Note to self, work I Richmond, Shop outside of richmond. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9472166 RICHMOND, Calif. (KGO) -- The city of Richmond is one step closer to having the highest minimum wage in the state.
The Richmond City Council voted 6-1 on Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that would raise minimum hourly pay in the city to $12.30 an hour by 2017.
The vote came after Mayor Gayle McLaughlin rescinded an earlier idea to put it on the November ballot. If it passes another reading next month, the minimum wage would go to $9 an hour and go up from there.
Three options were presented to council members Tuesday night. The options were to raise the minimum wage to $11 an hour, $12.30 an hour or $15 an hour. ABC7 News spoke with the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and he says they're not opposed to the hike and agrees the minimum wage needs to be higher, but they're taking a cautious stance at this point. He said if it goes too high it would be bad for businesses. He used one person owning multiple hamburger stands as an example.
"If I have one in Richmond, one in El Cerrito and one in San Pablo, but you raise the Richmond one to $15, this guy is going to go out of business. He's going to have to close the Richmond store and we don't want to keep making a domino effect and then everybody start moving out of Richmond," Chamber of Commerce Chairman Michael Davenport said.
Davenport also said he wants the city council to revisit the issue every year. The city's plan based on the ordinance that got a first reading Tuesday night is to phase in the hike. Currently the minimum wage in the state and in Richmond is $8 an hour and would inch up to $12.30 an hour by 2017.
A second reading on this ordinance is scheduled for next month.
What's not clear to me here, is, is this $12 an hour for city employees only, or is it a blanket 12?
There was a big stink recently about Seattle going to 15 an hour, but ultimately it only applies to City employees. Ultimately, if there is a blanket increase to these kinds of levels, then yes, there will be artificial inflation which will drive most small businesses out of town, or out of business.
They have something like this planned for Seattle. All good intentions to show what wonderful people local Democrats are. The problem is that they aren't talking about how it will be phased in over ten years or how unions, food, and hospitality jobs are exempt. High wages at McDonalds or Hilton? Nope. Wanna keep your big box store in town? Better unionize.
I guess you can tell I'm sorta cynical about this whole minimum wage push.
squidhills wrote: Raising minimum wage in one city does nothing but backfire. Raising minimum wage across the whole country actually accomplishes something.
Depends on the city in question - London has a "London weighting" applied to wages which makes it higher than the rest of the UK. Though I agree, in general such things have to be applied universally, not just in a small area.
squidhills wrote: Raising minimum wage in one city does nothing but backfire. Raising minimum wage across the whole country actually accomplishes something.
Wouldn't a local entity actually know better what the cost of living is? $12 in high cost of living LA is one thing. $12 in Marshall, Texas (or Fresno, Ca) just eliminated all minimum wage jobs the next day.
Never mention berkeley to me again, they can burn for all I care.
But yes, Richmond was meant to be the "Detroit of the west" In WW2, but guess what happened when the war boom was over?
squidhills wrote: Raising minimum wage in one city does nothing but backfire. Raising minimum wage across the whole country actually accomplishes something.
Wouldn't a local entity actually know better what the cost of living is?
$12 in high cost of living LA is one thing. $12 in Marshall, Texas (or Fresno, Ca) just eliminated all minimum wage jobs the next day.
For this issue, I think it should be decided at the State level so you don't wind up with urban flight and the subsequent loss of tax dollars. Doing it on a city council level can force, or accelerate, gentrification.
Frazzled wrote: As a libertarian I support local control. Where's RIchmond?
An hour or so south of san fran. It is known as "Detroit of California"
It is going to end up being like a radioactive fallout zone of where businesses refuse to exist inside the border.
We had a similar issue near us locally a decade or so ago... People in one county were fed up with property taxes, so they passed a law which stopped all increases locally. within 3 years, their schools and other local government aspects became grossly underfunded. it got so bad, townships on the border actually succeeded from the county to join the neighboring county. Now we have one of the richest areas in the state with the best schools right next to the poorest part of the state with the worst schools. They build a large highway which effectively allows *EVERYONE* to bypass even driving through that county. Their big 'win'w as building trashy casinos which brought their county 400 new blackjack dealer jobs, meanwhile the county next door has tens of thousands of top of the nation scientific jobs in NIH.
I am fine with local government doing what they feel is good for them, but they also get to reap the rewards. Interested to see how it impacts them.
thats a pretty high min wage.... while I really hope it doesnt have negative consequences, I really doubt it wont.
employers are not going to magically get larger labour budgets,
raising the hourly by X means they have to cut that X from somthing else, likely other labour costs.
not to mention it makes some jobs unsustainable,
for instance, a handicapped friend of mine used to get paid 4$/hr to fold napkins and do table set ups, that was the most the employer could pay him, and he was happy to work for it. Min wage was increased, making it illegal to pay him 4/hr, and his employer couldnt afford to keep him at the higher rate. ended up being a lose lose for them both.
the expectation that the absolute minimum you are allowed to pay someone is supposed to be a "living well" wage, well above the minimums required to raise a family and enjoy luxuries like television/cars/ect, is unfortunate, simply because not all jobs generate enough income for the employer to make paying that much profitable.
The expectation should be that if you want to earn more, you must produce more, and accept that your wages are proportional to your production value (not how hard you work)
Cue people who cant see any detriment ever to raising minimum wages, and think anyone who does see the other side just thinks poor people are lazy.
It will definately be interesting to see where the money flows. The city assumes the higher wages will be higher revenues within city limits for tax purposes.
People take advantage of rule changes in government all the time. Renters will probably hike prices in anticipation of securing more dollars from people making more. Prices for goods within city limits may increase. People who are small business owners on a tight budget might shutter or force themselves to work with fewer employees or employee hours.
Of course, we have to let the experiment begin before we can see what actually happens.
easysauce wrote: The expectation should be that if you want to earn more, you must produce more, and accept that your wages are proportional to your production value (not how hard you work)
Except worker productivity has been increasing for decades with no corresponding wage increase.
easysauce wrote: Cue people who cant see any detriment ever to raising minimum wages, and think anyone who does see the other side just thinks poor people are lazy.
"I know I posted something people will disagree with, so let me preemptively dismiss them by lumping them all into the same unreasonable camp at the very end of the spectrum, leaving no room for shades of grey"
easysauce wrote: The expectation should be that if you want to earn more, you must produce more, and accept that your wages are proportional to your production value (not how hard you work)
Except worker productivity has been increasing for decades with no corresponding wage increase.
citation needed...
also I dont think you understand the concept of production value. Your statement is somewhat true in different industries, where the workers have had to increase their skill level or education, but not in the minimum wage ones, where no education or special skills are required.
These places are still just producing fast food, the value of the commodity has not changed, MC donalds has the same automated processes it had years and years ago.
Same with basic labour, you dig a ditch by hand 50 years ago, you make the same amount of ditches you dig by hand today.
now, if you had gone out and got a chef's or a caterpillars ticket, your productivity would go up, and WOW, those people with the actual productivity increasing skills/education make more money!
But I am sure you will keep arguing that somehow, magically, a guy with a shovel digs ditches way faster today then he did 50 years ago.
Actually automation has advanced quite a bit in the last 20 years in the form of communications between front of house and back of house.
Minimum wage skills improvement is difficult. *Your average teenager - skills gone down. *Your illegal alien - skills vastly improved (or productivity and quality of labor). In Texas now and CA when I lived there, minimum wage jobs were generally only given to illegals who had effectively driven other segments of the workforce out of the market.
IAs are generally extremely hard working (except for the criminals who are also hard working but in ways we don't like).
??? frazz, the 90's had computers and radios/order printers that went from tills to the cooking line and so on.
thats stuffs been there since the 70's, and even earlier in some cases.
In fact, when I was a suez chef way back when, we used lots of old order printers from the 70's... before then the mc'ds that was my first job ever still had the cash registers sending the orders to the cooking line instantly via electronic screen.
only difference now is its a touch screen register instead of a push button one, so it doesnt actually make the guy operating the till able to process more customers per hour then it did 30+ years ago.
IAs are generally extremely hard working (except for the criminals who are also hard working but in ways we don't like).
Eh, but hard working doesn't mean much when you have unskilled, non-licensed workers illegally using a contractors licence doing work of questionable quality and then when post-job you find issues, or fail your permit or whatever, the people are effectively 'ghosts' and can't be held responsible or even located.
You get what you pay for. I have more than once thrown contractors out of my house and voided contracts because they agreed that every one who worked on the job was a licensed, legal contractor. And when people don't do that in the MD/DC area, there are loads of horror stories of people doing a shoddy work, lacking the actual skill int he trade, leaving the job taking the money and finding out the contractor license was done fraudulently and it costing twice the amount to repair. They even have been defrauding the government with this as they win contracts and then do crap work and blame a phantom contractor. And most times they simply pay the guy TWICE to do the same work and bring in a new crew.
It is a huge epidemic in my area how people are using illegal labor to defraud consumers. It is like a ponzi scheme, they generate a bunch of leads, then hire illegal labor who do the different jobs ad variable levels of competency, and you hope a bulk of them are 'good enough' and the ones who fail, you claim that the workers illegally used your licensed ID and take it up with the 'workers'. These companies actually claim 'you didn't contract us' when a job goes south, and often the consumer has almost no proof due to them assuming everything is ok. Cash deal? too good to be true? roll the dice on if your dude actually knows electrical code or not. Have fun with that. Making a light fixture work and making it work so it doesn't burn your house down in 5 years are two different things.
I don't care about their immigration status, but a poorly skilled tradesman who needs to be held accountable legally for the outcome of his work, especially for multi-thousand-dollar jobs damn well needs to have legal contracting IDs and identification. Lots of people assume these 'hard working' immigrants are skilled, and they really are not. Most of them have no more skill than the average DIY dude at home depot, they simply have the will to do the work for money. Watch a renovation or construction project fail enough permiting audits or fall apart/leak 2 weeks later and you can begin to see when someone is a professional tradesman or a handyman hack.
Be Careful Criticising IA, You might get labeled a racist or heartless rich person.
The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Be Careful Criticising IA, You might get labeled a racist or heartless rich person.
The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.
yeah, its the curse of sociology, and some other courses, that the majority opinion generally is accepted as correct.
Keep speaking up for yourself though, in my experience, people who grow the confidence to speak against the grain end up with a much better ability to suceed in life, however they define sucess.
I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.
This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.
I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.
This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.
My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.
I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.
This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.
My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.
yeah thats pretty much how it goes, you are thinking outside of the box most people get stuck in.
Most people have never had a job that wasnt based on hourly wages, let alone run their own business and gone to work for free, or even worked 40 hours a week only to lose money. Thats on top of investing your life savings, or 100's of thousands, if not millions of your own money(or going into debt) in the hopes of generating some stable income streams that will pay off your principal in 5-10 years with a bit of luck.
after that, it should be gravy, but then you have to deal with renovations, modernization, advertising, competition, lack of labour, rising labour costs, and so on.
I have done both... and its pretty common to lose money for the first little bit as you are dealing with start up costs, growing pains, and overhead ect
I made a lot more $ when I ran my own business, but it was proportionally more work-pay then now with no security, I dont think I would ever go back.
I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.
This is from my perspective as both someone who has worked plenty of years in min wage jobs, as well as owned/run businesses and hired/employed min wage and even medium wage people , as well as worked at high end education/skill type jobs.
My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.
It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.
The system is broken because money makes money. Those who have money, easily earn more money, those who don't go deeper in to debt and can't get more.
Minimum wage debate is usually base pandering and not actually about addressing the issues. Throwing more money at people who are held in stasis in a broken system is a short term 'voter friendly' way to not fix the problem, keep those people in stasis and make them happy about it when they don't realize they don't actually have more money and are not at all better off.
Also, National minimum wage flies in the face that we have a country where a 1250sq foot 3 bedroom can range from 75k to 1 million depending where in the country you are. And the issue with state minimum wage laws is you can have the same disparity in the same state. You can be paying someone a living wage in one part of the state and be starving and homeless in another part of the state. And regardless since the government doesn't mandate personal budgets or spending, someone can be making more than a livable wage and still be broke and or destitute due to other reasons. A living wage for one single person who manages their money may not be enough for a single parent with 3 kids and 60k of college debt. Are we going to begin paying salaries based upon personal need and who 'needs' more money to live? There is never going to be a one-size fit all living wage even with supposedly evening it out with tax deductions and AMT and such.
The answer is we hand over all of our lodging, food and health income to the government who then doles it out arbitrarily as needed and wages are 100% discretionary income. I am sure that will work out just fine right?
No one seems to have the answers and the implementations are 'what keep the rich in control and keeps the poor 'satisfied' so they don't rise up and murder us... It is called 'minimum wage increases'.
It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.
Income gains are not a zero sum game. This is only true if the size of the economy is constant and unchanging, but it is not. Basically what's happened is that the size of the economic pie has increased over the last 50 years, but gains have largely been amongst management/shareholders/owners over the last 30, hence why wages amongst workers and middle class workers have gained much slower or in some cases decreased (taking inflation into account) even with a drastically larger GDP. Increasing the minimum wage would redistribute those gains downwards. The big argument against this is that it will impact the total number of those jobs, but that's another story. However effectively, if the economy has grown, increasing wages is not just inflation.
That said, it's a rather hamfisted response to a hugely complicated problem, as you noted.
It isn't a 'raise' if everyone gets it... that is inflation. The only way you earn more is if your wage goes up and everyone else doesn't.
Income gains are not a zero sum game. This is only true if the size of the economy is constant and unchanging, but it is not. Basically what's happened is that the size of the economic pie has increased over the last 50 years, but gains have largely been amongst management/shareholders/owners over the last 30, hence why wages amongst workers and middle class workers have gained much slower or in some cases decreased (taking inflation into account) even with a drastically larger GDP. Increasing the minimum wage would redistribute those gains downwards. The big argument against this is that it will impact the total number of those jobs, but that's another story. However effectively, if the economy has grown, increasing wages is not just inflation.
That said, it's a rather hamfisted response to a hugely complicated problem, as you noted.
It is not 'Zero Sum' but the majority of those increases are going to go to paying for those increases. If a Restaurant has to pay employees more, it is not coming out of uncle scrooges moneybin even though that is the intended goal. Basically how do you legislate 'profit margins' reduce opposed to costs going up to consumers to give people with this new income more power and the people with the money bin less power? While it is not Zero sum, wages for the most part are highly decentralized and based upon direct revenues which for a lot of minimum wage jobs is directly influenced by consumer consumption of goods. That means local stores and restaurants are usually generating income off of local consumers. So when the wages go up locally, the consumers cost goes up locally.
