PDA

View Full Version : Raise minimum wage to $15/hr?


TonyR
06-25-2013, 01:28 PM
The fundamental law of capitalism is that if workers have no money, businesses have no customers. That’s why the extreme, and widening, wealth gap in our economy presents not just a moral challenge, but an economic one, too. In a capitalist system, rising inequality creates a death spiral of falling demand that ultimately takes everyone down.

Low-wage jobs are fast replacing middle-class ones in the U.S. economy. Sixty percent of the jobs lost in the last recession were middle-income, while 59 percent of the new positions during the past two years of recovery were in low-wage industries that continue to expand such as retail, food services, cleaning and health-care support. By 2020, 48 percent of jobs will be in those service sectors.

Policy makers debate incremental changes for arresting this vicious cycle. But perhaps the most powerful and elegant antidote is sitting right before us: a spike in the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

True, that sounds like a lot. When President Barack Obama called in February for an increase to $9 an hour from $7.25, he was accused of being a dangerous redistributionist. Yet consider this: If the minimum wage had simply tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour -- three times what it is now.

Cultivating Consumers

Traditionally, arguments for big minimum-wage increases come from labor unions and advocates for the poor. I make the case as a businessman and entrepreneur who sees our millions of low-paid workers as customers to be cultivated and not as costs to be cut.

Here’s a bottom-line example: My investment portfolio includes Pacific Coast Feather Co., one of the largest U.S. manufacturers of bed pillows. Like many other manufacturers, pillow-makers are struggling because of weak demand. The problem comes down to this: My annual earnings equal about 1,000 times the U.S. median wage, but I don’t consume 1,000 times more pillows than the average American. Even the richest among us only need one or two to rest their heads at night.

An economy such as ours that increasingly concentrates wealth in the top 1 percent, and where most workers must rely on stagnant or falling wages, isn’t a place to build much of a pillow business, or any other business for that matter.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production and hiring. Read the rest here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-19/the-capitalist-s-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage.html

TonyR
06-25-2013, 01:32 PM
This guy agrees. Both good reads.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/20/the-minimum-wage-stimulus/

Pony Boy
06-26-2013, 12:50 PM
Yes, we should raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour because I'm sure that a business would not pass that increase on to the consumers. Why not just print more money and give every family in the U.S. a million dollars? There would no longer be any poverty in America, why didn't we think of this earlier?

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 12:54 PM
If they did that i would get a part time job doing something really easy for like maybe another 20 hours a week. Probably just down at a local music store. But right now they pay like 10 bucks an hour so I dont see how they would survive having to pay 15.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 12:55 PM
Hernandez shuld have grabbed what money he could and headed straight for an airport to Russia.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 12:56 PM
Tom Brady must be sitting around right now saying to himself what the **** happened to my offense?

Welker gone, Woodhead gone, Gronk injured, Hernandez a murderer, and Lloyd makes people want to puke so they cut him also. Maybe they were afraid hernandez would kill lloyd but ya know, now they can bring him back? :)

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 12:58 PM
Holy cow he is on tape coming home with a gun lol. He's getting life in prison. He's friggin the new Oj Simpson.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 01:00 PM
I wonder if people having more disposable income will have an effect on commerce. It's not like we have any statistics on that.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 01:06 PM
I'd love for our workforce to be so skilled and all the jobs good enough to pay everyone 15 20 bucks an hour. The reality is though that some jobs not worth 15 bucks an hour Houghtam.

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 01:19 PM
I wonder if people having more disposable income will have an effect on commerce. It's not like we have any statistics on that.

Totally sillyness. We all know that money sitting in an account in the Caymen Islands does a lot more for our economy.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 01:42 PM
Well fed are you talking about illegal money taxes not paid on? Or are you talking about profits earned overseas not returned to the USA? Because that is a huge issue and i would love to talk about it. I have tried several times but no one seems to see what a huge disaster our corp tax law is.

We need to go to a dual zone system where domestic rate and international rates are different. Companies dont bring the money home because after earning it they pay big fees to the host countries. If they bring it back to the USA it gets taxed again so they just leave it offshore in some country that wont tax it.

This is all legal and most be changed. For one it puts domestic corp not making money overseas at a disadvantage. For another we want that money re-invested in America, and we want some of the tax right?

We need a tax % high enough to make some revenue, low enough to make companies still competitive overseas, but then also a law forcing them to bring at least half of what they make overseas home.

There is billions just sitting out there waiting to come home to america.

TonyR
06-26-2013, 02:28 PM
I wonder if people having more disposable income will have an effect on commerce. It's not like we have any statistics on that.

It's clear that neither Pony nor cut read either article.

errand
06-26-2013, 02:40 PM
It's clear that neither Pony nor cut read either article.

So why stop at $15 hr?

Why not make it $20 hr?

Why not just make it $50,000 a year?

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 02:57 PM
Well fed are you talking about illegal money taxes not paid on? Or are you talking about profits earned overseas not returned to the USA? Because that is a huge issue and i would love to talk about it. I have tried several times but no one seems to see what a huge disaster our corp tax law is.

We need to go to a dual zone system where domestic rate and international rates are different. Companies dont bring the money home because after earning it they pay big fees to the host countries. If they bring it back to the USA it gets taxed again so they just leave it offshore in some country that wont tax it.

This is all legal and most be changed. For one it puts domestic corp not making money overseas at a disadvantage. For another we want that money re-invested in America, and we want some of the tax right?

We need a tax % high enough to make some revenue, low enough to make companies still competitive overseas, but then also a law forcing them to bring at least half of what they make overseas home.

There is billions just sitting out there waiting to come home to america.

****'em it's the cost of doing business overseas. The U.S. owes them no favors for making a business decision to go overseas. Don't like paying 2+ countries taxes stay stateside.

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 03:01 PM
So why stop at $15 hr?

Why not make it $20 hr?

Why not just make it $50,000 a year?

Why not! We live in consumer based economy.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 03:54 PM
Bunch of soshalist redistributionist bastages!

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Rising-executive-pay.png

errand
06-26-2013, 06:46 PM
Why not! We live in consumer based economy.

Now when we do that, what do suppose we should do about those $49 cheeseburgers and $35 small fries?

txtebow
06-26-2013, 07:37 PM
I am very concerned for the future of this country and the shrinking middle class. I've been fortunate (as have 2 of my 3 brothers) as we've been able to enter lucrative career fields and had decent financial success even though we came from an average middle class background. But we are more and more the exception rather than the rule and as a father of 5, I genuinely fear for my childrens economic futures. A minimum wage increase for ADULT workers (over age 18) should be instituted. I personally feel as though $12/hr (~$24K a year) is a sufficient wage to pay for an entry level position. That goes from being a cashier at Walmart to flipping burgers. As a business owner and healthcare professional I love profit as much as the next business man, but I also make a point to reward those who in their daily efforts support the overall processes by which we earn capital. $12/hr is fair.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 07:45 PM
I am very concerned for the future of this country and the shrinking middle class. I've been fortunate (as have 2 of my 3 brothers) as we've been able to enter lucrative career fields and had decent financial success even though we came from an average middle class background. But we are more and more the exception rather than the rule and as a father of 5, I genuinely fear for my childrens economic futures. A minimum wage increase for ADULT workers (over age 18) should be instituted. I personally feel as though $12/hr (~$24K a year) is a sufficient wage to pay for an entry level position. That goes from being a cashier at Walmart to flipping burgers. As a business owner and healthcare professional I love profit as much as the next business man, but I also make a point to reward those who in their daily efforts support the overall processes by which we earn capital. $12/hr is fair.

