Does the minimum wage kill jobs?

[Sean Renaud]

Why should a business pay more than they have to pay?
That sounds like something the rich people say when they want people to pay more taxes. They forget to mention they do not pay the taxes they already owe and will not pay more if the tax rate is raised.

Because their workers aren't making enough money to survive.

And yes the rich will pay taxes. They are not fighting this tooth and nail because its something that isn't going to effect them. People don't spend millions of dollars getting lobbyists and buying senators because they want to have bad PR for doing those things.

 

[CNYCarol]

Most of those here need to take a few courses in Economics.

OK, imagine we raise the MW to $15 /hr. Because McD's needs to collect the funds to pay it's employees, from their customers, prices MUST go up.

In fact the BigMac would be nearly $5, the price goes up, more customers realize they can make the same thing at home for $1.50. Result: McD's has fewer customers. Fewer customers mean McD's has more employees than they need to service fewer customers. Result: Either McD's lays people off or they close their doors.

The real reason for raising the MW is to collect more in Payroll Taxes. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes.

ALL TAXES INCREASE PRICES!!!!

Imagine the basics. You own a bakery and sell loaves of bread for 50cents. The government step in and says they are going to TAX you 25cents for every loaf you make. What price do you have to charge your customers? Most believe the new cost will be 75cents. WRONG!!!

The new price will be $1.00, because you are now forced to hire another employee, simply to track how many loaves you bake and maintain records proving ALL taxes have been paid for the last 7 years, in order to prove you are in FULL LEGAL COMPLIANCE with the new Federal Tax.

 

[possum123]

Because their workers aren't making enough money to survive.

And yes the rich will pay taxes. They are not fighting this tooth and nail because its something that isn't going to effect them. People don't spend millions of dollars getting lobbyists and buying senators because they want to have bad PR for doing those things.

If the workers are working they are surviving. They may not be able to buy everything they want but they survive. If they want more money they could get a better job. If they are not qualified, educated, or skilled enough to get a better job they should do something about it instead of demanding more money for an unskilled job any person off the street can do without any training.

You do not know many rich people. They hire lawyers to keep from paying more taxes. If they want to pay more taxes no one is stopping them. The IRS even has a special form they can fill out to pay more taxes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you raise wages, you must raise prices, because most businesses run a pretty thin profit margin

Once again the Chief shows a rather stunning ignorance of price inelasticity.

Also, his conjecture that "most businesses run a pretty thin profit margin" is subjective and not particularly grounded in reality. HERE is a list of the top 15 industry profit margins

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sorry Carol, that's not how it functions in the real world, that's how it functions in a text book.

And no possum, the workers are not surviving in any functional way. Some of them can get better jobs but ultimately that doesn't really change the crux of the problem.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why should a business pay more than they have to pay?

So people can afford to buy its products.

Henry Ford figured that one out a hundred years ago. He paid his workers more than he might have got them for under basic market-competition, so they could buy Model T's, etc. After all, why should your employees and your customers be non-overlapping groups? That only costs you customers. And he had considerable difficulty convincing his shareholders of the common sense of that. But it was Ford's high-wage vision that not only led to the success of Ford Motors and the auto industry in general, but was the foundation of the 20th-Century American social contract, and paved the way for the mass-consumption society and the beginnings of the erasure, for the first time in history, of the distinction between the working class and the middle class.

 

[possum123]

Sorry Carol, that's not how it functions in the real world, that's how it functions in a text book.

And no possum, the workers are not surviving in any functional way. Some of them can get better jobs but ultimately that doesn't really change the crux of the problem.

They may not be able to buy a new car every year and live in a new house but they survive. If they do not survive they die.
Why wouldn't getting a better job not be a good thing?
If they want more money then a better job would be the answer.
That is unless they want more money for not getting a better job.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Here is another problem with applying a macroeconomic theory to to microeconomic reality.

When you raise the minimum wage nationally, to create a living wage in the big cities as defined by their liberal residents, you do not just create fewer jobs in most of the rest of America which has a much, much lower cost of living, you simply put businesses out of business.