Can a company like Wal-Mart decide to pay for it out of corporate assets and supplement branches to absorb the costs without impacting the local stores cost structure? Sure? Will they? nope. Can they write legislation to do it? Not really. Forcing them to pay people more is one thing but preventing them from directly charging the consumer for it (which in turn in the people with the increased wages) is not possible. If Wal-Mart has to pay employees more, it isn't coming out of shareholders pockets. margins will not decrease, prices will rise and the consumers pay for it in most situations which nullifies the increase in earning power.
That assumes you believe there is a problem with the current economic machine. When you boil it down, redistribution of wealth is redistribution of wealth. I simply argue that neither party actually wants to see a change in the current system, simply be the party who controls it and the party who is 'liked' for controlling it.
My favorite thing is when I hear people complain about the 'rich' and how unfair it all is... and then I am like "You are in the top 5% in the nation... The system is hardly stacked against you" and then they wail about how broke they are.
But I am sure you will keep arguing that somehow, magically, a guy with a shovel digs ditches way faster today then he did 50 years ago.
This thing that you do, where you preemptively dismiss any response someone might offer you? It's one of the lamest arguing techniques I've seen on these forums, ever. You want a citation, go google it.
It absolutely blows my mind that a local council could have control over wage laws. Honestly it's pretty messy when individual states can set their own minimum wages, it's absolutely flying rodent gak when a town council can do it. As squidhills said it has to be done nationally.
That said, most of the noise made about this is over the high final amount of $12.30. Note the move to that rate is happening over several years. Hiking the rate up to $12.30 tomorrow would have massive consequences, but slowly increasing it to $12.30 over three years is not such a big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wouldn't a local entity actually know better what the cost of living is?
Yes, but what you get when individual areas set their own rates is a race to the bottom. See, $12 an hour won't cost you jobs when the surrounding areas are all $13 an hour. But then one of those surrounding areas want more jobs and economic activity, so they drop their minimum wage to $11 an hour. You don't want to lose competitiveness, so you drop your rate to $10, they drop there's to $9 and so on.
By setting a standard minimum wage across the whole you avoid that issue. From there you can adjust individual sectors to account for really high cost areas that don't rely on easily transferable jobs (like manufacturing), such as the London increase SilverMK2 mentioned.
The CBO ran some numbers are while back, they were posted here on dakka by whembly I believe, and they found that while an $11 an hour min wage would have significant negative impact, a $10 rate had a very small impact (iirc correctly on the numbers...).
Anyhow, the immediate increases proposed here are not too far off the CBO's minimum impact forecasts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Actually automation has advanced quite a bit in the last 20 years in the form of communications between front of house and back of house.
Minimum wage skills improvement is difficult.
But you don't measure skills, you measure productivity. There was a hell of a lot more skill in driving a horse and cart across dirt roads 150 years ago than in driving a truck across interstate highways, but the modern worker carries more goods and faster. Less skilled but far more productive, and worth a much higher wage.
The individual isn't valued by his skill alone, but how his skills interact with the capital available.
also I dont think you understand the concept of production value. Your statement is somewhat true in different industries, where the workers have had to increase their skill level or education, but not in the minimum wage ones, where no education or special skills are required.
Your assumption that skills and skills alone drive productivity is simplistic. Where capital and technology stock increase even unskilled labour increases in value. Consider, for instance, a warehouse that brings in, records and preps for export a few hundred packing crates a day.
There was a time when that would have required quite a few unskilled workers to maintain a record of what was due each day, physically sight the contents of the box and record where each box was stored in the warehouse. Now with an RFID system that stuff is almost entirely automated, all that's needed is a physical sighting of the contents of each case to confirm its what the computer display says it contains.
There is, in fact, less skill required of the staff, on top of the job being handled by a couple of people compared to previously needing a half dozen or more. The same job done by a third as many people... that's a productivity increase of threefold.
Now, that doesn't mean pay should increase threefold, but it should be expected to increase somewhat. And at the very least it should make it clear that your argument about digging ditches with shovels is as fast as it always was is nonsense - obviously the point is that these days far more effective capital is likely to be used.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: The more and more I become a moderate, the more Im hating my sociolgy class, Atleast I have my teacher who is backing me up when I say things like raising Minimum wage is a bad thing.
Uurgh. First up, raising issues of economics like minimum wage in sociology is just silly, and will only produce politically motivated arguments.
Second up, when looked at from a foundation of economics knowledge, the issue of raising the minimum wage isn't always a good thing or a bad thing, but really dependent on the specifics of the case at hand. In many cases the negative impacts are minimal (in fact there are situations where economic growth can be stimulated by a higher minimum wage, though these cases are extremely rare), and it can be considered a good thing. In other cases, the loss of jobs or possibly even loss of whole industries are far greater than the benefit in increased income for the working poor, and so the proposed minimum wage is a bad thing. But it all depends on the proposed raise, the economic conditions and the economic modelling you do. So just talking about the issue in general in sociology class is pretty silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: My arguement that was if everyone just got a 50% increase in income, but im a renter and that is how I make my money, I have to increase rent by 50% because now I have to pay for goods that went up because employers now have to pay for 50% more money(If he doesnt fire more) That throwing money at poor people will not solve anything and if we want to actually solve poverty reasonably is that we should put money into programs that HELP poor people get the skills to succeed. My teacher said my argument was well thought out at the end and devoid of all the emotion the the rest of the class seems to rely on.
To be perfectly blunt, it's a terrible argument. You don't charge rent based on what you need, you charge whatever you can get away with. Which means if your cost of living goes up 50% you don't get to just pass that on, you're still limited by what you can charge before your tenants will start looking for other accomodation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: I really wish the focus was on creating more good paying careers, and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to become qualified for the skill sets needed, then on making minimum wage/skill less jobs into somthing unsustainable.
You think there's a shortage of effort put in to creating high paying careers? Have you never noticed the massive reforms and scale increase in the tertiary education system, all geared towards producing more skilled workers? Or the massive investment and government support put in to tech industries and high skilled service sectors, all geared towards creating jobs with a high rate of pay?
And then compare that to minimum wage that's declined against inflation in the last couple of generations. And your conclusion is that there's too much focus on increasing the minimum wage?
fething christ on a cracker, you make no sense sometimes.
easysauce wrote: thats a pretty high min wage.... while I really hope it doesnt have negative consequences, I really doubt it wont.
employers are not going to magically get larger labour budgets,
raising the hourly by X means they have to cut that X from somthing else, likely other labour costs.
not to mention it makes some jobs unsustainable,
None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.
I'll need to track down the research to back it, but when you have an across the board minimum wage increase, you see a matching rise in average consumer prices of 15-20% of the increase.
So yeah, prices go up, but the amount of money people are bringing home goes up more. Especially given the disgusting disparity between minimum wage and productivity increases over the past sixty years, this is not a bad thing.
None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.
the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.
That was explained right in the post your quoted - his customers, some subset of which are also going to have more money to send because they're part of the minimum wage group who just got a raise. That's one of the proven benefits of a rise to the minimum wage, in that you see sudden stimulation in the local economy as the people who are now making more are willing to spend more.
That was explained right in the post your quoted - his customers, some subset of which are also going to have more money to send because they're part of the minimum wage group who just got a raise. That's one of the proven benefits of a rise to the minimum wage, in that you see sudden stimulation in the local economy as the people who are now making more are willing to spend more.
Except you are making the false assumption that everyone will benefit from a raise in minimum wage. Which is not true, not even close.
This means that you are only benefiting workers who are currently making minimum wage or are making a wage between the current and the new minimum wage. Which is a very tiny % of the population.
That other 90ish% of the population who makes above the current and propose minimum wage sees no net increase in wages, yet they have to pay the higher prices at all the businesses who employ minimum wage earners.
The benefit minimum wage earners see from a raise is miniscule at best and it hurts everyone else.
You are depressing an overwhelming majority of the population to benefit a very tiny portion of the population.
Richmond, CA bumping min wage to $12 an hour doesn't patch the problems they are having. Its a weak arse band aid. If your going to increase min wage then you need to lure employeers on your side to to make it work.
Texas has a dang good incentive to move/open a business there
New York following suit with a no tax for ten year version
easysauce wrote: thats a pretty high min wage.... while I really hope it doesnt have negative consequences, I really doubt it wont.
employers are not going to magically get larger labour budgets,
raising the hourly by X means they have to cut that X from somthing else, likely other labour costs.
not to mention it makes some jobs unsustainable,
None of this actually happens, and the story of your 'friend' simply isn't true. If that restaurant was so poorly run that even with the increase in profits that would come from a higher minimum wage (because that portion of his customer base also have more money too), it's much more likely the owner simply used 'minimum wage' as an easy excuse to sack your friend.
I'll need to track down the research to back it, but when you have an across the board minimum wage increase, you see a matching rise in average consumer prices of 15-20% of the increase.
So yeah, prices go up, but the amount of money people are bringing home goes up more. Especially given the disgusting disparity between minimum wage and productivity increases over the past sixty years, this is not a bad thing.
So your argument, is "you are wrong, and a liar. Your life experience through many raises to the min rage, and those of people you know, didnt actually happen. When labour costs go up due to min wage increases, that money magically comes in because suddenly all the customers will spend more money, because the 4% of them that could have been on min wage are enough of your business that it could mater, assuming of course the first thing they will do with their raise is start spending more on your restaurant."
fact is, weather you believe it or not, some jobs only generate a certain amount of profit, and you cannot pay the laborer more then that amount and make money.
You sound like someone who has never, ever, run a business if you hand-wave away increasing labour costs with pixie dust fantasies about how if 4% of the population gets a raise, it somehow makes specific businesses able to absorb 30-50% increase in labour costs from going from 7-8$ an hour to 12.
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
skyth wrote: Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
That's just so wrong its not even funny.
"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."
skyth wrote: Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
That's just so wrong its not even funny.
"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."
Panera Bread CEO Rob Shaich, a Democratic donor and minimum wage supporter, recently announced that he will be replacing cashiers with computers.
Shaich, who donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, said he wanted the minimum wage raised as long as it applied equally to all, according to Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.
My question: Will Shaich pay $10.10 an hour to the kiosks he plans to install in every Panera in America? Businessweek tells that at the coffee and sandwich shop, you’ll soon be ordering through a touch-screen kiosk. Shaich insists this won’t lead to downsizing: Panera will have fewer cashiers but more employees running the food to customers’ tables. We’ll see.
I’ve written before about companies like Costco and Walmart supporting hikes in the minimum wage, knowing this will adversely affect their smaller competitors.
P.S. One angle Shaich may not be considering: When the computers rise up against the capitalists, then we’re really in trouble.
That's hilarious. It's like Wal-Mart and other big box stores focusing on self-checkout so they don't have to have more than a couple cashiers on duty.
skyth wrote: Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
That's just so wrong its not even funny.
"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."
That penalizes success, which is just wrong.
Because... you didn't build that. That's why.
My go-to Liqour Store has a sign with the whole "I DID build that" logo behind the counter.
Makes me facepalm every time, especially since they just turned every single road leading to the intersection into a 4 lane road and city development has turned this area of the county from dead to thriving suburb and drive by traffic has increased like crazy in just the 5 years that we have lived there.
But hey, props for getting angry about something that was never said .
They're nice when they work. But half the time something I'm buying isn't in the system or the machine has the weight sensor calibrated wrong and it freaks out.
Grey Templar wrote: They're nice when they work. But half the time something I'm buying isn't in the system or the machine has the weight sensor calibrated wrong and it freaks out.
Place Item in the bagging area...unauthorized item in the bagging area...place item in the bagging area...unauthorized item in the bagging area...calling for assistance (looking for the one guy on duty on the other end of the store).
The automated checkout is nice when it works, and I like to use it for those times I have to run into Walmart to get a handful of items. I can walk up to the machine, scan my couple of things, and get out faster than even the "10 items or less but we don't really care if you got 30 come on up anyway" line.
I just hate the things when I'm shopping super early (before the wife leaves for work and I gotta watch the kid) and I have a weeks worth of groceries and the machine is the only fething register open...
There are times I am glad. My experience with self check out was three times. At those three times I wasn't buying a bat, hockey stick, golf club, 2 by 4 or something of those nature.
And the President's executive order is already having an impact. I wonder how many wives/dependents of Active Duty military are losing their jobs because of this?
Karen Jowers wrote:Some fast food outlets closing on military bases New federal wage rules may be factor, sources say
The imminent closure of three McDonald's outlets on military installations may be related to new federal minimum wage requirements for contract employees of on-base fast food concessions — and industry sources say more such closures may follow. (Rob Curtis/Staff)
Four restaurants, including three McDonald’s outlets, will close within the next three weeks on Navy installations, according to Navy Exchange Service Command officials.
And two other contractors — a name-brand sandwich eatery and a name-brand pizza parlor — have asked to be released from their Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracts to operate fast food restaurants at two other installations, according to AAFES officials.
A source with knowledge of military on-base resale operations said the issue likely has to do with two new government regulations — one implemented, one pending — that will affect wages for contract workers in such on-base concessions.
These closings “are the tip of the iceberg,” the source said. “I don’t think anybody has realized what the far-reaching effects of this will be.”
McDonald’s restaurants will close at Naval Weapons Station Charleston, S.C., on March 16; at Naval Support Activity, Bethesda, Md., on March 21; and at Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., on March 31, said Kathleen Martin, a NEXCOM spokeswoman.
Another eatery, I Love Country, has notified NEXCOM that it will close its restaurant at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on April 4, Martin said.
Martin said the McDonald’s outlets “came to the end of their contract term. We were in the process of renegotiating and McDonald’s made the unilateral decision to close those three” outlets. She referred questions about the reasons for the closures to McDonald’s.
Lisa McComb, a company spokeswoman, said McDonald’s, along with the independent owner/operators of the individual restaurants, are closing the three eateries “due to the fact that we have lost our lease.”
McDonald’s independent owners operate about 30 restaurants on military installations. “Whenever we reach the end of a term, whether on a military site or otherwise, we consider many factors in deciding whether to renegotiate a new term,” McComb said.
She said the owners of the three closing outlets are offering affected employees transfers to other nearby McDonald’s restaurants.
Martin said new Labor Department rules issued last fall for fast food workers on federal contracts under the Service Contract Act require an increase in the minimum wage for such employees, varying by region. The rules also require payment of new, additional “health and welfare” fringe benefits at a rate of $3.81 per hour to those employees.
Contractor-operated fast food concessions on military installations fall under those regulations.
The new rules “have to be part of any contract we negotiate,” said Martin, adding that many vendor partners “have verbally indicated hesitation” to accept contract changes reflecting the revised wage rules.