There still needs to be a minimum wage for minors.

Adults who are still listed as dependents by their parents should not be able to reap full minimum wage, either. (If its being raised to a livable wage)

peacepipe
06-26-2013, 08:34 PM
Now when we do that, what do suppose we should do about those $49 cheeseburgers and $35 small fries?

It will never happen,cause business owners know no one will pay that much for a burger. They'll go out of business. They'll have to eat the cost. They can take a little less profit and stay in business or go out of business cause they wanna be greedy. There's a reality all business owners know,it's not what they want for a product,it's what someone is willing to pay for it.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 09:22 PM
It will never happen,cause business owners know no one will pay that much for a burger. They'll go out of business. They'll have to eat the cost. They can take a little less profit and stay in business or go out of business cause they wanna be greedy. There's a reality all business owners know,it's not what they want for a product,it's what someone is willing to pay for it.

Perfect example of the mentality of supply side economics. "If we raise the minimum wage, businesses will be able to charge whatever they want and people will HAVE to pay it."

Meanwhile, sane people everywhere realize that if the market truly determines price, businesses will only charge what people are willing to pay, and people aren't going to pay $10 for a burger at McDonald's just because they're making $25k now.

It's weird how the conservative mantra is always to let the market determine prices, but when faced with the reality of that actually happening, they can't really seem to connect the dots.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:32 PM
Umm houghtam you cant force wages to be high then say let the market set the prices. You are not letting the market set the wage and that throws your whole theory out the door.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:34 PM
Lets face it at 15 bucks an hour fast food places would close, discount markets would close, hours at stores would be cut, man who knows what would happen but it wouldn't be good for low wage workers.

So houghtam how much extra money do movie theaters have? Do you think they could pay 15 bucks an hour to everyone?

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 10:36 PM
I'm interested to know what you think. I work with top management for arc light cinema and for Pacific Theaters and from what i have seen they would not be in business if they had to pay the crap workers 15 bucks an hour and the good ones even more. You agree that if you make 15 bucks min wage it would not be fair to the ones who worked 10 yrs to get to 15 bucks an hour right? So they would have to get a raise right?

houghtam
06-26-2013, 10:48 PM
#1 - People leave Netflix in droves after a mere announcement that they were raising rates, and you're talking about companies raising prices of hamburgers.

#2 - You don't work with top management at Pacific and Arclight. Your company represents them. YOU are a glorified file clerk and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

#3 - With the txtebow/houghtam bipartisan minimum wage plan (LOL) is actually perfect for theaters as well as fast food, retailers, etc. You simply only allow the upper end minimum wage law to take effect for those who are not claimed as dependents. Don't tie it to age, as that could be challenged for age discrimination, but to my knowledge, there is nothing against discrimatoon based on dependent status. Those types of jobs are great for young people...at my last location there were three maybe four employees (out of about 50) who weren't still claimed by their parents.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:25 PM
LOL having my job bagged on by a theater manager is pretty funny. You are wrong also because adults right now making 15 bucks an hour will expect a huge raise when you start paying some 17 yr old kid 15 bucks an hour when the adult worked 5 yrs to get to that wage. Tons of companies business models would be out the door if they had to pay the workers 15 bucks an hour. Theaters would close, fast food would close, restaurants would close, because no one would be willing to pay 30 bucks to see a movie.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:25 PM
And actually, cut, I would even be willing to consider LOWERING the minimum wage for dependents since, in the literal sense, they depend on someone else for support.

$5.00 an hour for dependent employees.

Looks like your best buds from Pacific and Arclight just switched over to my side.

:)

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:26 PM
Actually isn't netflix doing really well again now? but that business model a lot different from brick and mortar stores and businesses. The fact you compare their business models shows why you are a theater worker.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:28 PM
And actually, cut, I would even be willing to consider LOWERING the minimum wage for dependents since, in the literal sense, they depend on someone else for support.

$5.00 an hour for dependent employees.

Looks like your best buds from Pacific and Arclight just switched over to my side.

:)

That would just make dependent kids not work and hurt low wage families who depend on them to help out. You're ideas are crap.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:30 PM
LOL having my job bagged on by a theater manager is pretty funny. You are wrong also because adults right now making 15 bucks an hour will expect a huge raise when you start paying some 17 yr old kid 15 bucks an hour when the adult worked 5 yrs to get to that wage. Tons of companies business models would be out the door if they had to pay the workers 15 bucks an hour. Theaters would close, fast food would close, restaurants would close, because no one would be willing to pay 30 bucks to see a movie.

Nowhere did I say theaters would pay 17 year olds $15 an hour. For a paralegal you sure don't know how to ****ing read.

And as far as giving raises to people already making what the minimum wage is going to be? Guess what? EVERY business that pays minimum wage had to do that very thing just a few years ago when it went up to $7.25. You know what those employers did? They used it as an opportunity to have everyone re-interview for their jobs. Businesses would have no problem saying to an employee "you know what, you were worth $15 an hour yesterday, that's what you're worth today", just as they had no problem saying "you were worth $6.50 but you're not worth $7.25."

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:31 PM
Actually isn't netflix doing really well again now? but that business model a lot different from brick and mortar stores and businesses. The fact you compare their business models shows why you are a theater worker.

I didn't compare business models, I compared market reaction to price increases. The fact that you compare the two shows why you got a Sally Strouthers degree.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:32 PM
And actually, cut, I would even be willing to consider LOWERING the minimum wage for dependents since, in the literal sense, they depend on someone else for support.

$5.00 an hour for dependent employees.

Looks like your best buds from Pacific and Arclight just switched over to my side.

:)

That would just make dependent kids not work and hurt low wage families who depend on them to help out. You're ideas are crap. I golfed with the senior risk manager from arc light just a few weeks ago Houghtam. Meanwhile you were cleaning bathrooms. This weekend my band playing for Meals on Wheels for wounded vets in Long Beach through the Veterans Hospital. What are you doing this weekend? Popping some popcorn? I will be hanging out with old dudes who toured with the Drifters hearing awesome stories all while supporting those in need. Let me guess you will be seeing if Johnny can work on Friday night because Nancy quit. Try harder dude.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:33 PM
That would just make dependent kids not work and hurt low wage families who depend on them to help out. You're ideas are crap.

How would it make them not work? Businesses would be scrambling to hire them, dumb****. Ask your friends at Pacific if they know which is more, $5 or $15, maybe they can work it out for you.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:33 PM
I didn't compare business models, I compared market reaction to price increases. The fact that you compare the two shows why you got a Sally Strouthers degree.

You can't compare a digital company to a brick and mortar in anything really.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:34 PM
How would it make them not work? Businesses would be scrambling to hire them, dumb****. Ask your friends at Pacific if they know which is more, $5 or $15, maybe they can work it out for you.

No parent will make kid go work for 5 bucks an hour when the other ones making 15. They will go surfing at the beach and low income families will have to decide whether to not claim the kid or let him work for 5 bucks an hour.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:35 PM
That would just make dependent kids not work and hurt low wage families who depend on them to help out. You're ideas are crap. I golfed with the senior risk manager from arc light just a few weeks ago Houghtam. Meanwhile you were cleaning bathrooms. This weekend my band playing for Meals on Wheels for wounded vets in Long Beach through the Veterans Hospital. What are you doing this weekend? Popping some popcorn? I will be hanging out with old dudes who toured with the Drifters hearing awesome stories all while supporting those in need. Let me guess you will be seeing if Johnny can work on Friday night because Nancy quit. Try harder dude.

