empirical evidence has refuted the claim that raising the minimum wage leads to an increase in unemployment. One reason could be that a raise in the minimum wage doesn't affect a business' minimum labor requirements to meet consumer demand.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226778

Or maybe it is because only 5.2%¹ of all workers are at minimum wage so even a 20% drop in employment of min wage workers equates to a miniscule change in over all employment rates.

¹http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

Or maybe because changing min. wage rates just leads to fewer hours worked and not job loss. So would you rather get $11/hr and only 20 hours/week or $7.25/hr with a 38 hour week?

That study was done on just minimum wage workers. The unemployment rate cited is just unemployment among the minimum wage workforce, not the overall workforce. And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

[Biggs3535]

A minimum wage worker will always have the buying power of a minimum wage worker.  There really isn't much more that needs to be said.

[John Galt?]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

[BucBalla85]

A minimum wage worker will always have the buying power of a minimum wage worker.  There really isn't much more that needs to be said.

A minumum wage worker can always get a better job too. Do they have to make some changes in their life? Most likely but not everybody wants to. Much easier to have somebody give you more money. While I think some of these minimum wage workers arent able to get a better job. Like really have a legit excuse then for them I say they need help but for the most part people are responsible for where they are in life. If your able to find a better job and your not, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. Excuse making just wastes time and energy. Go get the better job and do whats necessary to get it. A lot of people have done that and done well. I wish those people were talked about more. A lot of the "excuse makers" just dont see that when there is a will theres always a way. They need to.

[CBWx2]

Logic is that inflation occurs regardless of whether or not labor costs increase.

False, Cost-push inflation is caused by the increase in costs of production including raw material prices and substantial labor cost increases. And a 51.7% increase is substantial!!!

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costpushinflation.asp

Is labor the only factor in cost-push inflation? Is cost-push inflation the only kind of inflation?

If the cost of goods steadily increases, yet the income of workers does not increase at at least the same rate, how does that affect the economy?

That is effect and cause, not cause and effect. If the economy is growing, then new higher wage opportunities will be created. If the income-opportunity of workers increases, then the only ones hurt by increasing prices would be those that CHOOSE to not seek the opportunities and remain in the low paying jobs.

And those are precisely the people we are talking about. The higher wage opportunities will go to those low wage earners that are educated or trained to take advantage of the new opportunities. And depending on the rate of growth, even those individuals will not all be able to land higher paying jobs. But there is always going to be a class of working poor, and these are the ones who are receiving the bulk of the assistance, whether they be a high-school drop out, a college student, or an elderly person working to subsidize expenses.

No one is arguing that a cashier should be making 50k a year. What's being argued is whether or not the minimum wage should at least reflect the real rate of inflation. Wage suppression artificially lowers the cost of goods, but it also suppresses demand and increases dependence on the state to subsidize the cost of basic needs and living expenses of low wage earners. As Durango 95 said, welfare has become the minimum wage equalizer.

reflecting the real rate of inflation is okay, but a 51.7% jump is what you proposed and that is WAAAAAAY above inflation

It actually isn't. Because the minimum wage is so rarely increased, it has actually not kept up to anywhere near the rate of inflation since it's inception. Had it kept up with inflation, it would be approximately $10.55 an hour, not $7.25  an hour. I merely rounded up to $11 because it was easier to type.

[olafberserker]

They would cut staff anyway if necessary.   The fry guy will become the fry guy/lettuce guy or so forth ......

[CBWx2]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

You may be high-balling the amount of increases to prices there. Even if labor made up 100% of McDonald's operating costs, you would still be high-balling that amount.

[VinBucFan]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

You may be high-balling the amount of increases to prices there. Even if labor made up 100% of McDonald's operating costs, you would still be high-balling that amount.

Translated:  "You are right so I am going to shift the focus"

[VinBucFan]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

This is such a fundamental and obvious point that it would normally be shocking that you even had to make it JG . . .  normally

[CBWx2]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

You may be high-balling the amount of increases to prices there. Even if labor made up 100% of McDonald's operating costs, you would still be high-balling that amount.

Translated:  "You are right so I am going to shift the focus"

How is that shifting focus, Vinny Peanuts? Nevermind. Anyone with the reading comprehension of a 6 year old can see that it wasn't. So you are either dumber than a 6 year old or are just trolling as usual.

[VinBucFan]

And if it takes a McDonald's 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $7.25 an hour, it's likely still gonna take 10 employees to work at the lunch rush hours at $10-$11 an hour. Employee wages do not adversely affect demand. McDonald's is still going to have to serve hamburgers to the same number of people regardless of how much they pay their employees.

Wrong again. If McDonald's has to raise wages from $7.25 to $11, then to maintain profit margins they will have to raise prices 50%. When the "Dollar Menu" becomes the "Two Dollar Menu" the lunch rush will be significantly smaller requiring far fewer employees.

You may be high-balling the amount of increases to prices there. Even if labor made up 100% of McDonald's operating costs, you would still be high-balling that amount.

Translated:  "You are right so I am going to shift the focus"

How is that shifting focus, Vinny Peanuts? Nevermind. Anyone with the reading comprehension of a 6 year old can see that it wasn't. So you are either dumber than a 6 year old or are just trolling as usual.

aside from the math, you agree with JG's point right? Just yes or no?  I put them in bold.  Let's see you give a one word reponse.  Do you agree with the points in bold made by JG?

 (this should be interesting)

here, just quote this and put and x after your answer"

YES

NO

[CBWx2]

Of course raising wages will lead to increased prices. I've addressed that in about 3 or 4 posts now. But despite your juvenile attempts to suggest otherwise, the math is hugely important, my friend.

If the price of a Big Mac goes up from $3.00 to $4.00, then I highly doubt McDonald's would see a mass exodus of customers. Especially since increased wages means that lower income customers can now afford to eat more McDonald's than they could before, so you are actually increasing McDonald's potential consumer base, not decreasing it.

Now if you are claiming that a Big Mac would increase from $3.00 to $6.00 as JG? claims it will, then yeah, that might have a more adverse affect on demand, but I highly question the math associated with that assertion. Not only does it not make sense because minimum wage labor doesn't add up to that high a percentage of McDonald's operating costs, but you are also ignoring other major factors associated with pricing beyond just labor costs.

[VinBucFan]

Of course raising wages will lead to increased prices. I've addressed that in about 3 or 4 posts now. But despite your juvenile attempts to suggest otherwise, the math is hugely important, my friend.

If the price of a Big Mac goes up from $3.00 to $4.00, then I highly doubt McDonald's would see a mass exodus of customers. Especially since increased wages means that lower income customers can now afford to eat more McDonald's than they could before, so you are actually increasing McDonald's potential consumer base, not decreasing it.

Now if you are claiming that a Big Mac would increase from $3.00 to $6.00 as JG? claims it will, then yeah, that might have a more adverse affect on demand, but I highly question the math associated with that assertion. Not only does it not make sense because minimum wage labor doesn't add up to that high a percentage of McDonald's operating costs, but you are also ignoring other major factors associated with pricing beyond just labor costs.

hahahaahaha ^^^ . . .  I rest my case.

 (this should be interesting)

here, just quote this and put and x after your answer"

YES

NO