“NEXCOM is working closely with our contracted food service providers to assess the impact of the new wage determinations,” she said. “This is part of the quality-of-life benefit we provide to sailors and their families, and our goal is to continue to do that.”
In addition, President Obama recently signed an executive order that will increase the minimum wage for employees of companies with new federal contracts beginning Jan. 1. At that time, the minimum wage for all federal contract workers — not just those working for fast food concessions — will increase to $10.10 from the current $7.25. It is not yet known how far-reaching the effects will be for contracts on military installations.
The wage hikes are good news for the many military spouses and veterans who work for these contractors — but only if the concessionaires continue to operate.
“At the end of the day, there will be fewer jobs,” said the industry source. “And for [the contractors] who stick it out, there will be higher costs and the customers will pay more.”
The two AAFES contractors asking to be released from their contracts did so after the new Labor Department wage rules were released.
AAFES officials are declining at this time to name the two name-brand restaurants, said spokesman Chris Ward, although he added that there is no set timeframe for that to happen.
“Once the paperwork is completed by both parties, they’ll be out of it at that time,” he said.
Concessions contracts are negotiated on a rolling basis for fast food restaurants on military installations throughout the year, so exchange officials continue to monitor and assess the impact of the new wage rules.
AAFES officials said the Service Contract Act has had a limited impact on their operations because that exchange service directly operates about 75 percent of its fast food outlets.
The new wage rules “were a small concern, but not a major concern,” in the I Love Country Cafe eatery’s decision not to renew the contract at Pearl Harbor, said Richard Chan, a spokesman for the company.
“The Hawaii labor market is tight and we need to pool our resources and move to other areas,” he said, adding that the Navy has posted signs to let the customers know about the impending move.
“We really enjoy serving the service members of our country,” he said. “Some customers are sad, but our other locations are not too far from the bases.”
Ensis Ferrae wrote: the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.
Your argument relies on the idea that a businessman simply decides what his bottom line will be is perhaps the stupidest piece of bad business sense I've heard. The idea that a business says 'well our revenue is 800k, we want to make 300k profit, COGs is 150k so that leaves us 350k to spend on labour' is remarkably silly.
I mean, I'm not trying to be mean here but I don't think many children would think anything that silly. It's not just wrong, it's so far removed from basic intuition that I'm kind of staggered as to how anyone could ever come up with it. I mean, I don't want to dwell on this but what you posted is so incredibly ridiculous that I really think you need to sit down and honestly think about how you got to think such an incredibly stupid thing.
Anyhow, the way it actually works is that every business is trying to maximise profit, within the limits of imperfect knowledge. This means that at any given time they will make any choice to maximise revenue, unless that increase in revenue will lead to a greater increase in expenses (ie they would increase prices by 10%, unless that increase would lead to a decline in sales of 11%). Similarly, they will cut expenses wherever possible, unless that cut would lead to a greater reduction in revenue (ie they would cut a line worker and save $50,000, unless that line worker adds value to production worth 50,001).
What this means in the above example is if a business could just choose to fire staff or raise prices, it already would have. When the business faces a cost in production, it eats that increase not because of your silly nonsense about 'evil rich people', but because when you've already set your prices and costs to maximise profit, there is simply no choice but to wear cost increase as reduced profit.
The exception to that is when the whole of industry has a similar increase in costs (ie an across the board increase in minimum wage), in which case you will see some portion of increase in prices that offsets some of the cost increase. The increase will only be a portion because the industry will be competing with imperfect substitutes (ie while two burger joints might increase their price the same % and not change the competition between them, the choice to stay home and make a burger becomes more desirable), and because not every company has the same expense structure, and competition will cap the increase at the limit of the company with the lowest increase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: And the President's executive order is already having an impact. I wonder how many wives/dependents of Active Duty military are losing their jobs because of this?
First up, it pretends that the closure of a couple of fast food stores is somehow evidence any trend in the industry, let alone the economy as a whole.
Then it spreads a handful of quotes across the thread from actual people, but those quotes give little indication of the story the reporter wants to tell. So instead he relies on an "industry source", pretending that there's some anonymous industry expert out there who's leaking the 'minimum wage increase kills service jobs' story but has to keep his identity hidden... because the service industry would fire him for daring to tell the story that the service industry has whole PR teams employed to keep repeating....
Absolute crap, and you should feel really bad that you fell for it.
If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...
d-usa wrote: If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...
d-usa wrote: If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...
I guess that's the kind of socialism we're OK with, though.
Um, like if it's only socialism if it goes "social" programs, you know like handouts to crack-baby-gay-teen-welfare-queens. When you're giving money to businesses that's businessism, which is like capitalism with even more freedom because you're free to make more profits. Don't you know anything?
Jihadin wrote: List of non renewal of contracts going to grow besides these three. AAFES itself is going to be shaken to the core.
Its irrelevant. Social costs doesn't show the lost jobs only "wages increased."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...
Its the former.
But again, unless McDonalds and the other stand up and say "hey nubmnuts, here are the faces of the people you just wacked" nothing will happen.
On the positive I guess, these are Obama voters, so suck it?
-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits. -The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor. -The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs. -On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before. -(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)
So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.
So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.
Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...
d-usa wrote: If their profit was so tight that increasing minimum wage drives the entire restaurant out of business, then that says more about the people running the restaurant than any executive order. You wouldn't close a business because you make less profit, that would just be stupid. So either minimum wage increases drives them straight into the red, or maybe the minimum wage increase really doesn't have much to do with it at all...
-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor.
-The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs.
-On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before.
-(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)
So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.
So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.
Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: the problem with your statement is that, sure, most people are "bringing more in" however, because the restauranteur must pay his people more, he must get that money from somewhere. The smart business man doesn't mess with his bottom line. Therefore he has 3 options: cut overhead, cut staff (which could almost be considered overhead in a restaurant), or raise prices. Only in the world of the most deluded individuals do those "evil rich people" eat the difference in wage increases/ product costs.
Your argument relies on the idea that a businessman simply decides what his bottom line will be is perhaps the stupidest piece of bad business sense I've heard. The idea that a business says 'well our revenue is 800k, we want to make 300k profit, COGs is 150k so that leaves us 350k to spend on labour' is remarkably silly.
I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.
Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise makes $500,000 in profits.
-The Average McDonald's Franchise spends $380,000 in non-management labor.
-The Average McDonald's affected by the Executive Order Minimum Wage raise will spend an additional $150,000 in labor costs.
-On average a third of those labor costs will be passed on to the consumer through increased prices, so the average loss to these McDonalds is $100,000, assuming that they are going to retain the exact same number of staff as before.
-(this ignores more money being spend there by people who make more money now...)
So these stores that are being driven away by Obama should be making $500,000 a year, but they have to close because the labor cost is going to increase by $100,000.
So either these franchise owners are idiots who decide that making $0 is better than making $400,000, or they are idiots because their stores are making less than 20% of what the average McDonald's makes and now they can't afford to pay their employees.
Or, you know, the stores are closing for another reason...
How many McDonalds do you own?
Do you have a point?
These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.
linky? That doesn't look like info they'd put out in their public statements nor have the capacity to as each store is different and in vastly different regions 9not to mention countries).
These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.
Numbers? You can't trust numbers unless they're talking sense. Forcing businesses to close so that people who aren't willing to work more get extra money for no reason doesn't make any sense. Your numbers aren't talking sense, therefore they aren't to be trusted. What we need here is some solid common sense math, math that shows how america is the best country in the world due to our affordable everyday beefburgers like you get a fine job-creating McDonalds. The kind of success story of hard work and ingenuity that you want to destroy with your big government and over regulation.
The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.
Breotan wrote: The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.
yeah, exactly...
Not to mention the total disconnect between what he is saying and reality...
Because businesses being unable to absorb increased costs OBS means they suck at running a business...
These places have very small profit margins, generally after all expensis its a few %'s as total net profit, despite large amounts of gross profit.
But that wont stop all the people in this thread from hand waiving away increased expensis, and blaming business owners for not being able to magically absorb them with no ill effects.
Just more of the "bad evil businesses could pay more, they just wont, because they are evil and stuff" paradigm instead of accepting the actual facts of the matter.
With the fact of the matter being, increased labour costs, HAVE to be offset by something else, either rising prices, cutting staff, or cutting somthing else. Cutting profits to the point where the business isnt worth it for the owner, seems to be the only option in some peoples books.
If you're really doing this you need (to keep this simple)
revenues
-cost of inventory to door
-power
-labor
-rents
-interests
-non income taxes, fees, and assessments
-franchise fees
-insurance
-marketing
-shrinkage
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.
Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.
These are numbers provided by McDonalds. If McDonalds provides the data that says "we pay this much for non-management wages per store" then it's not hard to so the math and figure out what that number would be for a higher minimum wage.
Numbers? You can't trust numbers unless they're talking sense. Forcing businesses to close so that people who aren't willing to work more get extra money for no reason doesn't make any sense. Your numbers aren't talking sense, therefore they aren't to be trusted. What we need here is some solid common sense math, math that shows how america is the best country in the world due to our affordable everyday beefburgers like you get a fine job-creating McDonalds. The kind of success story of hard work and ingenuity that you want to destroy with your big government and over regulation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.
I thought that rhetoric went out the window with the fact that a majority of their employees are adults
These are contracts with AFFES. Not out in the public domain but on Federal military installations. They can not, by their decision, renew the contracts but they cannot break contracts. I'm neither for it not against them. Just another tool in the Armed Forces battle with Height and Weight Compliance As in no junk food option
Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.
So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.
That is the crux of the problem... we have people working minimum wage jobs, because that is all they can get for whatever reason, and they want more then minimum pay.
its the minimum for a reason, IE its skilless/educationless work.
If these people actually had more then minimum skills, they could find jobs that paid more then min wage.
SImply raising the min wage, without raising the min skillset, is not sustainable, nor benificial for society as a whole.
Instead of guaranteeing people a "living" wage no matter what skilless work they do, people should be guaranteed training in usefull skills before they leave the public education system.
The simple fact that you can graduate high school, and never have had an opportunity to learn an employable skill, is the real problem, not that people are not getting paid enough for not being skilled enough.
Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.
So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.
That is the crux of the problem... we have people working minimum wage jobs, because that is all they can get for whatever reason,
Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.
Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.
Quite a few of the adults I've seen working these kinds of job could be placed squarely in the "I made poor life choices" category. And by that, I mean some of these folks are probably the same age as me, but look 40 due to being on Meth or other hard drugs.
There are also quite a few that are there due to arriving in the US fairly recently (whether it was legally or illegally is fairly irrelevant here).
And I'd think that the final "category" of people in these jobs are the ones who idolize "The Dude" and are as much of slackers as they can possibly be
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, there are certainly more people out there who dont fit one of those three categories, but those kinda seem to be the big 3.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And I'd think that the final "category" of people in these jobs are the ones who idolize "The Dude" and are as much of slackers as they can possibly be
If you dont know who guy on the couch is, google it and watch half baked... your welcome.
OT, yeah, the top 3 "whatever reason" for people past colledge age for working min wage jobs is generally poor life choices, recent immigrant, or slackers... not to say there isnt the occasional person who is grossly overqualified for that position who is forced to work there.
But that isnt a min wage problem, thats a lack of "career" level jobs problem.
People really cannot argue that most older people who work at min wage are there despite their good choices and high levels of skill.
for instance, a handicapped friend of mine used to get paid 4$/hr to fold napkins and do table set ups, that was the most the employer could pay him, and he was happy to work for it. Min wage was increased, making it illegal to pay him 4/hr, and his employer couldnt afford to keep him at the higher rate. ended up being a lose lose for them both.
Yeah, unless tips were shared that sounds incredibly exploitative.
People really cannot argue that most older people who work at min wage are there despite their good choices and high levels of skill.
And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.
And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.
This all so absurd. You're making it sound like people are entitled to food and housing.
And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.
it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.
And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.
This all so absurd. You're making it sound like people are entitled to BE food and housing.
it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.
What is the intent of a minimum wage if not to force employers to provide for a basic standard of living?
The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.
The intent of a LIVING wage, would be to have a living wage.
There are minimum wage jobs, and living wage jobs.
Trying to turn the former into the later, simply by raising the per hour rate, while not changing the work to something worth the later, is a fantasy born by a total lack of understanding about how these things actually work.
Minimum wage work earns minimum wage pay, as it should.
People who actually perform living wage work, earn living wages.
skyth wrote: Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
That's just so wrong its not even funny.
"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."
That penalizes success, which is just wrong.
If theres that much profit maybe they should be sharing that with the people who worked hard to make that profit?
Automatically Appended Next Post: The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.
The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.
The intent of a LIVING wage, would be to have a living wage.
That's nonsense. Minimum wage laws exist in order to ensure that workers are paid enough to live, absent that they serve no purpose at all as there no reason to set a floor on wages for the sake of setting a floor on wages.
skyth wrote: Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.
Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)
That's just so wrong its not even funny.
"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."
That penalizes success, which is just wrong.
If theres that much profit maybe they should be sharing that with the people who worked hard to make that profit?
Depends on how you view what the root cause of that profit is.
All the parts of the machine are necessary for it to function, but they don't all determine what the success of it is.
The grunts working on the assembly line at Ford are not the root cause of Ford's profitability. They do not design a successful vehicle, they do not make the business decision to target a specific market, they do not arrange the cost management to ensure a profit is made. They get told to do X, Y, and Z to make the car. And they will do it successfully, but ultimately it will not effect how well the car sells or even if its a good design(the things that really determine if a car sells)
The only real effect they have is on the proper assembly of the vehicle.
The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.
The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.
Ehhh?
Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.
The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.
Ehhh?
Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.
Yeah, hard labor tends to pay pretty well. Some of it pays very very well.
The idea is if a 'high schooler' is making a living wage which an adult needs to live, then the government confiscates a large portion of that money back at tax time to functionally give the high schooler dependent a functionally smaller income than an adult earning a living wage.
So there is (supposed to be) no reason to pay the children or dependents less wage because it is handled via deductions, AMT and other tax code equalizers.
Now is that effective? no clue... but it really isn't a 14 year old saying 'schweeeeet! 12.75$ an hour! more comics and bubblegum!' because they probably lose 30% of that to taxes where a working poor could have almost none taken out at taxes.
The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.
Ehhh?
Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.
Yeah, hard labor tends to pay pretty well. Some of it pays very very well.
yeah... hard labour pays a living wage in almost all cases... minimum wage is generally just for jobs where any warm body, not even a fit one, will do.
Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.
I worked for minimum wage unloading trucks at a book processing warehouse, so did several of my friends. And I know plenty of guys that work in warehouses doing the same work, for the same pay.