LOL enjoy your day at work tomorrow, chump. I haven't had to work for two years. This weekend? The same thing I did today, yesterday, and the day before that...relaxing with my kids! Hilarious!

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:36 PM
Houghtam you are just silly sometimes. I love it though you make me laugh.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:37 PM
LOL enjoy your day at work tomorrow, chump. I haven't had to work for two years. This weekend? The same thing I did today, yesterday, and the day before that...relaxing with my kids! Hilarious!

You're old? Oh I thought you were like 30 lol. Either that are your lady takes care of you. LOL No one retires early from being a theater manager.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:38 PM
Also I love my job sitting around with kids does not make me jealous lol.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:40 PM
No parent will make kid go work for 5 bucks an hour when the other ones making 15. They will go surfing at the beach and low income families will have to decide whether to not claim the kid or let him work for 5 bucks an hour.

Or? No, if they claim him, that's what he gets. You're still not understanding. And what "other ones" are making $15? In the example I gave, you know, the theater I used to personally manage, ALL but 3 or 4 employees would have made $5 under this law, and those few were in their 40s. I think you vastly underestimate the number of young people willing to work out there.

But regardless, that was my compromise. The fact remains that prices won't go through the roof if the minimum wage is increased. Why? Because math, that's why. Now go back to your paper shredding.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:42 PM
You're old? Oh I thought you were like 30 lol. Either that are your lady takes care of you. LOL No one retires early from being a theater manager.

LOL Shows what you know. Some people are smarter with their money than others. Some people aren't materialistic. Some people are comfortable. And no, I'm much closer to 30 than I am to "old".

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:45 PM
LOL Shows what you know. Some people are smarter with their money than others. Some people aren't materialistic. Some people are comfortable. And no, I'm much closer to 30 than I am to "old".

BS your wife works or something. You don't manage money well and retire at 30 from the theater working business lol. Shame on you for working your wife while you sit home and kick it.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:47 PM
I'm saving up for a 7000.00 dollar sax so i have to make money.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:50 PM
Enjoy the grind, chump! Going to the park tomorrow.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 11:59 PM
LOL ok I will Mr Mom have fun at the park with the other moms.

chadta
06-27-2013, 04:39 AM
LOL ok I will Mr Mom have fun at the park with the other moms.

dont knock it till youve tried it, hanging around yummy mummys all day isnt a bad thing

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 04:50 AM
LOL ok I will Mr Mom have fun at the park with the other moms.

If I were a glorified secretary that had, at best, a questionable grasp on grammar I wouldn't be thumping my chest quite so much.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 05:12 AM
A small start would be abolishing the practice of tips being legally substituted for actual pay.

Why should anyone work for $2.15 and hope that the schmucks they are serving are decent enough to make up the difference between that and a livable wage?

Why should a comely, young female be able to make far more money serving than an equally competent homely, older female or a male? Why should a server working for a ritzy restaurant automatically and arbitrarily get paid more than an equally competent server at a more modest establishment? Why should only the server be dependent on said schmucks' decency? Why not the cook and other people who all have as much and sometimes a lot more impact on the quality of your service/meal?

Servers and other traditionally 'tip supported' workers should have the same wage requirements as any other employees. If you really want to try to buy the hot waitress with an actual tip (rather than the current situation which is you directly paying that person's wage), go ahead.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 06:48 AM
#1 - People leave Netflix in droves after a mere announcement that they were raising rates, and you're talking about companies raising prices of hamburgers.

#2 - You don't work with top management at Pacific and Arclight. Your company represents them. YOU are a glorified file clerk and don't have a clue what you're talking about.

#3 - With the txtebow/houghtam bipartisan minimum wage plan (LOL) is actually perfect for theaters as well as fast food, retailers, etc. You simply only allow the upper end minimum wage law to take effect for those who are not claimed as dependents. Don't tie it to age, as that could be challenged for age discrimination, but to my knowledge, there is nothing against discrimatoon based on dependent status. Those types of jobs are great for young people...at my last location there were three maybe four employees (out of about 50) who weren't still claimed by their parents.

Basically this would be a hire dependents and otherwise automate people out of work program. Doubling the cost of low skills workers brings many other options into feasibility.

spdirty
06-27-2013, 10:13 AM
I don't hire people. Do it all myself. **** em. By the time we're done, we have to pay the CDOT wage scale which is $20.57 (we learned this because when we paid a guy $20/hour, they held up $25,000 till we proved we paid him an extra $17), then the cost of workmans comp insurance, and putting them on our vehicle insurance, not including the benefits they want, end up shelling out more for them than what I pay myself as it is. And hell, bring minimum wage up to $15, then CDOT's scale gets bumped up to 30-35/hour.

Then get to listen to them b**** and moan about breaks and lunch breaks and all that bull****...screw that, they can eat on their own time. I don't have time for that crap. Just my dad and I do it all ourselves. It gets tough but it's a hell of a lot easier than dealing with employees with a ****ed up attitude who couldn't care less about the company employing them. Let our competitors deal with that hassle.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 11:40 AM
If I were a glorified secretary that had, at best, a questionable grasp on grammar I wouldn't be thumping my chest quite so much.

you kidding? i have my own secretary bub.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:44 AM
you kidding? i have my own secretary bub.

Here's hoping you do. Maybe that person actually fully understands how to write a complete sentence.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 11:49 AM
Here's hoping you do. Maybe that person actually fully understands how to write a complete sentence.

Internet English teachers are pathetic. It's the last line of attack when you figure out you are overmatched intellectually.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:51 AM
Internet English teachers are pathetic. It's the last line of attack when you figure out you are overmatched intellectually.

Hilarious!LOL

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 11:54 AM
Everything spelled right Ms. Fedaykin?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 11:57 AM
Everything spelled right Ms. Fedaykin?

Apparently I hit a nerve. Awesome. My work here is done for the day.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 12:21 PM
In my experience, the people who disparage those with a good handle on the English language are those who have the worst language skills.

Stands to reason. Jealousy is a perfectly natural human emotion.

Arkie
06-27-2013, 12:26 PM
The federal government throws these numbers around like every place in the country is equal. A $15 minimum wage would slaughter the poorer states. That's why it shouldn't be the federal government's business to set a minimum wage. If we want to control the labor market because it's not a free market anyway, then we should at least give that right to the States to set wages at levels that make sense where the cost of living is lower.

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 02:35 PM
I currently own a very successful small business (30 years) and have seven employees. My manager and assistant manager are both paid very well. My five other employees are usually students from the local university and stay with me for four to six years. I start all my part time employees out at minimum wage and I move them up the pay scale according to their performance. I currently have a file full of quality applications.

There is a very simple rule that I follow. I maintain a constant profit margin and if there is a raise in the minimum wage or any other increase in the cost of good or services, I pass them directly to my customers.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 02:40 PM
There is a very simple rule that I follow. I maintain a constant profit margin and if there is a raise in the minimum wage or any other increase in the cost of good or services, I pass them directly to my customers.