That guy? Pffff! When presidents have ideas that aren't rubbish, people like them and elect them twice. He got elected a total number of times other than two. Clearly not being elected twice shows that his ideas were rubbish and nobody liked them.
Now is that effective? no clue... but it really isn't a 14 year old saying 'schweeeeet! 12.75$ an hour! more comics and bubblegum!' because they probably lose 30% of that to taxes where a working poor could have almost none taken out at taxes.
The Fair Labor Standards Act is a factor as well, especially given state distinctions regarding whether or not a work permit is required.
Please, tell me more about what he actually meant.
I wont argue that is what HIS intent WAS.
Because its totally irrelevant to what OUR intent is NOW.
If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.
If a living wage is 12$/hr, go for it, but some jobs will still only generate 8$/hr worth of pay, and those jobs shouldnt dissapear just beacause the amount they are able to generate wont sustain the pay of the person working them.
Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.
I worked for minimum wage unloading trucks at a book processing warehouse, so did several of my friends. And I know plenty of guys that work in warehouses doing the same work, for the same pay.
FedEx and UPS are the exceptions, not the rule.
Huh. Must just be the trucking industry. I know when the fedex I worked at as my 2nd job when I was laid off closed, the other trucking companies in Cincy were super excited to hire folks that were laid off from fedex for as much (and more in some instances) as they were making at FedEx.
The grunts working on the assembly line at Ford are not the root cause of Ford's profitability. They do not design a successful vehicle, they do not make the business decision to target a specific market, they do not arrange the cost management to ensure a profit is made. They get told to do X, Y, and Z to make the car. And they will do it successfully, but ultimately it will not effect how well the car sells or even if its a good design(the things that really determine if a car sells)
Actually "fit and finish", the things line workers directly affect, are fairly significant factors in how well a car sells.
More broadly, how well you treat your workers will certainly affect the quality, and therefore sales, of your product.
Grey Templar wrote:This has zip to do with the Constitution, a totally different ball of wax.
I'm arguing the principle that sometimes it's OK to try and changing the meaning of a framer of a law to adapt to our modern times, but other times it's a sacrosanct idea that is immutable.
easysauce wrote:If the arguement was for actual needs like "food, water, shelter" then our minimum wage is already a living wage.
but its not, you are argueing for a "living in comfort" wage that goes well beyond basic needs and into the zone of how many luxuries it allows for.
I haven't argued that at all in this thread. You're displacing. Feel free to hit "filter by user" to see. Mostly I'm just poking holes in other people's arguments.
That being said, I would argue that the minimum wage in most venues doesn't even allow the "food, water, shelter" you believe it should proscribe; in that additional government support is needed to fill that wage gap. It's corporate welfare, privatized profits and socialized costs.
You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.
And what criteria would you use that could extend across the full scope of jobs?
Don't know. Hence why the idea of having a living wage is silly. It would be impossible to implement because we can't just have a blanket definition of Living wage due to different costs of living, plus the inherent fact that not all jobs are worth what we might consider a living wage even if we managed to define it.
If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.
Why legislatively establish a "living wage" if employers are not forced to comply?
many reasons,
some of which are:
People can apply for only jobs that pay "living" wages if that is the wage they desire,
there can be criterea set for what skill level constitues the "minimum" level, and what makes for a "living" level. This is largly based on opinion, but can be broken down to somthing like "if an employee earns their employer 10$ an hour of net profit, the minimum they can be paid is 8$/hr"
There is the added social pressures for jobs to pay living wages, as well as the attraction for more talented workers, fringe benifits such as "eat at XXXX because we pay our workers a living wage, dont eat at YYYY because they dont".
This is also needed to not unemploy everyone who is at minimum work/wage jobs whos jobs would become unsustainable if the employer was forced to pay their employees more $ then they make for the company.
So this living wage. Is it just the man or woman making it? Both? Is living wage based of cost of living? Some area being much higher then other areas. I paid for college to become a certified SurgTech starting at $15 an hour and specialized in Ortho for $23 an hour. A McD worker can eventually make more then my specialization? A Manager at McD for a living wage can make as much as a Certified Register Nurse? If Living Wage becomes a minimum wage then why would one spend money to become specialized in a chosen field to improve their life?
People can apply for only jobs that pay "living" wages if that is the wage they desire,
So you want the state to regulate all wages? Right.
I'll be honest, it sounds like you want to punish the poor.
Nice straw manning, making up total BS, and putting words in my mouth... there being a state definition of how much a living wage actually is, is not regulating all wages, not by a long shot. Its just putting a # to what constitutes a living wage, it forces no one to actually pay that.
You saying I just want to punish the poor is just a farce at best, and an insult at worst.
But do keep arguing on how we can afford to pay people 12$/hr for work that generates less then 12$/hr.... I do so love to see mental gymnastics
You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.
And what criteria would you use that could extend across the full scope of jobs?
Personally, IF there was something like this, the criteria would be based solely on the needs of the worker, not the position. Have a semi-blind job app process, wherein an interviewer cannot see the age/housing status/marital status, etc. of the applicant. However, if the applicant is under 18 (so therefore reasonably assumed still living in a parents' household) then they get the "minimum wage" offering first, with some grey area for the college ages, then above 24-25 (or about the time most people should be out of the parents' house and out of college if they went that route) they qualify for the "living wage"
Honestly, having the semi-blind application process would be the only way to do it, otherwise most businesses would be hammered with hiring discrimination lawsuits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: So this living wage. Is it just the man or woman making it? Both? Is living wage based of cost of living? Some area being much higher then other areas. I paid for college to become a certified SurgTech starting at $15 an hour and specialized in Ortho for $23 an hour. A McD worker can eventually make more then my specialization? A Manager at McD for a living wage can make as much as a Certified Register Nurse? If Living Wage becomes a minimum wage then why would one spend money to become specialized in a chosen field to improve their life?
All of what I said above, and I agree with Jihadin here. There's a very fine razors edge of paying people to be able to "live well" and creating a system where there's no incentive for self-improvement.
But do keep arguing on how we can afford to pay people 12$/hr for work that generates less then 12$/hr.... I do so love to see mental gymnastics
Well, and also paying people 12$ an hour regardless of the local cost of living and still ignoring that 12$ an hour is still not a living wage in some areas... So you have to assume that people have the 'right' to live in any location, even if they cannot afford it and should be subsidized past the minimum wage to live there opposed to be forced to relocate to a place where the national minimum wage is a living wage if it were 12$+ an hour.
The living wage discussion and the national minimum wage issues are two different discussions because a national minimum wage would be that of the base living age to live in the lowest income areas and would need to be adjusted upwards based on individual areas based upon state and local... And that assumes it can be done, give everyone enough money to live in whatever area they feel like and not have the economy break down, jobs simply blip out of existence or massive relocation of industry. And to prove a lot of it means putting a lot of people's existence at risk with no guarantee it will work out for them.
Who knows, this city may be a shining example of how it should work. I think the issue of 'living wage' is way more complicated than the national minimum wage discussion.
Don't need a flatscreen for the second one, just an internet connection.
Honestly, a "living" wage should be able to get you:
-A place with relatively light "bug" issues
-the ability to pay for utilities, food and other expenses (including car note and insurance)
-A reasonably reliable car, as in not something that spends more time in the shop than on the road, something that doesn't spew black smoke whenever it's running, etc.
It should generally be enough that people can keep the roof over their head, food on the table and clothes on the kids' backs, but not so much that people who are making that kind of money "want" to sit back and relax on it.
Disco lounge baby, disco lounge. I keep threatening that one day the Boy will return and his room will have disco ball, dance floor, and wet bar. He liked the wet bar part.
And why are we not taking 3 employees, who do the same job, make the same income, live in the same circumstances and have the same expenses... and one of them has no kids, one has 2 kids, and 4 have 4 kids... Why should they all make exactly the same if a 'living wage' should allow them to support their family and fund their kids?
And what if someone has a dual income house and someone else is a single income house... should the dual income house have their salaries cut in half?
This is the problem... there is no single 'minimum wage' which is a 'living wage' for all circumstances and all areas Cost of living.
The real answer is "smurf village" level of communism where everyone hands over a large portion of their income to the government who then doles out an allowance to individuals based upon personal circumstances. The tax code only works if you trust citizens to not be negligent monsters and actually take care of themselves and their offspring and prioritize money towards actual needs.
There is no way to have a single 'wage' which can be 'living' nationwide, fair to all involved, doesn't promote resentment or people checking out or going to a government 'allowance' system. And that assumes that whatever number is generated to be a 'living wage' for the entire nation, even high cost of living areas doesn't oppressively destroy the economy or business.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.
But they also need to know what staff is needed for their business, and if they're any good at all they'll have that number of staff as close to minimal as possible. If wages go up you don't just fire the cleaning staff... because you still need a clean store to remain in business. If you didn't need a clean that was that clean, then you wouldn't have hired so many cleaners in the first place, no matter what you were paying them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.
It doesn't matter what you think it is meant for. The basic economic reality is that most people on the minimum wage are trying to provide for themselves and likely a family as well.
And $10 is a livable wage, as long as you're willing to work a couple of jobs and accept a pretty crappy standard of living. So is $9, $8 or less, as long as you continue to accept an increasingly crappy standard of living.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.
It gives the profit figure. If you have that and the expense item that is is going to increase, then revenue and other expenses and all the rest are irrelevant. Ceterus parabus and all that.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.
But they also need to know what staff is needed for their business, and if they're any good at all they'll have that number of staff as close to minimal as possible. If wages go up you don't just fire the cleaning staff... because you still need a clean store to remain in business. If you didn't need a clean that was that clean, then you wouldn't have hired so many cleaners in the first place, no matter what you were paying them.
No, they actually will fire staff. They'll require the employees who remain to work harder, possibly for additional pay. They may even take a drop in efficiency. Instead of having 1 server wait on 10 tables an hour he'll settle for 6 if that server is also busing dishes and sweeping the floor and taking out the trash.
easysauce wrote: These places have very small profit margins, generally after all expensis its a few %'s as total net profit, despite large amounts of gross profit.
Where in the feth do you get this stuff? I mean seriously, do you actually believe you can just make gak up as you go, or have you been getting business lessons from the hobo living in the local park, or what? Where is this coming from, because holy fething hell it just has nothing to do with anything in the business world.
There is no possible way of generalising profit margins, either as a measure of total revenue, or net assets or whatever. Even just in the restaurant industry it will vary wildly from
Just more of the "bad evil businesses could pay more, they just wont, because they are evil and stuff" paradigm instead of accepting the actual facts of the matter.
You are the only person talking about evil businesses, as a lazy effort to dismiss other people's arguments. Its lame and you should stop it. People are making straight forward economic arguments, and you should either address those with economic arguments, or stop posting.
With the fact of the matter being, increased labour costs, HAVE to be offset by something else, either rising prices, cutting staff, or cutting somthing else. Cutting profits to the point where the business isnt worth it for the owner, seems to be the only option in some peoples books.
Absolute gibberish. You almost, almost managed to understand the most basic reality of this situation, which is that an increase in the price of labour will be offset by some combination of price increases, cut staff, and reduced profits, with the exact make up of each depending on market conditions. But then you went and added that bit that any cut to business profits must reduce profits to the point where the business is no longer worth it for the owner, and turned it in to gibberish.
This is the problem... there is no single 'minimum wage' which is a 'living wage' for all circumstances and all areas Cost of living.
There really is... If you look at the US military pay scale, and the additional money that military people get, they base it on the military's definitions of minimum living requirements/space for the service member... This is why my wife and I, who were dual military made the same amount of money in BAS (Basic allowance for Subsistance... aka, food). The military determined that I, as a single entity needed X amount of money for food per month, and that's what they gave me.
Honestly, a "Living Wage" should be based on a one person "unit". As such, a living wage for a family with one or more kids would be a lot tighter than the same amount of money for a single bachelor/bachelorette.
Frazzled wrote: So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.
Then that's a stupid point.
I mean, if we made welfare a billion dollars a second, and taxes 100% of everything earned, then everyone would just live on welfare but be taxed all of it and the whole system would collapse overnight. But to conclude that because an extreme increase would be a disaster then we must not consider a more moderate increase is very stupid.
That is, just because a $15 minimum wage is not viable, that doesn't mean a $10 minimum wage can't be considered.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: That is the crux of the problem... we have people working minimum wage jobs, because that is all they can get for whatever reason, and they want more then minimum pay.
its the minimum for a reason, IE its skilless/educationless work.
Actually it's the minimum because it is the minimum amount a company is legally allowed to pay. It passes no judgement on the skills of the individual.
In fact, there are jobs that pay above minimum wage despite requiring no skills (though these are often region specific) and some jobs that pay minimum wage despite requiring some level of skills (in fact internships are exempted from minimum wage laws despite requiring pretty high level skillsets from interns).
If these people actually had more then minimum skills, they could find jobs that paid more then min wage.
SImply raising the min wage, without raising the min skillset, is not sustainable, nor benificial for society as a whole.
As I've already explained to you several times, that's complete gibberish. Wages aren't based purely on skills and abilities. The economy is driven by productivity, which is increased through a combination of greater and improved capital, greater technology (including business efficiency) and worker skill level.
As long as you are driving up productivity then you can sustain growing wages, even when the skill levels of workers remain constant.
Easy E wrote: Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.
It really isn't. Even if every single kid had a microchip inserted in their head that made them make all the right choices through their teenage lives... well there simply won't be skilled jobs for them all when they qualify with perfect scores from their tertiary institution of choice.
The real issue is this weird idea that's crept in to society that anyone who isn't earning a high flying income is a total feth up that we should all shun. 50 years ago, did we refer to the people that served us dinner as losers who didn't deserve a living wage? It used to be that such scorn was reserved for people who didn't work at all, but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs, and that has flowed through to lots of people insisting that such people don't deserve at least a modest standard of living.
cincydooley wrote: I'm going to direct this question at some of you that are smarter than me:
Does increasing the minimum wage to, say, $15 devalue other jobs that require higher education?
Not just Higher education, but any job that requires skill. My friend is head bouncer of a club for 14$ an hour. Why should someone who flips burgers get more then him?
Grey Templar wrote: The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.
No, the varying rates of pay are driven pretty much entirely by the relative scarcity of different types of labour. Engineering and design training and talent is rarer, and so commands a higher wage than assembly talent.
No matter how clever the doctors in a hospital are, the hospital will do very badly if it isn't kept clean. But capable cleaners are a lot easier to come by than doctors, and so the cleaners get paid a lot less than the doctors.
but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs
Even weirder because a lot of people who live below the poverty line work 50-70 hours a week. Ignore that a consumer economy, being one that runs off consumption of goods, benefits from having more consumers and more ability to consume than it does from having richer millionaires.
Grey Templar wrote: The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.
No, the varying rates of pay are driven pretty much entirely by the relative scarcity of different types of labour. Engineering and design training and talent is rarer, and so commands a higher wage than assembly talent.
No matter how clever the doctors in a hospital are, the hospital will do very badly if it isn't kept clean. But capable cleaners are a lot easier to come by than doctors, and so the cleaners get paid a lot less than the doctors.
I agree.
I was responding to someone saying profits(rewards) should be distributed among the lower workers who supposedly made those profits exist.
I was showing that they are not responsible for the success of the company, they're largely just cogs in a machine who really could only contribute to its downfall and not its ultimate success.
Scarcity and grade of pay weren't relevant to that point.
but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs
Even weirder because a lot of people who live below the poverty line work 50-70 hours a week. Ignore that a consumer economy, being one that runs off consumption of goods, benefits from having more consumers and more ability to consume than it does from having richer millionaires.
I'd be interested to see some statistics that link up those 50-70 hour a week folks with single income homes with children. I'd bet there's a correlation there.
Probably is, but its not just them. I live in a pretty cheap area. Cost of living in Kansas is low compared to Virginia, and I know single guys and girls my age with no kids who have to work 55 to 60 hours and have a roommate to get by.
My expenses are low so I get by on about 45 hours (and I only have those extra 5 because I couldn't get a second job without taking them) but I don't drink, smoke, game much anymore, or eat expensive foods*.
I've been living off ham egg and cheese bagels for weeks @_@ On the bright side, I'm losing weight fast
easysauce wrote: If a living wage is 12$/hr, go for it, but some jobs will still only generate 8$/hr worth of pay, and those jobs shouldnt dissapear just beacause the amount they are able to generate wont sustain the pay of the person working them.
More economic gibberish. You can't single out one job and figure out how much that job in isolation added in economic value.
A hospital with excellent doctors and clean operating areas will generate many hundreds of millions of dollars in total revenue in a year. If that same hospital has no cleaners at all, it will generate nothing. But of course, that doesn't mean that the cleaning staff is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There is simply no way of valuing each individual input when they are all needed.
Instead, what you do is pay the least possible for each position, while still getting a good enough return. Cleaning is cheaper simply because of the supply of people able to be competent cleaners is very high. Doctors are expensive because relatively few people are skilled and talented enough to do the job.
At some point, basic market conditions will be such that the rate of pay determined by supply and demand will pay less than what's needed for a basic living. This doesn't mean they don't generate enough economic value for a decent living, it means the market can get away with paying less simply due to the relative supply and demand of that kind of labour.
LordofHats wrote: Probably is, but its not just them. I live in a pretty cheap area. Cost of living in Kansas is low compared to Virginia, and I know single guys and girls my age with no kids who have to work 55 to 60 hours and have a roommate to get by.
My expenses are low so I get by on about 45 hours (and I only have those extra 5 because I couldn't get a second job without taking them) but I don't drink, smoke, game much anymore, or eat expensive foods*.
I've been living off ham egg and cheese bagels for weeks @_@ On the bright side, I'm losing weight fast
I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.
If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.
easysauce wrote: If a living wage is 12$/hr, go for it, but some jobs will still only generate 8$/hr worth of pay, and those jobs shouldnt dissapear just beacause the amount they are able to generate wont sustain the pay of the person working them.
More economic gibberish. You can't single out one job and figure out how much that job in isolation added in economic value.
No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.
That you fail to grasp such a simple concept, that one must generate more then one earns in order to have a sustainable job, is a bit sad.
You may as well claim that someone can grow one ton of food, and consume two tons, perpetually every year.
Your claim that someone generating 8 $ an hour can earn 12$ an hour sustainably is what is gibberish.
Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.
easysauce wrote: The fundamental human rights do not include "show up and get a house, clothes, food, tv, a car, the net, ect ect ect"
If the arguement was for actual needs like "food, water, shelter" then our minimum wage is already a living wage.
Which is a really great argument as long as we consider that other people's lives should be helped up to but only as far as the absolute minimum needed to remove our guilt. Which is, simply put, a totally fethed way of looking at the world.
Instead the only real question on this is how far we can push minimum wage up before the cost in jobs is too high relative to the increase in living standard.
I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.
If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.
Probably some mix of student loans, car payments (I don't have any and that would probably send me over the edge of needing to work more, a lot more), continuing education, having a life*.
*I purposely choose not to have one. That way I'm immortal!
I'm lucky. I went to school on the VA's dime which left me with no debt coming out of school and my car was bought in full between me and my parents a few years ago.
cincydooley wrote: I'm going to direct this question at some of you that are smarter than me:
Does increasing the minimum wage to, say, $15 devalue other jobs that require higher education?
Maybe a little bit. Thing is, people chase higher education for all sorts of reasons, only one of which is pay (job as identity, more interesting work, career growth over time etc). Pay is only one factor, and where it is the person with a higher education should expect to earn a hell of a lot more than $15 (and if he doesn't, he should have a reasonable expectation that his pay will increase considerably in the next few years as he gains experience, or he should be very active in the job market).
The greater impact would likely be, as hotsauceman say, on semi-skilled jobs. But then you'd expect those jobs to continue to pay a modest premium above minimum wage just to draw people to them (otherwise people wouldn't take the responsibility/harder work). So a job paying $3 over the old minimum would probably maintain most of that, and continue to pay something like $3 over the new minimum.
The major impact of such a high minimum wage though, will be on the number of jobs that are lost. Jobs that would have existed at $10 or $11 an hour will no longer exist at $15 an hour. The CBO did a recent study on the issue that whembly posted on this forum, and that found, iirc, that just under $10 an hour would have a fairly negligible impact on jobs, while iirc $12 an hour would lead to a million odd lost jobs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: No, they actually will fire staff. They'll require the employees who remain to work harder, possibly for additional pay. They may even take a drop in efficiency. Instead of having 1 server wait on 10 tables an hour he'll settle for 6 if that server is also busing dishes and sweeping the floor and taking out the trash.
Yeah, that argument gets mentioned a lot. It is true on the margins (that is some % of businesses will reduce staff by some %) for any increase in wages, and that's true whether it's wages driven up by economic conditions or government intervention. But to argue it as an absolute that will mean the overall impact of a raise in minimum wage will always be negative is what I'm responding to here.
Nice straw manning, making up total BS, and putting words in my mouth... there being a state definition of how much a living wage actually is, is not regulating all wages, not by a long shot. Its just putting a # to what constitutes a living wage, it forces no one to actually pay that.
You never indicated that the concept of a "living wage" would be limited to a state definition, something you should have done if you were differentiating a living wage from a minimum wage; given that minimum wage laws carry legal force.
You saying I just want to punish the poor is just a farce at best, and an insult at worst.
You straight up say that the minimum wage should be below the living wage and you're surprised someone is arguing that you seem to want to punish the poor?
easysauce wrote: No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.
Once again, very few jobs have an identifiable direct economic benefit to the company. Instead, most jobs are part of an overall effort to produce one collective result. Indeed, that's why we have companies - to produce an overall collective result from thousands and possibly millions of inputs.
Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.
Actually, that'd be management accounting. And it's a process with a great deal of limitations, and very little purpose outside of very specific industries and processes.
ie if you did it for the lecturing staff teaching small population classes then you'd be doing exactly what I was doing this time yesterday. But if you tried to do it for program managers, unit directors, front reception staff, finance, student officers, exec or well, about 50% of the staff of the organisation you'd be laughed at for being an idiot.
Easy E wrote: Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.
It really isn't. Even if every single kid had a microchip inserted in their head that made them make all the right choices through their teenage lives... well there simply won't be skilled jobs for them all when they qualify with perfect scores from their tertiary institution of choice.
The real issue is this weird idea that's crept in to society that anyone who isn't earning a high flying income is a total feth up that we should all shun. 50 years ago, did we refer to the people that served us dinner as losers who didn't deserve a living wage? It used to be that such scorn was reserved for people who didn't work at all, but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs, and that has flowed through to lots of people insisting that such people don't deserve at least a modest standard of living.
True.
My point was not everyone on minimum wage is a loser who made poor choices. I proposed it as a question like that to try and actually get people to think about the problem so they might lead themselves to an answer instead of just living in their own echo chamber.
However, you nailed it. Our economy has a structural problem with job creation that is only going to get worse due to automation and globalization. If you couple that with a moral assumption that people who work less skilled jobs are losers and idiots you can see the landscape for a very, very challenging future ahead.
Frazzled wrote: So? That wasn't its purpose. If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.
Then that's a stupid point.
I mean, if we made welfare a billion dollars a second, and taxes 100% of everything earned, then everyone would just live on welfare but be taxed all of it and the whole system would collapse overnight. But to conclude that because an extreme increase would be a disaster then we must not consider a more moderate increase is very stupid. .
Just because you don't like math doesn't make it stupid. If you can't win the argument go for insults. EDIT: And why the hostility here? This is a fundamental economic argument that goes on daily, globally. No reason for the hostility..DORK!
Its all about the numbers. Cry blah blah all you want, but the numbers are the only thing that matters. Less people will be employed. If you think thats ok, cool, but its a value judgement. You're ok with more unemployed people.
I'm not necessarily against a minimum wage, but substantial jumps WILL lead to unemployment. Its math. And the argument that everyone is working for megacorp is disingenuous:
1. If so, Megacorp will re-adjust its technology/methodology to the new cost structure. You will pay more or there will be fewer employees. 2. If not, all the little businesses will have to absorb that cost, making them more exposed to the Walmarts of the world.
I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.
If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.
Probably some mix of student loans, car payments (I don't have any and that would probably send me over the edge of needing to work more, a lot more), continuing education, having a life*.
I'm lucky. I went to school on the VA's dime which left me with no debt coming out of school and my car was bought in full between me and my parents a few years ago.
Im getting 9000$ a semester from my college for all my expenses.
easysauce wrote: No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.
Once again, very few jobs have an identifiable direct economic benefit to the company. Instead, most jobs are part of an overall effort to produce one collective result. Indeed, that's why we have companies - to produce an overall collective result from thousands and possibly millions of inputs.
Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.
Actually, that'd be management accounting. And it's a process with a great deal of limitations, and very little purpose outside of very specific industries and processes.
ie if you did it for the lecturing staff teaching small population classes then you'd be doing exactly what I was doing this time yesterday. But if you tried to do it for program managers, unit directors, front reception staff, finance, student officers, exec or well, about 50% of the staff of the organisation you'd be laughed at for being an idiot.
Sorry, no, you are just wrong, im sure you are used to professing things without being challenged, but you are talking out your butt on this one...
I have owned franchises, so has my GF, so have countless other peopl, and thats exactly what happens: You apply a formula for each worker, and using projected or recorded figures you determine how much you pay your janitor, cashier, pharmacists, managers and so on and so forth.
You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr, but that determining how much an employee generates is impossible, which is just a flat out lie or total ignorance on your part.
But please, do keep telling me that the actual processes that I have used while owning businesses, and everyone else who has owned a business and used those processes, are wrong/nonexistant/ect...
It speaks volumes to your lack of actual experience that you keep arguing that jon can grow one apple, but eat two each day, and that its impossible to determine how many apples he grows a day.
It is the vast minority of jobs that cannot be assesed for how much revenue they generate for the company, and not a single one of those jobs is frontline min wage workers.
You are also OK with firing one person at 8$/hr to pay 2 people 12$/hr instead of 8/hr... which is a judgment call, you are ok with it, thats fine.
Claiming its benificial economically, is wrong.
Now instead of 3 people making 24$/hr between them, we have two people making 24/hr between them, and one person who now is out of job, either homeless or on government programs now, and an employer who has 2 people instead of three, and two employees who now have to make up the extra work.
not only that, you have also caused inflation to the general populace.
so net detriments are greater then net gains, again, simple math.
Your ideas that people can earn more then they generate, and that its ok to fire peter to pay paul and jon more $, is what people will laugh at.
But please, do tell me how many franchises or businesses you have owned, and how many millions/billions of dollars of corporate assets you deal with on a regular basis.
Because if its not more then 2, and 2 billion, maybe give your head a shake before you argue out your butt and make wild claims about it being economically viable to pay people more then they earn, and rob peter to pay paul.
I have owned franchises, so has my GF, so have countless other peopl, and thats exactly what happens: You apply a formula for each worker, and using projected or recorded figures you determine how much you pay your janitor, cashier, pharmacists, managers and so on and so forth.
What projected, or recorded, figures would you use to determine the pay of a janitor? Or a cashier? Or a pharmacist? Or a manager?
I also find it interesting that you said you owned franchises, a statement which implies that you no longer do. Do you presently own a franchise, or a business?
Now instead of 3 people making 24$/hr between them, we have two people making 24/hr between them, and one person who now is out of job, either homeless or on government programs now, and an employer who has 2 people instead of three, and two employees who now have to make up the extra work.
Chances are that the 3 people making 8 USD per hour were already on government assistance. As such, the worst case scenario is that state assistance would be concentrated on a single, jobless person as opposed to 3 employed people; diminishing administrative costs.
whembly wrote: You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.
whembly wrote: You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.
So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?
whembly wrote: You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.
So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?
You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr, but that determining how much an employee generates is impossible, which is just a flat out lie or total ignorance on your part.
Back in my early college days I was the "maintenance person" at the McDonalds I worked at. I didn't have to cook food anymore, instead each day I mopped the entire store, cleaned baseboards, toilets, brick sidewalks, all the windows, helped off-load the trucks, did inventory, and other crap like that.
You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr
No he isn't. He's saying you can't tell whether the job generates $8/hr in the first place due to the synergistic effects of different types of employees. The sum is greater than the parts.
whembly wrote: You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.
So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?
Generally correct. However if the expense of the job is greater than the efficiency or value added you hire someone else and pay them $6 under the table.
Hiring someone at 12$ an hour for a job that makes 12$ an hour is LOSING money because of overhead costs and margins.
And not every position directly generates profit via banging out widgets or serving customers. Those profit-generating positions have to generate overhead to handle indirect costs which sometimes include other employees.
It is all a lot more complicated than you generated 12$, here is 12$!
You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr, but that determining how much an employee generates is impossible, which is just a flat out lie or total ignorance on your part.
Back in my early college days I was the "maintenance person" at the McDonalds I worked at. I didn't have to cook food anymore, instead each day I mopped the entire store, cleaned baseboards, toilets, brick sidewalks, all the windows, helped off-load the trucks, did inventory, and other crap like that.
How much money did I make the store?