Good, the sooner we start dealing with the true cost of goods and services the better. Subsidizing your prices tax dollars because people aren't making a living wage (and thus make up the difference with social programs) doesn't do anyone any good.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 02:52 PM
It's pretty simple. If you're a businessperson and want people off the public dole: do your part and pay your employees a living wage.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 02:56 PM
Umm you can't trumpet "true costs" market BS then come back with minimum wage should be 15 bucks. In a true free market there would be no minimum wage. Only the price that someone would agree to do something for. If you force a wage then right there you will not see the true price of what good and services should cost. You will see the inflated version because of govt forcing low wage workers to make 15 bucks an hour.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 02:57 PM
A min wage is as silly as a maximum wage. You solve the social safety net problem by reducing it and making people get educated, work, or just die off because they are useless dead weight.

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 02:58 PM
Good, the sooner we start dealing with the true cost of goods and services the better. Subsidizing your prices tax dollars because people aren't making a living wage (and thus make up the difference with social programs) doesn't do anyone any good.

What part of this do you not understand? You can raise the minimum wage and eliminate all the social programs you want, as a matter of fact I would like to see that happen. I will still adjust the cost to my consumers and maintain the same profit margin that I have for the past 30 years.

Question: What do you call a minimum wage employee making $15 hour?

Answer: A minimum wage employee.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 02:59 PM
Under feds plan you wouldn't have any small businesses. Forcing mom and pop diners, small retail stores etc to pay 15 bucks an hour would kill their business model.

BroncoBeavis
06-27-2013, 02:59 PM
It's pretty simple. If you're a businessperson and want people off the public dole: do your part and pay your employees a living wage.

Or he could just send them home and put in a machine instead. In many cases.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 03:00 PM
It would actually just force more people to welfare if you made a 15 buck min wage.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:05 PM
Umm you can't trumpet "true costs" market BS then come back with minimum wage should be 15 bucks. In a true free market there would be no minimum wage. Only the price that someone would agree to do something for. If you force a wage then right there you will not see the true price of what good and services should cost. You will see the inflated version because of govt forcing low wage workers to make 15 bucks an hour.

Show me where I agreed with the idea of a $15 minimum federal wage.

And it's absolutely about true costs. If people don't make a living wage, then the difference is made up by social programs (food stamps, etc.).

The true cost of what you buy at wal mart (or other similar labor abusers) is not the sticker price. It's the price on sticker + the extra taxes that go to wal mart employees who aren't being paid enough to be self sufficient.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:09 PM
Or he could just send them home and put in a machine instead. In many cases.

That happens to, but machines also require people to build and maintain them -- people who can earn enough many to support many more people.

It's certainly not a trivial matter. Nevertheless, the point remains: If you're a conservative businessperson bitching about moochers and you aren't paying your employees a living wage, you're part of the problem not the solution.

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 03:11 PM
It's pretty simple. If you're a businessperson and want people off the public dole: do your part and pay your employees a living wage.

Please do me a favor and ask to speak at your next local chamber of commerce meeting and present this concept to all the local business owners in your area. Please let me know how this goes over with tax paying business owners.

I know what you are getting at, you want the Feds to force this down our throats and control our profit margins? Supply and demand is evil right?

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 03:12 PM
BS Fed jobs in retail aren't supposed to be jobs you do for a career.

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 03:13 PM
You can't make it to where someone can live in So Calif, own a home, and a car, and work at Walmart. Sorry you have to try harder then that. Otherwise you live in an apt with 4 other people and scrape by.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:15 PM
Please do me a favor and ask to speak at your next local chamber of commerce meeting and present this concept to all the local business owners in your area. Please let me know how this goes over with tax paying business owners.

I know what you are getting at, you want the Feds to force this down our throats and control our profit margins? Supply and demand is evil right?

No, I want business owners to stop subsidizing their businesses with public dollar while simultaneously bitching about people using social programs. Guess what happens when you pay your employees a living wage? Less tax is needed for social programs.

Also, don't lecture me about supply and demand. You've already proven you don't have a clue about it -- when you talk about your "constant profit". Unless you have a business with 100% inelastic demand you are full of **** about changing your prices and maintaining the same profit margin.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:17 PM
BS Fed jobs in retail aren't supposed to be jobs you do for a career.

... yet many do. It's why what Houghtam says (two different standards for different types of workers) is somewhat interesting

cutthemdown
06-27-2013, 03:21 PM
... yet many do. It's why what Houghtam says (two different standards for different types of workers) is somewhat interesting

It's not interesting its BS liberal crap. Oh do the same job but because you are a kid you make 5 bucks an hour. While some deadbeat adult who decided to be lazy now gets 15 bucks an hour for the same job. How can people even take crap like this seriously. It's so stupid and will never be considered so what is interesting about it?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:22 PM
It's not interesting its BS liberal crap. Oh do the same job but because you are a kid you make 5 bucks an hour. While some deadbeat adult who decided to be lazy now gets 15 bucks an hour for the same job. How can people even take crap like this seriously. It's so stupid and will never be considered so what is interesting about it?

I didn't say it was something we should do, only that it was interesting.

And it's not that far fetched, we already do it (see my post about tipped employees).

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 03:23 PM
You can't make it to where someone can live in So Calif, own a home, and a car, and work at Walmart. Sorry you have to try harder then that. Otherwise you live in an apt with 4 other people and scrape by.

Who said anything about a wage that would allow someone to own a home and a car?

Do you not understand the term "living wage"?

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 03:33 PM
No, I want business owners to stop subsidizing their businesses with public dollar while simultaneously b****ing about people using social programs. Guess what happens when you pay your employees a living wage? Less tax is needed for social programs.

Also, don't lecture me about supply and demand. You've already proven you don't have a clue about it -- when you talk about your "constant profit". Unless you have a business with 100% inelastic demand you are full of **** about changing your prices and maintaining the same profit margin.

I didn’t say my income doesn't go up and down, I said my profit margin stays the same, do you know what a profit margin is?

I will ask you one simple question do you know what a fuel surcharge is and how it works?

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 04:19 PM
I didn’t say my income doesn't go up and down, I said my profit margin stays the same, do you know what a profit margin is?


Your profit margin will not stay constant if you increase price unless you have a product/service with 100% inelastic demand.

profit margin = (revenue - cost)/revenue

Lets do the math, shall we?

Scenario A (original setup):

Cost: (employee salaries, equipment, etc.): $10,000
Sales price of item: $100
Number of items sold: 1000
Revenue: $100,000

Net profit: $100,000 - $10,000 = $90,000
Profit margin: (net profit)/revenue = 90%

Scenario B (increase in employee costs that you don't try to pass along)

Cost: (employee salaries, equipment, etc.): $20,000
Sales price of item: $100
Number of items sold: 1000
Revenue: $100,000

Net profit: $100,000 - $20,000 = $80,000
Profit margin: $80000/$100000 = 80%

Scenario C (increase in employee costs that you do pass on by raising prices to maintain profit margin)

Cost: (employee salaries, equipment, etc.): $20,000
Revenue required to maintain a 90% profit margin: $200,000 (remember your algebra?)
Sales price of item to maintain profit margin: $200 (double the price!)
Number of items sold: 1000
Revenue: $200,000

Net profit: $200,000 - $20,000 = $180,000
Profit margin: $180000/$200000 = 90%

Look, you have the same profit margin. You're so right! I bow to you!

OH WAIT: Scenario C assumes the raise in price didn't affect the number of units sold even with increases in prices!

Of course, my example uses big numbers, but the principal is the same no matter the actual numbers involved. You CANNOT maintain a constant profit margin increasing prices to offset costs unless that you have 100% inelastic demand. Especially since maintaining net profit margin doesn't mean simply directly offsetting the extra costs, but maintaining that ratio (hence the necessity to add $100,000 to maintain a 90% margin with only a $10,000 increase in cost) You can mitigate profit margin reduction, but you can't maintain. Full Stop.


Pretty sad I have to explain this to a "highly successful business owner". This is econ 101 bub.

houghtam
06-27-2013, 05:01 PM
People who don't understand business should not own businesses. You're just selling yourselves (and thus your employees and community) short.

spdirty
06-27-2013, 05:23 PM
People who don't understand business should not own businesses. You're just selling yourselves (and thus your employees and community) short.

If the owners do 100% of the work, and don't hire employees, are they selling themselves and the community short?

houghtam
06-27-2013, 06:49 PM
If the owners do 100% of the work, and don't hire employees, are they selling themselves and the community short?

Yes, because without understanding even basic business concepts, you're potentially losing out on profits. Profits help both the business owner an the community.

Arkie
06-27-2013, 06:49 PM
You can't make it to where someone can live in So Calif, own a home, and a car, and work at Walmart. Sorry you have to try harder then that. Otherwise you live in an apt with 4 other people and scrape by.

That's because you can't legislate prosperity. We are the grandchildren of the failed social experiments over the last 80 years. Current times are a picnic compared to what our grandchildren will face with $125 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 07:19 PM
Pretty sad I have to explain this to a "highly successful business owner". This is econ 101 bub.

You do realize there are those that teach econ 101 and there are those that do it in the real word. For 30 years I’ve known exactly what my “cost of sale “on any and all products and services I offer to my customers. I also know exactly what percent of profit I need to keep my business running at an optimum level and year after year I prosper when others in my field fall by the wayside.

FYI there is members of the Mane that have used my business so your claim of BS is completely false. Raise the minimum wage or my taxes and I will still be in business and continue to pass the increase on to the consumer.

I guarantee Houghtam’s boss knows exactly what the “cost of sale” on a box of popcorn is and what profit margin he needs to maintain to cover Houghtam’s minimum wage.

chadta
06-27-2013, 07:27 PM
You do realize there are those that teach econ 101 and there are those that do it in the real word. For 30 years I’ve known exactly what my “cost of sale “on any and all products and services I offer to my customers. I also know exactly what percent of profit I need to keep my business running at an optimum level and year after year I prosper when others in my field fall by the wayside.

FYI there is members of the Mane that have used my business so your claim of BS is completely false. Raise the minimum wage or my taxes and I will still be in business and continue to pass the increase on to the consumer.

I guarantee Houghtam’s boss knows exactly what the “cost of sale” on a box of popcorn is and what profit margin he needs to maintain to cover Houghtam’s minimum wage.

But that can't be. You should keep your price the same and just make less. It's insane to pass the cost onto the consumer. /end sarcasm font.

Btw the cost on popcorn is about 20 cents a bag from my supplier anyhow and includes only popcorn flavacol and coconut oil and not the packaging for sale.

Rohirrim
06-27-2013, 07:53 PM
For some reason it's okay to increase the CEO's pay by 430%, but to give some poor schmuck an extra couple of grand per year means the downfall of Western civilization. The difference being, the CEO isn't going to spend a penny of that money and the schmuck will have to spend every penny just to survive.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 08:03 PM
You do realize there are those that teach econ 101 and there are those that do it in the real word. For 30 years I’ve known exactly what my “cost of sale “on any and all products and services I offer to my customers. I also know exactly what percent of profit I need to keep my business running at an optimum level and year after year I prosper when others in my field fall by the wayside.

FYI there is members of the Mane that have used my business so your claim of BS is completely false. Raise the minimum wage or my taxes and I will still be in business and continue to pass the increase on to the consumer.

I guarantee Houghtam’s boss knows exactly what the “cost of sale” on a box of popcorn is and what profit margin he needs to maintain to cover Houghtam’s minimum wage.

Even with a clear explanation, you just double down on your idiocy. % of profit (what you're calling it now) is NOT the same thing as profit margin. I won't even to try to explain why. I won't even fathom to guess what's going on in your head when you try to use terms you clearly have no grasp on.

Like I said, don't try to lecture me about sh*t you clearly don't understand. \

And don't make up bullsh*t lies like being able to maintain a constant profit margin over 30 years while dealing with changing costs and economic changes.

Here's Apple's -- a company making money hand over fist -- profit margins over the last 5 years.

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin

Of course, as we've already established you don't even understand the term, so perhaps you aren't actually lying.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 08:04 PM
But that can't be. You should keep your price the same and just make less. It's insane to pass the cost onto the consumer. /end sarcasm font.

Nice straw man. Try again.

TonyR
06-27-2013, 09:02 PM
There is a very simple rule that I follow. I maintain a constant profit margin and if there is a raise in the minimum wage or any other increase in the cost of good or services, I pass them directly to my customers.

I don't know what kind of business you run or how you run it. So I also don't know what type of customers you have so I don't know how an increase in the minimum wage would potentially impact demand for your product. But is it possible such an increase would increase the demand for your product? If not directly then indirectly? Most increases at the low end of the wage scale are spent, so that means there is more spending, more consumption, and more demand in the market in general. If demand for your product goes up then you sell more of your product and you therefore potentially make more money. Even though the profit per unit of product you sell may go down because of the increase in wages, you could possibly still make as much or more money. So, in this scenario you wouldn't necessarily have to increase the price of your product. That is some of the theory behind such a wage increase. Our economy currently has a demand problem because people don't make enough money. The lower you go down the wage scale, the higher the percentage of every extra dollar earned that will be spent. Thus, such a wage increase has a high potential to be stimulative. It won't work for everyone and everything, and thus not for everybody. But if you have the right product and run your business the right way it could potentially work for you. In other words, the equation isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 09:09 PM
Here's Apple's -- a company making money hand over fist -- profit margins over the last 5 years.

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin

Of course, as we've already established you don't even understand the term, so perhaps you aren't actually lying.

JFC …….. We are not talking about Apple here, we are talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and how a small to medium size business will handle the increase.

Fedaykin
06-27-2013, 09:18 PM
JFC …….. We are not talking about Apple here, we are talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour and how a small to medium size business will handle the increase.

No, we're talking about the bull**** lie of being able to maintain a constant profit margin for 30 years. And your incredible ignorance of these basic economics concepts.

As far as Apple.... Apple can't even maintain a constant profit margin over just 5 years even though it has far more flexibility and a whole lto better accountants than a small business.

;)

You tried some bull**** condescension about basic economics, and got caught with your pants down and your shoelaces tied together.

Missouribronc
06-27-2013, 09:43 PM
That's a pretty good blueprint to bankrupt small businesses.

Arkie
06-27-2013, 09:48 PM
It won't work for everyone and everything, and thus not for everybody. But if you have the right product and run your business the right way it could potentially work for you.

It's not for everybody, but Walmart will prosper. I'm sure they will gladly pay higher minimum wages because it will help the trend of snuffing out the smaller businesses struggling to compete with Walmart. The largest company in the world is always there to fill in the void whenever grocery stores, hardware stores, nurseries, pharmacies, electronic stores, and others go out of business.

spdirty
06-27-2013, 09:49 PM
Yes, because without understanding even basic business concepts, you're potentially losing out on profits. Profits help both the business owner an the community.

And what do we do with those employees you think should be hired from December to May, when even we struggle to find something to do? Pay them to sit on their asses?