You're effectively a cost center. You generate nothing except potentially avoided liability, and a better atmosphere. You're worth what he can get someone to do it for. If thats too much to be economically efficient, something else will occur.
d-usa wrote: So easysauce, since you are an astute businessman:
If you had the choice of making $200,000 or $300,000, would you ever choose to make $0?
You seem under the impression that its never economically viable to shut down. It definitely can be, if you've ever taken any business classes you would know that.
If my running costs get raised, especially in a business with very low profit margins like Fast Food, it is very likely it would be more profitable for me to shut down my business in one area and move to another more profitable area.
I pull out all the equity I have in my current business and use it to start a new one somewhere that will be better.
You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr, but that determining how much an employee generates is impossible, which is just a flat out lie or total ignorance on your part.
Back in my early college days I was the "maintenance person" at the McDonalds I worked at. I didn't have to cook food anymore, instead each day I mopped the entire store, cleaned baseboards, toilets, brick sidewalks, all the windows, helped off-load the trucks, did inventory, and other crap like that.
How much money did I make the store?
There are mathematical formulas which can peg an economic value on any position if you know the variables. Largely taking in the opportunity costs associated with the service, and possibly any fines if you don't do it(like getting fined or shut down by the board of health for having a filthy establishment)
I don't know what the formula would be for your example, but McDonalds knows. And that is what they determined the offered salary for that position from.
And if any particular individual won't personally work that job for that salary then someone else will.
d-usa wrote: So easysauce, since you are an astute businessman:
If you had the choice of making $200,000 or $300,000, would you ever choose to make $0?
You seem under the impression that its never economically viable to shut down. It definitely can be, if you've ever taken any business classes you would know that.
If my running costs get raised, especially in a business with very low profit margins like Fast Food, it is very likely it would be more profitable for me to shut down my business in one area and move to another more profitable area.
I pull out all the equity I have in my current business and use it to start a new one somewhere that will be better.
Or, perhaps he went into the business venture with certain goals in mind, made those goals and sold a running/working business to someone who didn't want to have a fresh start? This sort of thing happens a lot as well.
If my running costs get raised, especially in a business with very low profit margins like Fast Food, it is very likely it would be more profitable for me to shut down my business in one area and move to another more profitable area.
Then why would you invest in a fast food business in the first place?
I mean, you have capital, so why place it in an industry with historically low profit margins?
There are mathematical formulas which can peg an economic value on any position if you know the variables.
Such as?
Variables like substitutes for the position, any fine or complications which can result from not doing it, the cost of paying other employees to do it instead, etc...
They're complicated. And without knowing all the specifics I can't even begin to say what the formula might be.
Ultimately, it would be a cost-benefit analysis using opportunity costs associated with NOT having the jab in question. IE: how much would it cost to not have that position which doesn't directly bring in money.
How many customers would I lose per day if my restaurant isn't cleaned regularly(average lost revenue), What fines might I incur by not following safety regulations to the fullest, what would the cost be to outsource the job instead of having my own employee to do it.
The basic structure would then be a simple addition to figure out the "lost revenue". That then becomes the "revenue" that having that employee will earn you, by not having to pay fines or lose customers for having a dirty establishment. That gives you a figure to work from to develop a salary, you can also reduce the salary depending on how easy it would be to fill the position.
"I would lose 5 customers a day if my restaurant is at a sub-par level of cleanliness at an average of $5 per customer and I might be fined by the board of health($1000 a month). That's roughly $58 a day.
So I'll hire someone to keep my restaurant clean. I'll pay them $7 an hour for them to come in at the end of each day and clean for 4 hours.
Boom, I'm effectively making $30 a day from my cleaning guy.
I was responding to someone saying profits(rewards) should be distributed among the lower workers who supposedly made those profits exist.
My mistake, I read your answer as a complete statement instead of simply as a response.
I was showing that they are not responsible for the success of the company, they're largely just cogs in a machine who really could only contribute to its downfall and not its ultimate success.
I'd argue everyone in the company is just a cog in the machine, CEO included.
My point was not everyone on minimum wage is a loser who made poor choices. I proposed it as a question like that to try and actually get people to think about the problem so they might lead themselves to an answer instead of just living in their own echo chamber.
However, you nailed it. Our economy has a structural problem with job creation that is only going to get worse due to automation and globalization. If you couple that with a moral assumption that people who work less skilled jobs are losers and idiots you can see the landscape for a very, very challenging future ahead.
I agree it's going to get worse. Though I'd argue the problem is not with robots and automation (which ultimately is just a means of producing more with less labour), but with how an economy built around work=pay deals with the reality that we are rapidly needing less and less of our working age population to produce goods.
The issue is how our culture deals with a new economic reality.
Frazzled wrote: Just because you don't like math doesn't make it stupid. If you can't win the argument go for insults. EDIT: And why the hostility here? This is a fundamental economic argument that goes on daily, globally. No reason for the hostility..DORK!
The hostility is there because we've had this debate on dakka about a dozen times now, and the same bs gets repeated every time. And when the arguments are stupid enough that they cause an eyeroll the first time around, by the 12th thread they get more than a little annoying.
Its all about the numbers. Cry blah blah all you want, but the numbers are the only thing that matters.
Less people will be employed. If you think thats ok, cool, but its a value judgement. You're ok with more unemployed people.
Well. fething. Duh.
The issue, as I've already explained in this thread and every other thread, is the balance between improving the lives of people in minimum wage jobs, against the cost of those who lose their minimum wage jobs. ie if raising the minimum wage by $1 would cost just 100,000 jobs across the country, then the juice is worth the squeeze. If it would cost 3,000,000 jobs, then it probably wouldn't be. And the way to determine that is with the best estimates made by experts, followed with a judgement call about how much of an increase the cost in jobs is worth.
Frazzled wrote: Just because you don't like math doesn't make it stupid. If you can't win the argument go for insults. EDIT: And why the hostility here? This is a fundamental economic argument that goes on daily, globally. No reason for the hostility..DORK!
The hostility is there because we've had this debate on dakka about a dozen times now, and the same bs gets repeated every time. And when the arguments are stupid enough that they cause an eyeroll the first time around, by the 12th thread they get more than a little annoying.
easysauce wrote: Sorry, no, you are just wrong, im sure you are used to professing things without being challenged, but you are talking out your butt on this one...
Actually, I'm quite used to explaining basic things to people over and over again. It's pretty much what I do on dakka.
I have owned franchises, so has my GF, so have countless other peopl, and thats exactly what happens: You apply a formula for each worker, and using projected or recorded figures you determine how much you pay your janitor, cashier, pharmacists, managers and so on and so forth.
Mwahaha! Yeah, so please explain the formula you use to determine the units produced by the janitor and the economic value of each of those units. I mean, seriously, because all this time I've been working in a profession where we thought you could only do activity based costing for jobs with identifiable quantities produced and value for each quantity. You could revolutionise my profession. You could be our Newton.
But please, do keep telling me that the actual processes that I have used while owning businesses,
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
It speaks volumes to your lack of actual experience that you keep arguing that jon can grow one apple, but eat two each day, and that its impossible to determine how many apples he grows a day.
Umm, yeah, if it's apple trees then you can track the units produced and the value of each unit produces. That's easy - a guy picks 50 apples and they're worth 50c each, the guy produces $25 (less overheads costs). But what's the value of the guy who maintains the watering system for 5,000 trees? Please tell me with your awesome formula that you totally have how you can meaningfully assess the difference between a well maintained and a perfectly maintained watering system, in both water lost and extra production, and then tell me how you assess exactly where your maintenance guy sits on that process.
It is the vast minority of jobs that cannot be assessed for how much revenue they generate for the company
Yeah, that's completely false. The only jobs where you can directly track value adding is where there's an immediately produced quantity for which they alone are responsible, when that quantity can be assessed for its value. Which is actually very jobs. Manufacturing and sales you can do it, and lots of frontline service delivery. Even all of those can get screwy when you start getting clever with overheads, but in the companies where it best applies its never anywhere near half the workforce, and those companies are only a fraction of all companies.
and not a single one of those jobs is frontline min wage workers.
The guy who takes the order at McDonalds? His productivity is dependant on customers entering the store. The guy who makes the burgers, again dependent on customers coming through the door. Track their production and all you've actually produced is a list of how many people came in the store that day. And that's one basic example, when you claimed no minimum wage jobs fit the criteria. Seriously, you have no fething clue what you're talking about.
You are also OK with firing one person at 8$/hr to pay 2 people 12$/hr instead of 8/hr... which is a judgment call, you are ok with it, thats fine.
Claiming its benificial economically, is wrong.
As I've said a few times now, it depends on the size of the increase compared to the number of jobs lost.
But please, do tell me how many franchises or businesses you have owned, and how many millions/billions of dollars of corporate assets you deal with on a regular basis.
90 million right now. My last job was 600 million, though I was one of a team of 3 there.
But claiming that meant anything would just be internet dick swinging, and as pointless as your 'I own franchises' silliness. Baseless claims of expertise are a waste of electrons, because no-one gives a gak. What actually matters is the quality of the argument you can put. How informed your posts are. And simply put, on this subject you post complete and utter nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Then maybe you should quit posting on the topic.
Or people could learn from past threads, and develop more sensible opinions on the subject.
I wonder which of our two options will happen first?
Grey Templar wrote: Ultimately, it would be a cost-benefit analysis using opportunity costs associated with NOT having the jab in question. IE: how much would it cost to not have that position which doesn't directly bring in money.
And that analysis would be so hopelessly mired in assumptions and guesswork that it would end up saying nothing about reality and only about the guesses made in the model. At which point you're just better going on an actual guess than building an elaborate model based guess. I mean, the examples you gave where you tried to cost the decrease in clients as a result of some amount of untidiness is farcical. It can't be done. It would just be people making up numbers.
Which is why that example you give is far removed from any real world ABC. Well, there was kind of a period of chronic over-reach in the 90s where people got really imaginative with their costings, but I wasn't in the job at the time so I've only heard about from other people. But the examples they give, that get people laughing, are nothing like as fanciful as estimating the number of reduced customers you'd expect from a store being some measure of less clean.
Grey Templar wrote: Ultimately, it would be a cost-benefit analysis using opportunity costs associated with NOT having the jab in question. IE: how much would it cost to not have that position which doesn't directly bring in money.
And that analysis would be so hopelessly mired in assumptions and guesswork that it would end up saying nothing about reality and only about the guesses made in the model. At which point you're just better going on an actual guess than building an elaborate model based guess. I mean, the examples you gave where you tried to cost the decrease in clients as a result of some amount of untidiness is farcical. It can't be done. It would just be people making up numbers.
Which is why that example you give is far removed from any real world ABC. Well, there was kind of a period of chronic over-reach in the 90s where people got really imaginative with their costings, but I wasn't in the job at the time so I've only heard about from other people. But the examples they give, that get people laughing, are nothing like as fanciful as estimating the number of reduced customers you'd expect from a store being some measure of less clean.
Weather you believe it or not, it is possible to estimate how many people will not walk through your doors and make a purchase if you don't keep the store clean.
Yes its an estimate, but its a good one. Things get done based on guesswork and assumptions all the freaking time, at least in this case they are very solid guesses.
Like I said, it was only an example. I don't know the specifics of how a job like that gets it wage determined, I'm only partway through getting my business degree. But I do know that these formulas exist and the basic concept behind what goes into them.
Any part of business can have a value attached to it, you need to accept that. Its really why many businesses are successful. You can be assured that Walmart knows exactly what their janitors are worth to them per hour, they're not just paying them an arbitrary figure.
Any part of business can have a value attached to it, you need to accept that. Its really why many businesses are successful. You can be assured that Walmart knows exactly what their janitors are worth to them per hour, they're not just paying them an arbitrary figure.
They're paying them the absolute least they can, given legal restrictions and the janitor's leverage to command higher pay. Even assuming they've got some miraculous ability to peg the exact business value of a Janitor, that's isn't what they're going to pay. They're going to pay the figure closest to zero they possibly can, regardless of how that relates to the magic number.
No, they figure out his value and from that work out what his pay is, also including how little they can pay and still fill the position while also following any laws they have to figure. If that comes out to minimum wage or just a little above it that is what they pay him.
If he ends up being more, he gets paid more. Janitors aren't worth a whole lot as it turns out, largely because its not hard to fill the position. That depresses what he gets paid.
If it was very hard to get people to work as a janitor, they'd get paid more(up to the maximum the company figures they're worth)
Grey Templar wrote: No, they figure out his value and from that work out what his pay is, also including how little they can pay and still fill the position while also following any laws they have to figure. If that comes out to minimum wage or just a little above it that is what they pay him.
If he ends up being more, he gets paid more. Janitors aren't worth a whole lot as it turns out, largely because its not hard to fill the position. That depresses what he gets paid.
If it was very hard to get people to work as a janitor, they'd get paid more(up to the maximum the company figures they're worth)
Using this model, how oes it account for the difference in pay rates between men and women?
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
At least they're taking that risk... as such, if successful... the reward should be meaningful.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
Often because they aren't doing the math.
They might pay workers the right amount by the math(simply by copying successful businesses) but hire too many of them. They also tend to get killed in overhead.
Weather you believe it or not, it is possible to estimate how many people will not walk through your doors and make a purchase if you don't keep the store clean.
But you can't do it marginally, which is what you implied by backing easysauce's "formula" concept.
While it is possible to quantify cleanliness, the cost would be absurdly high; removing it from the realm of itemized formulas small businesses can use.
They might pay workers the right amount by the math(simply by copying successful businesses) but hire too many of them. They also tend to get killed in overhead.
Market research also is a failing.
So, stupidity. I mean, I could be polite, but that is the reality of the situation.
Frazzled wrote: Just because you don't like math doesn't make it stupid. If you can't win the argument go for insults. EDIT: And why the hostility here? This is a fundamental economic argument that goes on daily, globally. No reason for the hostility..DORK!
The hostility is there
I agree, and still is coming from you, so maybe take a break.
Being polite is not optional, seriously, you are just being insulting and aggressive at this point with a very "im right, your wrong" *repeat* attitude.
Despite your assertions that all the arguments/points you dont like are "BS", they are not.
You claim repeating simple stuff to people is not only your hobby on dakka, but most of your job.
However endlessly repeating your position does not make it correct or valid.
You already have an answer to "how do jobs that dont directly "produce" anything get factored in?" since it is econ 101, has been repeated in this thread.
If there is a job that doesnt directly generate income, its a cost of doing business. How necessary that role is to the business, the cost of turnover in workers, the scarcity of the skills, and other factors contribute to determining how much the hourly is.