Pony Boy
06-27-2013, 10:16 PM
No, we're talking about the bull**** lie of being able to maintain a constant profit margin for 30 years. And your incredible ignorance of these basic economics concepts.

You tried some bull**** condescension about basic economics, and got caught with your pants down and your shoelaces tied together.

Right, I have a 30 year successful track record in business and you don’t. Feel free to PM Doc B. he uses my business quite often. Here are a couple of posts from past threads, now do you want to call a very highly successful young surgeon a liar also.

Lol. Two dudes with worthless degrees flailing at Pony, who is possibly the most successful person I know in real life.

Lol. The opposite of fail. For instance, multiple self-started small businesses that did well enough that he doesn't have to work. And is happily married to the same woman for the past 35ish years. Plays golf whenever he likes and hangs out on the lake when not playing golf. Pretty successful.

houghtam
06-28-2013, 01:13 AM
Right, I have a 30 year successful track record in business and you don’t. Feel free to PM Doc B. he uses my business quite often. Here are a couple of posts from past threads, now do you want to call a very highly successful young surgeon a liar also.

Well!

/end thread right there!

Hilarious!

chadta
06-28-2013, 04:54 AM
For some reason it's okay to increase the CEO's pay by 430%,

I dont recall ever saying that

If demand for your product goes up then you sell more of your product and you therefore potentially make more money. Even though the profit per unit of product you sell may go down because of the increase in wages, you could possibly still make as much or more money.

So do things the Walmart way ? sell many things for very little money and make alot of money, well which is it ? is Walmart the most evil company ever or are they a model that we should be following ?

Nice straw man. Try again.

Not at all, why do you think containers of everything have been getting smaller and smaller, costs have gone up, rather than raising prices they have been shrinking product sizes.

Go to the supermarket and take a look at anything from cleaners, to soda pop, to potato chips, to dog food, I bet the container is smaller than it was 2 years ago. Chips went from 200g to 180, to 170, to 160, and now they have a new super size bag, at triple the price that's 200g. Mr Clean went from a 1 L bottle, to an 843ml bottle to a 750 ml bottle. Orange juice is doing the same thing.

Its only in some liberal utopia dream land that you can increase costs of raw materials without showing an increase cost in the final product. In the real world that doesn't work.

TonyR
06-28-2013, 08:05 AM
So do things the Walmart way ? sell many things for very little money and make alot of money, well which is it ? is Walmart the most evil company ever or are they a model that we should be following ?


Well that's an extreme example. Again, the concept here is rather simple. Our economy has a massive demand problem. The only way to increase demand is to put more money in people's pockets. The lower down the food chain, the more effective the stimulus effect. Higher wages does not have to lead directly to an equally large increase in prices if spending and demand increase. I know this is hard for you to understand but it's basic economics.

I'm not saying this is "the answer", and I'm not saying $15/hr is "the number". I'm only suggesting that this theory has some merit to it that is worthy of discussion. And you can certainly argue that this is favorable to handouts and tax cuts. This will work for efficient industries and efficient businesses. Those that aren't efficient may struggle and even fail. Darwin would be nodding his head.

Ever heard the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats"? Look it up.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 08:20 AM
Well that's an extreme example. Again, the concept here is rather simple. Our economy has a massive demand problem. The only way to increase demand is to put more money in people's pockets. The lower down the food chain, the more effective the stimulus effect. Higher wages does not have to lead directly to an equally large increase in prices if spending and demand increase. I know this is hard for you to understand but it's basic economics.

I'm not saying this is "the answer", and I'm not saying $15/hr is "the number". I'm only suggesting that this theory has some merit to it that is worthy of discussion. And you can certainly argue that this is favorable to handouts and tax cuts. This will work for efficient industries and efficient businesses. Those that aren't efficient may struggle and even fail. Darwin would be nodding his head.

Ever heard the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats"? Look it up.

It's really a production problem, not a demand problem.

The real problem with $15/hr grocery checkers is, especially by the time you add in all the state and federal (including now Obamacare) mandates, most employees become priced out of the market.

In the real world, most people would be willing to check their own groceries and save rather than have a $20+/hour cost tacked onto their shopping. Or alternatively, it hands even further advantage to kings of low labor automation like Amazon.

So the low-skilled workers get sent home. And now instead of the state worrying about how to help a $9/hour employee get by, they've got an unemployed worker with no marketable skills to figure out what to do with.

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 08:26 AM
Who knows what fast food would be become at a 15 dollar an hour wage. I think that would force them into being automated. Seriously you walk up and push buttons for your order, swipe your card, and machines cook your burger and fries. Grocery stores would be all self check out. Why? Because you can pay a checkout machine repair man 15 bucks an hour, but probably not just some young kid who stocks the shelves.

But my friend is union grocery store worker pretty sure he makes like 20 something an hour. But he is 43 and has been there since he was 17. You can't just pay some snot nosed newcomer 15 bucks an hour.

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 08:31 AM
What we really need is a new international corp tax rate. Along with it though we need to force by law american companies making money overseas to return home a certian % to be taxed and/or re-invested. Right now we have to much profit and dollars being left overseas never to help our country. Fact is companies can't pay 30 something % in the USA after paying all the money it takes to do business in other countries. They just leave it offshore.

Clinton has talked about, Bush SR talked about it, IMO its not a left or right issue its a hey times have changed issue. We never anticipated this much money being made overseas when we made the tax system one % fits all business.

Most big economies have already done this we are behind the times.

What would you rather do have them leave it overseason or have it back in the USA?

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 08:41 AM
What we really need is a new international corp tax rate. Along with it though we need to force by law american companies making money overseas to return home a certian % to be taxed and/or re-invested. Right now we have to much profit and dollars being left overseas never to help our country. Fact is companies can't pay 30 something % in the USA after paying all the money it takes to do business in other countries. They just leave it offshore.

Clinton has talked about, Bush SR talked about it, IMO its not a left or right issue its a hey times have changed issue. We never anticipated this much money being made overseas when we made the tax system one % fits all business.

Most big economies have already done this we are behind the times.

What would you rather do have them leave it overseason or have it back in the USA?

Being competitive is most important. Force an American company to repatriate all their Chinese proceeds, and they'll just move their HQ overseas and become just another foreign company selling Chinese goods to US consumers.

Stop actively punishing them for being American companies, and things will work out much better.

TonyR
06-28-2013, 08:43 AM
It's really a production problem, not a demand problem.

No, it's not. Production follows demand. Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.

houghtam
06-28-2013, 09:00 AM
No, it's not. Production follows demand. Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.

No, I saw Field of Dreams.

If you build it, they will come. Powerful Reaganomics messages in that film.

LOL

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 09:01 AM
Not at all, why do you think containers of everything have been getting smaller and smaller, costs have gone up, rather than raising prices they have been shrinking product sizes.

...

You miss the point. The straw man is your assertion that I have claimed costs should not be passed on. In fact, I said EXACTLY the opposite in this very thread.

That's, of course, not to say there aren't many business who are currently gouging their customers and/or abusing their labor. It's a great strategy for short terms profits, but does not lend itself to long term viability.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 09:03 AM
No, it's not. Production follows demand.

That's the fundamental disagreement.

Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.

Production is where all the real money is. Buy a Chinese pencil and you employ freight and retail channels.

Buy an American pencil, and you employ American loggers, sawmillers, miners, paint makers, plus freight and retail channels.

Demand stoked in a vacuum will buy whatever's available from wherever available. It diminishes itself over time. Demand driven by people producing things others need feeds itself.