No harder to calculate then your gas bill, despite you not being able to quantify how much gas benefits you, it still gets a price put on it. Qualitative factors are used to determine things as well, not just quantitative, so if you dont understand how things work and literally want a X+Y=Z formula for everything, you will be sorely disappointed as that is not how the world works.
Which is why you can have a new MC'ds janitor at min wage every few months, but a hospital janitor will usually make more and stay there for many years, despite both roles "producing" the same thing, namely a clean environment.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Sorry where does your deep knowledge of business come from again?
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
so the majority of small business owners are stupid, but brave? and generally lose all their money?
but at the same time are just raking in the dough, so they have no excuse for paying min wage?
Being polite is not optional, seriously, you are just being insulting and aggressive at this point with a very "im right, your wrong" *repeat* attitude.
A statement which is also hostile, and aggressive, and was followed by more hostile aggression.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing where that link says what you think it says.
The argument was the majority of small business owners are stupid, brave, and generally lose all their money. If 8 out 10 small businesses fail, then that would speak to at the least ignorance if not stupidity, and certainly lost capital if not bankruptcy. There's definitely a seed of truth in that observation, I think.
Although to be more accurate, the example was " the majority of small business owners Dogma has known..."
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing where that link says what you think it says.
The argument was the majority of small business owners are stupid, brave, and generally lose all their money. If 8 out 10 small businesses fail, then that would speak to at the least ignorance if not stupidity, and certainly lost capital if not bankruptcy. There's definitely a seed of truth in that observation, I think.
Although to be more accurate, the example was " the majority of small business owners Dogma has known..."
or maybe its not all solid gold ivory back scratches while diving in and swimming in a vault full of gold coins....
remember, these people who invest their money, with the odds being that they lose it all, are the ones being asked to take in less $ and pay out more $.
8/10 dont fail due to ignorance alone, they fail because its actually a huge risk, with lots of variables. compared to the guy who sweeps the floors and takes 0 risk, but has stable income.
If I made a claim, and I am not, that all min wage workers are just ignorant/stupid and thats why they fail, that would be met with the usual teeth gnashing and "you hate the poor" talk your side has been espousing.
yet you claiming that the entrepreneurs who are actually taking huge risks with their own capital, who actually provide jobs for people, are ignorant/stupid.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing where that link says what you think it says.
The argument was the majority of small business owners are stupid, brave, and generally lose all their money. If 8 out 10 small businesses fail, then that would speak to at the least ignorance if not stupidity, and certainly lost capital if not bankruptcy. There's definitely a seed of truth in that observation, I think.
Although to be more accurate, the example was " the majority of small business owners Dogma has known..."
You're drawing an inference without support. Sorry. Try harder.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
At least they're taking that risk... as such, if successful... the reward should be meaningful.
The reward is they are making money and working for themselves and the pride in their product and the satisfaction of employing people. What other reward do they need/deserve?
It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
At least they're taking that risk... as such, if successful... the reward should be meaningful.
The reward is they are making money and working for themselves and the pride in their product and the satisfaction of employing people. What other reward do they need/deserve?
You forgot nekkid chicks man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
d-usa wrote: It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
What we talking about now?
That entrepreneurs are the only people taking some huge risk and should be treated like some magical gentle butterflies, but that the hard truth is that they also hold a gakload of power over their employees who are taking a huge risk by working for said entrepreneurs.
I really love the thing where people say they own businesses, and then just assume they know all about business. Just all of... business. Every bit. Running a Wendy's or whatever franchise it is you bought somehow means that you gain a complete knowledge of activity based costing and where it can and can't be applied.
Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
At least they're taking that risk... as such, if successful... the reward should be meaningful.
The reward is they are making money and working for themselves and the pride in their product and the satisfaction of employing people. What other reward do they need/deserve?
You forgot nekkid chicks man.
That's a given. If it has to be explained, then there is NO HOPE!
d-usa wrote: It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
What we talking about now?
That entrepreneurs are the only people taking some huge risk and should be treated like some magical gentle butterflies, but that the hard truth is that they also hold a gakload of power over their employees who are taking a huge risk by working for said entrepreneurs.
Sure... I see some of that.
But when are you going to give credit to the entrepreneurs too?
It's not an either or situation. Both entrepreneurs and the laborers are in a symbiotic relationship.
d-usa wrote: It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
no its not a risk.. you dont lose money when fired, you just have to find a new one and I am pretty sure wrongful dismissal is still a thing you can go to court over.
comparing the "risk" of having to find another job, with the risk of losing millions, as well as having to find another job, is just silly, disingenuous, and ignorant of the weighting of one risk over another.
But I suppose if you dont count the service their business provides, and the jobs it creates, contributing, then you might say they dont contribute,
I however, consider providing jobs and services to be contributing.
Workers need owners to get the job, owners need workers to do the work. If everything goes south, the workers find another job, and the owner is likely bankrupt, in a huge amount of debt, and still has to find another job. The owner has taken more risk, hence gets more reward when that risk actually pays off, which is never a guarantee, and quite likely, wont happen.
The worker has risked nothing, you show up, you get paid, even when fired they must pay you for hours worked. If it all goes south, you just find another job. Which isnt hard, unless all the owners who provide jobs are being put out of business for some reason or the other.
d-usa wrote: It's also a huge risk to work for anybody in the US because they can fire you for no reason other than being in a bad mood because the seeds in their turd scratched their hemorrhoid on the way out.
When you open a business you rely on society, so don't act like you are being punished by society when asked to contribute.
no its not a risk.. you dont lose money when fired, you just have to find a new one
I am officially dumber for having read that reply. There is really no point in bothering to read or reply to anything else, but what the hell. Of course it shows that you have no clue about how crap in the USA actually works, but that's par for the course.
You do lose money when you get fired, that's mostly because you quit getting paid when you get fired. You also lose your insurance, if you were lucky enough to have insurance through your job to begin with.
Bu that same token you also don't lose any money when your business fails, just start another one or get another job.
and I am pretty sure wrongful dismissal is still a thing you can go to court over.
If you get fired for being a woman, or black, or....that's about it.
But anybody can fire you for any reason without any kind of notice. Butt itches? You are fired. Taint on fire? Fired. You are too hot and make my wife jealous? Fired.
And that's just if you want to feth them over. Every single one of these employees is also taking the exact same risk as the guy that opens a business. Tomorrow they might show up to locked doors without a job because the business failed.
comparing the "risk" of having to find another job, with the risk of losing millions, as well as having to find another job, is just silly, disingenuous, and ignorant of the weighting of one risk over another.
If a business fails the person failing is just as broke as the person that got fired because some asshat had a bad day. Not more, not less. Because the same person that complains about government regulations will also have used those regulations to make sure that the business is a separate legal entity.
Personally, any business owner that shows the same attitude as you "feth you, just get another job you are replaceable and I am not" deserves to fail. If your business fails, it doesn't contribute anything anyway.
But I suppose if you dont count the service their business provides, and the jobs it creates, contributing, then you might say they dont contribute,
*insert standard "how do you provide the service, who trains your employees, who makes sure that there is a transport network for your employees and services to get to places etc etc etc Government makes sure your business has the resources to exist to begin with" speech that will get right over people's head and hurt their "bro, do you even bootstrap" feelings*
I however, consider providing jobs and services to be contributing.
Are you providing jobs out of the goodness of your heart? Or are you forced to employ people because your business wouldn't even exist without them? Are you providing services out of the goodness of your heart? Or are you forcing people to pay you for them?
The people that pay you and the people that you pay are contributing just as much as you. They take the exact same risks as you. The myth of the entrepreneur as the sole risk-taker is false.
So you're arguing not being paid is losing money? Then the small business owner's risk is in geometric proportion to that. They risk not getting paid and losing everything they already have directly.
But thats a straw man side issue and is irrelevant to the value of minimum wage work vs. the salary. It was a good run though.
A person losing their job is also at risk of losing everything. A business owner whose business is shutting down shouldn't lose any more than a person who gets fired. He should still have his house, still have his car, still have his savings. He should have the same emergency funds available as the person getting fired. Because every single one of us is one day away from not having an income.
To pretend that as business owners they are the only people facing that risk if simply false. Losing everything is also a risk they willingly take, just as we have to take the risk that we could get fired for no reason tomorrow.
Nobody is forcing them to shut down. That's a stupid argument made by the "I don't want less profit" crowd, and it will have a much smaller impact on their profits than they are pretending.
But pretending that there shouldn't be a minimum wage increase because of some weird belief that they are the only people facing a risk? That's just silly.
In return, I'd want viable/practical policies to help retrain people. Two ideas:
1) Cheap... I mean cheap "shop" classes on effective/practical blue collar skills. (ie, get Union skilled labor involved, mechanic, civic jobs, basically the stuff you really don't need college).
2) Encourage Public School to expand "Shop" classes... more mechanics, more cooking skills, more fabrication stuff.
As the National Journal points out, men are likelier than women to consider themselves “much more intelligent” than Joe or Jane American. (This reminds me of attribution studies that reveal how men often ascribe their successes to skill and hard work, whereas women usually credit fate/the stars/fairy godmothers/anything but themselves.) White people prove likelier to tout their intellects than black and Hispanic people. The wealthy—those earning over $100,000 a year—far more frequently deem their fellow Americans unintelligent. For poor respondents (those earning under $40,000 a year), the opposite is true: They tend to perceive other citizens as wise.
But if you focus on who exactly feels so confident in their smarts, these results seem less like a punchline and more like the trap door into an entire unseen network of justifications for inequality. What does it mean when people of privilege—the white, male, and wealthy—disproportionally think they’ve aced the bell curve? I don’t want to read too much into one poll, but there is plenty of other research to back up the numbers. As psychologist Michael Kraus finds, those with higher social status more often hold “essentialist” ideas about class structure—they believe that one’s genes determine one’s place on the economic ladder. Disadvantaged people generally disagree: They tell researchers that social status drops down onto individuals like a net from the sky.
d-usa wrote: A person losing their job is also at risk of losing everything. A business owner whose business is shutting down shouldn't lose any more than a person who gets fired.
Your lack of knowledge in how small businesses are financed is terrifying.
You're arguing an opportunity cost. A small business person typically has put them selves deeply in debt and formed the business as a sole proprietorship which makes them completely liable for all debts of the business.
Its one thing to lose your job. Its another to lose your savings and house and THEN lose your "job."
d-usa wrote: A person losing their job is also at risk of losing everything. A business owner whose business is shutting down shouldn't lose any more than a person who gets fired.
Your lack of knowledge in how small businesses are financed is terrifying.
You're arguing an opportunity cost. A small business person typically has put them selves deeply in debt and formed the business as a sole proprietorship which makes them completely liable for all debts of the business.
Its one thing to lose your job. Its another to lose your savings and house and THEN lose your "job."
Tell all the victims of the recession who lost their homes and property that they "only" lost their job.
If you can't afford to have a business fail, then you can't afford to start a business.
Putting yourself up to your eyeballs in debt to start a business that fails 80% of the time isn't smart. It's also not the problem of the rest of the population.
The person starting a business should have enough savings to live 3-6 months after that business fails. The person working for anybody should have enough savings to live 3-6 months after he loses his job.
If neither of them do, then both of them are stupid.
In return, I'd want viable/practical policies to help retrain people. Two ideas:
1) Cheap... I mean cheap "shop" classes on effective/practical blue collar skills. (ie, get Union skilled labor involved, mechanic, civic jobs, basically the stuff you really don't need college).
2) Encourage Public School to expand "Shop" classes... more mechanics, more cooking skills, more fabrication stuff.
In return, I'd want viable/practical policies to help retrain people. Two ideas:
1) Cheap... I mean cheap "shop" classes on effective/practical blue collar skills. (ie, get Union skilled labor involved, mechanic, civic jobs, basically the stuff you really don't need college).
2) Encourage Public School to expand "Shop" classes... more mechanics, more cooking skills, more fabrication stuff.
easysauce wrote: no its not a risk.. you dont lose money when fired, you just have to find a new one and I am pretty sure wrongful dismissal is still a thing you can go to court over.
Maybe it works that way in Canada, but it very, very seldom works that way here. Our countries are very similar but they diverge sometimes in unexpected ways (like your free speech laws are much different than ours).
Most employment here is "at-will" - you can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason, The flipside is that you can also quit at any time. The only thing you can go to court for are either if you're a protected class, and were fired based upon discrimination against that class, or if you have an employment contract, of which the terms were violated. Even if you go to court, it's an uphill battle and the best reward you can get is generally, if anything, the job you got fired from back.
d-usa wrote: Putting yourself up to your eyeballs in debt to start a business that fails 80% of the time isn't smart. It's also not the problem of the rest of the population.
The person starting a business should have enough savings to live 3-6 months after that business fails. The person working for anybody should have enough savings to live 3-6 months after he loses his job.
If neither of them do, then both of them are stupid.
And yet when I pointed this out, I was some kind of villain. I don't understand what was controversial about that idea. Most small businesses fail, and it's almost always because of some kind of error the proprietor made - some market research not done, not enough capital, bad business plan, poor location, blah blah. I don't think this is exactly a controversial line of thinking.
remember, these people who invest their money, with the odds being that they lose it all, are the ones being asked to take in less $ and pay out more $.
If that is the case, then they are obviously stupid as no intelligent person would knowingly work at a loss, at least absent necessity. And the last time I checked no given individual needed to own a business.
If I made a claim, and I am not, that all min wage workers are just ignorant/stupid and thats why they fail, that would be met with the usual teeth gnashing and "you hate the poor" talk your side has been espousing.
Well, that's nothing like the claim I made, so I don't really understand your boggle.
Incidentally, you did previously argue that adult minimum wage workers likely made bad life choices.
d-usa wrote: Tomorrow they might show up to locked doors without a job because the business failed.
Ah, software QA, how happy you make me for not pursuing my dream of working in game design.
Grey Templar wrote: Weather you believe it or not, it is possible to estimate how many people will not walk through your doors and make a purchase if you don't keep the store clean.
Yes its an estimate, but its a good one. Things get done based on guesswork and assumptions all the freaking time, at least in this case they are very solid guesses.
Things get done on estimates and guess work, absolutely. And they are solid guesses... but they are solid guesses based on management skill and experience, not made by making up numbers based on the impact to revenue of having one level of cleanliness in the store or a slightly lower level of cleanliness.
I mean, think about which one of these things will actually be heard in a business;
"I think we need to employ another janitor, as I suspect the mess that sometimes isn't cleaned up in the front of house is costing us customers."
or;
"I have calculated we need to employ another janitor, as mess in the front of house reduces weekly sales by 3.46% or $276.80, therefore if we hire a janitor for 40 hours a week at $6.92 per hour or less the option has a positive value."