Our biggest problem is the retail-demand-first economy. Great for multinationals and their upper crust. Pretty useless for the average underemployed American.

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 09:06 AM
Right, I have a 30 year successful track record in business and you don’t. Feel free to PM Doc B. he uses my business quite often. Here are a couple of posts from past threads, now do you want to call a very highly successful young surgeon a liar also.

I ain't saying you don't own a successful business. I AM saying you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand the economics of that business and/or are quite willing to lie about the performance of that business (e.g. absurdest claims about being able to maintain a constant profit margin for 30 years).

... all while being a silly douche bag trying, wildly unsuccessfully, to be condescending.

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 09:11 AM
Being competitive is most important. Force an American company to repatriate all their Chinese proceeds, and they'll just move their HQ overseas and become just another foreign company selling Chinese goods to US consumers.

Stop actively punishing them for being American companies, and things will work out much better.

I disagree many of them would love to bring that money home but they can't. Not at 30% tax. Drop it to about 5% and they will bring it back.

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 09:18 AM
Under feds plan you wouldn't have any small businesses. Forcing mom and pop diners, small retail stores etc to pay 15 bucks an hour would kill their business model.

Not my plan, you illiterate wanker.

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 09:24 AM
informal falacy.

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 09:26 AM
informal falacy.

LOLLOL

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 09:27 AM
This is a thread about whether or not we should raise the min wage to 15 bucks. You seemed to be arguing that would be a good thing. Then at same time you talk proper debating you use name calling all over the place. So trying to figure out where you are coming from is tough Ms Fed. You are just like Obama no wonder you love him so much.

TonyR
06-28-2013, 09:30 AM
I suggest some of you re-read (or, in many cases, read for the first time) the 2nd article I linked (below). I just re-read myself and Felix Salmon is making many of the same points myself and others are trying to make. Then, if you disagree, argue directly against these enumerated points.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/20/the-minimum-wage-stimulus/

This here, for example, is almost exactly one of the things I was trying to explain earlier in the thread:

...a higher minimum wage would be good for employment. A $450 billion stimulus, delivered directly into the hands of the Americans most likely to spend it, can’t help but create jobs across the economy. Of course, as in any healthy economy, there will be a birth/death model: some employers will see demand soar, while others will see their costs rise and their margins shrink. But there’s empirical evidence to suggest that states which raise the minimum wage when unemployment is high — when there’s a lot of slack in the labor force — then you get faster job growth than in the country as a whole.

(Pony should particularly take note of the underlined part...)

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 09:59 AM
This is a thread about whether or not we should raise the min wage to 15 bucks. You seemed to be arguing that would be a good thing.


Let's see. I didn't start the thread. I never said I agreed with $15 min wage, and in fact, I already went over this with you...

That you can't follow a simple conversation is not my problem, dumbass.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3870103&postcount=68

I prompted you again to see if you would own up to your original mistake. Instead you launch into more sillyness.

Then at same time you talk proper debating you use name calling all over the place.


There's a difference between TONE and content. I have no problem telling someone they are a dumbass when they behave like a dumbass. I also back it up with actual content, and don't rely on ad hominem as an argument.


So trying to figure out where you are coming from is tough Ms Fed. You are just like Obama no wonder you love him so much.

Show me where I've professed to "love" Obama.

Pony Boy
06-28-2013, 10:05 AM
(Pony should particularly take note of the underlined part...)

Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/General/Fuel%20Surcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesn’t require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 10:14 AM
Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/General/Fuel%20Surcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesn’t require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.

http://ycharts.com/companies/FDX/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/UPS/profit_margin

Still haven't looked up elasticity of demand eh?

houghtam
06-28-2013, 10:15 AM
Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/General/Fuel%20Surcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesn’t require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.

Yeah, we got hit with fuel surcharges pretty hard several years ago with the theater, and before that at the stadium.

You know what we did?

We found another company to do business with.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 11:17 AM
I disagree many of them would love to bring that money home but they can't. Not at 30% tax. Drop it to about 5% and they will bring it back.

That's what I mean. If the rate is decent, they'll bring it back. It was the 'forcing them by law' part I don't agree with.

That no longer works. At least not in a free trade world.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:20 AM
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.

houghtam
06-28-2013, 11:27 AM
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.

Yeah, but the horse took all the risk in being fed those oats to begin with. :)

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:29 AM
Yeah, but the horse took all the risk in being fed those oats to begin with. :)

I can only imagine the torture Romney went through.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 11:31 AM
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.

Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:37 AM
Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.

If what you say is true, the hit would be felt across all classes. That's not the case:

The richest 7% of American families saw their average wealth soar 28% from 2009 to 2011, while the remaining 93% of households lost 4% of their net worth over that same period, according to a new report.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/23/business/la-fi-mo-economy-wealth-20130423

Highest taxes in the world? You've got to be kidding. :pity:

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:39 AM
Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.

Asia improving economically caused Reagan to explicitly, and proudly engage in an economic strategy that funnels money to the upper 1%?

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:40 AM
Highest taxes in the world? You've got to be kidding. :pity:

It's pretty amazing the silly things these wingnuts will claim.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:42 AM
It's pretty amazing the silly things these wingnuts will claim.

Changing tax laws and regulations to benefit the rich is ideologically sound policy and rooted in our American traditions.

Changing tax laws and regulations to benefit the less-than-rich is socialism.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 11:44 AM
If what you say is true, the hit would be felt across all classes. That's not the case:

The richest 7% of American families saw their average wealth soar 28% from 2009 to 2011, while the remaining 93% of households lost 4% of their net worth over that same period, according to a new report.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/23/business/la-fi-mo-economy-wealth-20130423

Economic imperialism, plain and simple. The rich can harness and control resources globally. You and I scrape together what we can find here at home.

Highest taxes in the world? You've got to be kidding. :pity:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/02/worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rate-hurts-us-economically

World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:48 AM
Economic imperialism, plain and simple. The rich can harness and control resources globally. You and I scrape together what we can find here at home.



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/02/worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rate-hurts-us-economically

World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically

Learn the difference between nominal and effective tax rate. Even your link doesn't understand.

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:49 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_OECD_Countries%2C_200 0-2005_Average.jpg

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:50 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg

houghtam
06-28-2013, 11:51 AM
Learn the difference between nominal and effective tax rate. Even your link doesn't understand.

They didn't understand it during the election, why would they now?

houghtam
06-28-2013, 11:51 AM
LOL

Enter Beavis in "Chart Attack Mode"!

Fedaykin
06-28-2013, 11:52 AM
Raise your hand if you understand what a progressive tax system means....

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 11:53 AM
The effective corporate tax rate was cut another 20% after Bush was elected. There are some in corporate America (cough Koch Brothers cough) who believe the corporate tax rate should be zero. They snivel about ANY taxation.

TonyR
06-28-2013, 12:01 PM
LOL Beavis suddenly got very quiet. Just like in all the scandal threads! Hilarious!

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 12:05 PM
"The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

President Theodore Roosevelt

http://www.blogforarizona.com/.a/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0162fd73e275970d-320wi

houghtam
06-28-2013, 12:08 PM
"The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

President Theodore Roosevelt

http://www.blogforarizona.com/.a/6a00d8341bf80c53ef0162fd73e275970d-320wi

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

Failed Presidential Candidate Willard Romney

Arkie
06-28-2013, 12:13 PM
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.