Like I said, it was only an example. I don't know the specifics of how a job like that gets it wage determined,
As I said earlier, you pay what you must to get the number and quality of staff required. It is based entirely on the market.
I mean, think about it, even if you did determine that an extra janitor would be worth $23 in increased economic value to your store... you'd still only pay what the market made you pay.
Any part of business can have a value attached to it, you need to accept that. Its really why many businesses are successful.
Yeah, that statement is not true. There are many things you can cost, and cost very accurately, but far more you simply cannot track the units produces or the value of those units... and so making up some model where you pretend to cost those things is a silly waste of time. A waste of time many business wandered in to in the 90s and then abandoned, but even they never went as far as something as farcical as trying to determine the revenue impact of cleaning.
You can be assured that Walmart knows exactly what their janitors are worth to them per hour, they're not just paying them an arbitrary figure.
Walmart is a fantastic example of what can be done with ABC. For all the political noise about Walmart, when you actually look at the core of their business their use of ABC to identify cheaper ways of delivering, storing & selling products is best in world (funnily enough, their inventory selection is way behind the likes of Aldi, but that's a whole other story).
But they're not assigning economic value to each janitor, because that's just a total nonsense.
Except they've learned nothing, and that's obvious just from reading the threads. Every time, they just come piling in with the same stupid one liners, then they get pissy when its explained things don't work like that, then they wander off, and come piling in again the next time the issue is raised, ready to repeat the same nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: No, they figure out his value and from that work out what his pay is, also including how little they can pay and still fill the position while also following any laws they have to figure. If that comes out to minimum wage or just a little above it that is what they pay him.
If he ends up being more, he gets paid more. Janitors aren't worth a whole lot as it turns out, largely because its not hard to fill the position. That depresses what he gets paid.
If it was very hard to get people to work as a janitor, they'd get paid more(up to the maximum the company figures they're worth)
No, it doesn't work that way. Are you getting confused with marginal returns and marginal cost in economics? Because in that model people end up being paid the marginal product of their labour because of market forces, not because managment pays what value the position is worth (otherwise where's the profit for management?)
Anyhow, whether that's how you got confused or not, just think about a real world example. Consider a company that contracts out to dig trenches. They used to have one bus full with 20 guys with shovels. Then technology comes along and now one guy with a trencher can do the job. That one guy is now worth what used to cost 20 guys. They aren't going to pay him what they used to have to pay 20 guys... they're going to pay him what it costs to have one guy with the training to use a trencher (which will work out more than it costs to pay one guy to work a shovel, but a hell of a lot less than it costs to pay 20 guys).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Speaking from personal experience: the majority of small business owners have more chutzpah than intelligence, hence the high rate of failure.
There's no shortage of idiots, that's for sure. But running a business is also an inherently difficult thing to do, hard enough that even if people understand the challenge, and apply considerable skill, they are still pretty likely to fail if market conditions and other factors don't fall their way.
But yeah, for everyone of those smart people who understand the challenge (and maybe fail), there's also a fair few idiots who just wander in thinking their awesome and that they'll totally do brilliantly just because they're awesome and know everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: At least they're taking that risk... as such, if successful... the reward should be meaningful.
Absolutely.
But to get back to my original point, whether they are successful or not, it doesn't mean they know anything other than what it takes to run their business. A franchise owner will likely know timetabling, people skills, negotiating, budgeting & cash management, inventory control, and all sorts of other things like that.
But they aren't going to somehow just know how activity based costing works, and what it's strengths and limitations are. Or countless other subjects that are actually business specializations that need a large amount of course work and industry experience.
They might pay workers the right amount by the math(simply by copying successful businesses) but hire too many of them. They also tend to get killed in overhead.
Market research also is a failing.
Or bad luck, as the market turns against them at a crucial time (your bumper wheat crop is put out in a market glut, for instance). Or your product was well considered and constructed but just doesn't get the traction expected and no-one ever knows why. Or the product does well for a while, but then just becomes unfashionable for no reason but the fickle nature of the public (happens to a lot of restaurants and clubs). Or millions of other reasons.
Or you are skillful in your core business, but a terrible manager of people and morale collapses and productivity goes with it. Or you handle inventory poorly and end up getting tricked by your profit reports in to thinking you've got positive cashflow, and then get caught with no cash and hundreds of thousands tied up in outdated inventory.
But yeah, for everyone of those smart people who understand the challenge (and maybe fail), there's also a fair few idiots who just wander in thinking their awesome and that they'll totally do brilliantly just because they're awesome and know everything.
There's also something to be said about "repeat offenders" By this, and I'm not sure if the article that has been referenced really talks about it, but here in the US, "most" entepreneurs who get a business running, even if or especially if it fails will try again. So this whole 8 of 10 businesses fail within their first 18 months thing could only account for a smaller margin of business owners/starters. Obviously there are some out there who think a great deal about what theyre doing, look at guys like the Trump, or Mark Cuban. Now that they are sitting on mountains of money, they CAN be more free in starting new businesses or supporting those new businesses, but you can bet money when they started, they were nervous about those startups.
easysauce wrote: I agree, and still is coming from you, so maybe take a break.
Being polite is not optional, seriously, you are just being insulting and aggressive at this point with a very "im right, your wrong" *repeat* attitude.
Despite your assertions that all the arguments/points you dont like are "BS", they are not.
There's more to manners than just saying nice things. A person who uses only the nicest of language, but enters of conversation with a poorly informed, poorly considered argument that they simply refuse to think about over the course of a debate is an obnoxious bore, and that's a very rude thing for a person to be.
You claim repeating simple stuff to people is not only your hobby on dakka, but most of your job.
No, I didn't. Read more carefully. My job, among others things, is cost or management accounting. What I do here on dakka is end up explaining basic things over and over again to people who don't want to accept them.
You already have an answer to "how do jobs that dont directly "produce" anything get factored in?" since it is econ 101, has been repeated in this thread.
Yeah, see, it isn't Econ 101. Economics deal with the subject only in an entirely abstract way, as how all firms and all workers will interact in the market to equalise the rate of pay against the marginal productivity of labour.
Whereas for an individual company, all that stuff is irrelevant. Instead, what matters there is cost or management accounting, which is a specialisation of accounting, which will teach you how things like ABC work, and where they can be usefully applied.
Which is stuff you would know if you had any idea about what you're talking about.
If there is a job that doesnt directly generate income, its a cost of doing business. How necessary that role is to the business, the cost of turnover in workers, the scarcity of the skills, and other factors contribute to determining how much the hourly is.
What you said there is true in a fairly vague way, but it's a long way from what you were claiming earlier, when you said it was based on the value of that work to the company, which you had a formula for.
No harder to calculate then your gas bill, despite you not being able to quantify how much gas benefits you, it still gets a price put on it.
And now you're acknowledging that you can't actually quantify the benefits of the gas consumed by the business. And so you've basically given up on your earlier attempt to claim that you have formulas to determine how much every input to the company is worth.
Qualitative factors are used to determine things as well, not just quantitative, so if you dont understand how things work and literally want a X+Y=Z formula for everything, you will be sorely disappointed as that is not how the world works.
You're the one who was claiming you had formulas for determining qualitative factors. I'm the one trying to explain to you that qualitative factors are also important, which means many decisions lie outside of simple formulas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Sorry where does your deep knowledge of business come from again?
I don't have a deep knowledge of business. I have a specific specialisation, management accounting. This means I know how cost accounting and transfer accounting work, and can construct and improve business processes, particularly within the not-for-profit and education sectors in which I have most of my experience. On top of that there's a bunch of other stuff I do just because it's stuff every accountant does (management reports, cashflow management etc), but there's all kinds of accounting stuff on which I'd be way out of my depth, like the really pedantic, complex end of International Standards, auditing (I can never remember whether the green or the red pen is good).
Just like, iirc correctly, you work in corporate law at a bank. And so you'd know lots about various legal concepts as they apply specifically to banks. It wouldn't make you an expert in assessing loan risks, or cash management, or in all kinds of law outside of your speciality.
But if someone were to come in to a thread and claim they've owned businesses and so they know how money and banks work, and banks break the law all the time and never get held to account you would be well within your expertise to tell that person that he's completely and utterly wrong.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There's also something to be said about "repeat offenders" By this, and I'm not sure if the article that has been referenced really talks about it, but here in the US, "most" entepreneurs who get a business running, even if or especially if it fails will try again. So this whole 8 of 10 businesses fail within their first 18 months thing could only account for a smaller margin of business owners/starters. Obviously there are some out there who think a great deal about what theyre doing, look at guys like the Trump, or Mark Cuban. Now that they are sitting on mountains of money, they CAN be more free in starting new businesses or supporting those new businesses, but you can bet money when they started, they were nervous about those startups.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that there's many repeat offenders. Makes sense.
The other thing to consider with business is that a whole lot of small businesses that get set up don't have massive start up investments. Often the company starts out of the spare room, with few materials costs, no labour costs and just a hell of a lot of hard work and enthusiasm from one or two people. If after a while the business hasn't taken off, and enthusiasm has dwindled because of that, the business doesn't so much go bankrupt as just sort of peter out.
Those kinds of business might account for a fair portion of that 8/10 figure as well.
As an aside, Trump's business prowess is largely fictitious, by the way. His dad was pretty impressive, I think, but Donald's just another one of those big risk, big return guys who'll gamble enough of other people's money to do okay for himself in the long haul, but I'd never want to invest in his enterprises.
As an aside, Trump's business prowess is largely fictitious, by the way. His dad was pretty impressive, I think, but Donald's just another one of those big risk, big return guys who'll gamble enough of other people's money to do okay for himself in the long haul, but I'd never want to invest in his enterprises
Grey Templar wrote: You can still put nearly all qualitative factors into a mathematical form, you simply determine a value based on a guess or approximation.
Saying qualitative factors mean you need to toss formulas away is wrong, you can use them to determine economic value.
The presence of qualitative factors doesn't mean you toss away the formula. But it does mean you can't produce a quantitative answer, which is what had been argued earlier in this thread.
For a real world example, the costing I produced the other day showed that one of our submarine courses brings in about half the revenue it costs to run the program. So in quantitative terms we shouldn't offer the program. But if we were stop offering the course, we'd risk the Federal government looking elsewhere for a full service contract, risking losing the profitable courses (whether there's any profitable courses in the whole program is a whole other point of debate). And then on top of that we're talking about almost entirely permanent staff who can't be redeployed to teach other programs, so there's little scope for labour savings.
Will this lead to downsizing, job losses, economic depression, and possibly even businesses effected by this closing? Definitely.
Once again... actual experts have run the numbers on this. Here's the CBO report that I've mentioned earlier in the thread, that whembly posted some time ago on this site.
As you'll see if you click on the link, an increase in minimum wage to $9 will cost about 100,000 jobs across the whole of the country. It's a bit silly to describe that as economic depression. And you'll note that within the band of likely results, it is possible (though not likely) that there will an increase in jobs, possible because there is a chance that jobs could increase (as the number of jobs cut turns out to be very small, which is more than offset by the increase in economic activity from those higher pay packets).
Read through the report in more detail if you'd like. You'll learn the impact of minimum wage is a lot more complex than you're arguing in this thread.
Except they've learned nothing, and that's obvious just from reading the threads. Every time, they just come piling in with the same stupid one liners, then they get pissy when its explained things don't work like that, then they wander off, and come piling in again the next time the issue is raised, ready to repeat the same nonsense.
1. You still have listed your vast area of expertise on the subject. Why is that?
2. So its your self appointed task to "educate dem heathens more gooder." Have you considered a hobby? I like blowing things up, wiener dog belly rubs, and an intensive belly expansion program.
1. You still have listed your vast area of expertise on the subject. Why is that?
2. So its your self appointed task to "educate dem heathens more gooder." Have you considered a hobby? I like blowing things up, wiener dog belly rubs, and an intensive belly expansion program.
I'm surprised you didn't leverage your nominal, "He's not American!" argument.
1. You still have listed your vast area of expertise on the subject. Why is that?
2. So its your self appointed task to "educate dem heathens more gooder." Have you considered a hobby? I like blowing things up, wiener dog belly rubs, and an intensive belly expansion program.
I'm surprised you didn't leverage your nominal, "He's not American!" argument.
No we save that for special occasions, when we need to set the warp engines to warp speed: Freedom!
Frazzled wrote: 1. You still have listed your vast area of expertise on the subject. Why is that?
I have posted it. Here you go once more...
"I don't have a deep knowledge of business. I have a specific specialisation, management accounting. This means I know how cost accounting and transfer accounting work, and can construct and improve business processes, particularly within the not-for-profit and education sectors in which I have most of my experience. On top of that there's a bunch of other stuff I do just because it's stuff every accountant does (management reports, cashflow management etc), but there's all kinds of accounting stuff on which I'd be way out of my depth, like the really pedantic, complex end of International Standards, auditing (I can never remember whether the green or the red pen is good)."
Clearly non-experts only agree with experts except when those experts disagree with them, so non-experts who disagree with them should just go become experts who agree with them.
LordofHats wrote: Clearly non-experts only agree with experts except when those experts disagree with them, so non-experts who disagree with them should just go become experts who agree with them.
Besides, shut up.
Just to clarify, I don't want to imply that only experts can have an opinion, or that everyone else must bow down and listen to them. Obviously that's bs.
It's just that fraz asked so I told him exactly where I do know a bit, and where I don't.
The issue to me, and while this thread is a perfect example it's far from alone, is that there's simply way too many people happy to put up bs arguments rather than accept the other side has even one decent point. The point about calculating the exact value of a janitor is a classic example, is almost completely irrelevant to the minimum wage debate. But instead of just conceding that minor point and moving on with the important parts of his argument, he just dug deeper and deeper, making up more and more stuff, all in order to avoid saying ‘on that minor point you are correct’.
It’s that attitude, that absolute steadfast refusal to ever accept one single thing the other side is saying, that makes have the exact same debate on minimum wage over and over again.
Just to clarify, I don't want to imply that only experts can have an opinion, or that everyone else must bow down and listen to them. Obviously that's bs.
I'm merely mocking this "well how do you know so much about it" attitude (not yours, but the one that always pops up in these threads). I might suggest people read a book now and then, but this is the internet forum. Besmirching someone for being a non-expert is just a veiled attack that means "you disagree with me and it makes me question you're opinion."
Whether someone is an expert or not is meaningless because all the people mocking 'non-experts' care about is if the person on the other side of the screen agrees with them. Their actual knowledge on a subject is meaningless except as an attack/shield. EDIT: And of course if the person you disagree with is an expert, well they're just being an elitist douche in which case the previous two sentences are still true.
that makes sense 