That's the problem with government. They will do whatever they can get away with. Big or small, they are corrupt. It's taken some time for them to grow so big that they are untouchable. Smaller government is more accountable to the people. Nobody's to blame but our government leaders. Not necessarily the current leaders, but throughout American history, step by step, government officials have systematically turned a free republic into a corporatocracy.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 12:20 PM
That's the problem with government. They will do whatever they can get away with. Big or small, they are corrupt. It's taken some time for them to grow so big that they are untouchable. Smaller government is more accountable to the people. Nobody's to blame but our government leaders. Not necessarily the current leaders, but throughout American history, step by step, government officials have systematically turned a free republic into a corporatocracy.

The size is not important, and has no meaning. The laws are the root of the problem. Right now, we have a setup where corporate interests write the laws (see ALEC, for example http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-united-states-of-alec-a-follow-up/ ). Our laws say they can do that. Citizens United is the death knell of this republic if it doesn't get thrown out. Change the laws and you change the country.

Pony Boy
06-28-2013, 01:08 PM
That's the problem with government. They will do whatever they can get away with. Big or small, they are corrupt. It's taken some time for them to grow so big that they are untouchable. Smaller government is more accountable to the people. Nobody's to blame but our government leaders. Not necessarily the current leaders, but throughout American history, step by step, government officials have systematically turned a free republic into a corporatocracy.

Bipartisan Immigration bill filled with pork.


Buried within the 844 pages of the bipartisan immigration bill -- are pet provisions of the senators who crafted it.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wants more visas for the meat industry, a major employer in his state.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pushed for special treatment for Irish workers; his state is home to a large population with Irish ancestry.

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio sought help for the cruise-ship industry, a big business in his home state of Florida.

Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado wove in a boost for ski areas.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/immigration-bill-sprinkled-with-pet-projects/

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 01:36 PM
Chart Wars

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/chart-corporate-tax-rates.top.gif

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

houghtam
06-28-2013, 01:45 PM
Chart Wars

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/chart-corporate-tax-rates.top.gif

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm

Did you even read your own article?

Loopholes and other special treatment for different kinds of businesses mean that businesses pay an effective rate of only 29.2% of their income, which puts the United States below the average of 31.9% among other major economies, according to analysis by the Treasury Department.

BroncoInferno
06-28-2013, 01:48 PM
LOL

TonyR
06-28-2013, 02:05 PM
LOL

Beavis showed up at a gun fight with a butter knife.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 02:06 PM
Did you even read your own article?

Connect some dots, Hough.

It's true that what corporations actually pay isn't too out of line (yet) But it's only because they engage in just exactly the kind of evasion you kids say should be illegal.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/overseas-cash-and-the-tax-games-multinationals-play/?_r=0

The tax code provides multinationals based in the United States with many incentives to shift income to foreign low-tax jurisdictions. In theory, American corporations are taxed at 35 percent on their worldwide income. But income earned by an active controlled foreign corporation is not usually taxed until the cash is repatriated to the parent company in the United States as a dividend.

From a policy perspective, the problem is not so much that tax on foreign income is deferred, but rather that United States income is being masqueraded as foreign income.

We can't cut corporate taxes transparently because of the counter-corporate pitchfork brigade. Now you want to keep coming back until there really is no reason left to be an American multinational.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 02:08 PM
Beavis showed up at a gun fight with a butter knife.

Say it for me, just one time, Tony.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/482/534/0cf.jpg

LOL

chadta
06-28-2013, 03:29 PM
Learn the difference between nominal and effective tax rate. Even your link doesn't understand.

Corporations don't pay taxes, only the consumers do.

Much like the higher cost of labour will be passed on so will higher taxes, so by raising taxes on corporations you hurt most the people you are trying to help.


A few years ago up here there was talk of a $2.00 tax per blank CD, within days stores had started charging it, the ones that didn't quickly sold out of stock, then when they got new stock in they charged the tax that didn't exist two. It took the government coming out and saying it wasn't going to happen and to stop the gouging for them to stop. It was a rough 2 months trying to find cd's and dvd's. Small businesses were the first ones to jack up the rates, walmart and best buy were the last to get in on the gouging.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 04:21 PM
Did you even read your own article?

:spit:

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 04:30 PM
The world's global production was approx. $86 trillion in 2012. We can no longer allow the rich (individuals and corporations alike) to hide $32 trillion offshore, free from taxation. What that means is that they profit from the civilization we have built through our taxes, but they don't want to pay their fair share for it. The word for that is "parasites." The same leeches that shake their heads and lament with crocodile tears that they must continue to raise prices on everything from oil to food will then stand there and snivel when told their tax bill must go up as well.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 04:40 PM
The world's global production was approx. $86 trillion in 2012. We can no longer allow the rich (individuals and corporations alike) to hide $32 trillion offshore, free from taxation. What that means is that they profit from the civilization we have built through our taxes, but they don't want to pay their fair share for it. The word for that is "parasites." The same leeches that shake their heads and lament with crocodile tears that they must continue to raise prices on everything from oil to food will then stand there and snivel when told their tax bill must go up as well.

Civilization was built by taxes. Cool. Learn something new every day here on the OM. :)

houghtam
06-28-2013, 04:47 PM
Civilization was built by taxes. Cool. Learn something new every day here on the OM. :)

Maybe not "built" in the sense of the very primal aspects of "civilization" such as cohabitation, farming and animal domestication. But it is undeniable that taxes sustain and grow civilization. You're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 04:50 PM
Civilization was built by taxes. Cool. Learn something new every day here on the OM. :)

You think it wasn't? Really?

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/mus-tablet.gif
Sumerian tablet which records payment of the tax called "burden," circa 2500 B.C.

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/AncientTaxes.html

Would you also like examples of Persian, Greek, Chinese, Roman, Babylonian, etc etc etc taxes? How do you think civilizations are built, by a bunch of libertarians chipping in? :rofl:

houghtam
06-28-2013, 05:05 PM
You think it wasn't? Really?

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/mus-tablet.gif
Sumerian tablet which records payment of the tax called "burden," circa 2500 B.C.

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/AncientTaxes.html

Would you also like examples of Persian, Greek, Chinese, Roman, Babylonian, etc etc etc taxes? How do you think civilizations are built, by a bunch of libertarians chipping in? :rofl:

It takes a village, you know.

Hilarious!

Arkie
06-28-2013, 07:18 PM
How do you think civilizations are built, by a bunch of libertarians chipping in? :rofl:

America came closest to that ideal. We built our civilization without direct taxation.

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 07:49 PM
You think it wasn't? Really?

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/mus-tablet.gif
Sumerian tablet which records payment of the tax called "burden," circa 2500 B.C.

http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n28/AncientTaxes.html

Would you also like examples of Persian, Greek, Chinese, Roman, Babylonian, etc etc etc taxes? How do you think civilizations are built, by a bunch of libertarians chipping in? :rofl:

If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no federal government to record it, does it really fall? LOL

errand
06-28-2013, 07:57 PM
It's not for everybody, but Walmart will prosper. I'm sure they will gladly pay higher minimum wages because it will help the trend of snuffing out the smaller businesses struggling to compete with Walmart. The largest company in the world is always there to fill in the void whenever grocery stores, hardware stores, nurseries, pharmacies, electronic stores, and others go out of business.


Walmart doesn't put the mom and pop stores out of business, consumers do.

The average consumer wants a good product at a fair price...would you pay $4.99 for a product at mom and pop's store if another store has it for $2.99?

Requiem
06-28-2013, 09:48 PM
Ma and Pa stores > Wal Mart all day.