Are you then going to support that cost to the Social Safety net with higher taxes on all of your employees now making their living wage?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So people can afford to buy its products.

Henry Ford figured that one out a hundred years ago. He paid his workers more than he might have got them for under basic market-competition, so they could buy Model T's, etc. After all, why should your employees and your customers be non-overlapping groups? That only costs you customers. And he had considerable difficulty convincing his shareholders of the common sense of that. But it was Ford's high-wage vision that not only led to the success of Ford Motors and the auto industry in general, but was the foundation of the 20th-Century American social contract, and paved the way for the mass-consumption society and the beginnings of the erasure, for the first time in history, of the distinction between the working class and the middle class.

Do you not see the voluntary business decision there as opposed to a mandate at the point of a gun? What worked one time, in one limited instance against a totally different economic reality is not going to work in theory when the government comes in and demands every business pay what government believes it should pay.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Then let us examine another facet of this argument, replacement goods. If you raise the price of fast food, for example, some people are going to notice that you can get ready-made frozen angus burgers, fried chicken, White Castle burgers and other fast-food goodies like Chili's appetizers, along with frozen fries, at the frozen section of your local bulk box store at a newly competitive price. So then you begin to lose a little business. Instead of waiting in line for 10 minutes, you just nuke it. You could put a lot of franchises out of business, but then again, perhaps with some of the liberal element, getting rid of public junk food is a desired goal with higher prices, which brings up back to another microeconomic truth, if you want less of something, raise the price. If you want less alcohol and tobacco consumption, you raise the taxes. You want less soda and fast food consumption, raise the taxes. You want less labor, you impose a tax upon it by raising the floor at which the employer can pay his employee for doing a job that he owns.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Clearly, "one size fits all" is something KO and the Soviet Union believed in.

#AscriptionAgain
#DisgraceToTheUSMC
#CommiesEverywhere

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Clearly, "one size fits all" is something KO and the Soviet Union believed in.

I do not think the Soviets believed in microeconomics, that is for sure.

I think KO is driven by his good intentions and as Goldberg pointed out, playing the role of hero...

Doin' civil rights ain't got no end. Plenty of violaters down in Texas...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Then let us examine another facet of this argument, replacement goods. If you raise the price of fast food, for example, some people are going to notice that you can get ready-made frozen angus burgers, fried chicken, White Castle burgers and other fast-food goodies like Chili's appetizers, along with frozen fries, at the frozen section of your local bulk box store at a newly competitive price. So then you begin to lose a little business. Instead of waiting in line for 10 minutes, you just nuke it. You could put a lot of franchises out of business, but then again, perhaps with some of the liberal element, getting rid of public junk food is a desired goal with higher prices, which brings up back to another microeconomic truth, if you want less of something, raise the price. If you want less alcohol and tobacco consumption, you raise the taxes. You want less soda and fast food consumption, raise the taxes. You want less labor, you impose a tax upon it by raising the floor at which the employer can pay his employee for doing a job that he owns.

Not so sure this is less labor. Sounds like the labor is moving from a fast food establishment to a grocery store.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Clearly, "one size fits all" is something KO and the Soviet Union believed in.

what cracks me up is that people like KingofDumbAss and RobFatAss would till be at the bottom ... and yes, in communist countries there is a 'in crowd' where people live very WELL

why do these obama slaves desire to bring everyone down? are they that mentally fucked ?

 

[Sean Renaud]

They may not be able to buy a new car every year and live in a new house but they survive. If they do not survive they die.
Why wouldn't getting a better job not be a good thing?
If they want more money then a better job would be the answer.
That is unless they want more money for not getting a better job.

At the end of the year are they paying (income) taxes or are they collecting food stamps, getting section eight housing? Are they getting a subsidy on Obamacare? if the answer to the first is no and the others are yes they are NOT surviving. Unless you are going to stick with the strict definition in which case they will survive regardless of having a job or not.

Getting a better job in the end isn't possible. Surely you mus t understand why any given business be it the military, a Wal-Mart or a tech firm cannot have more managers than grunts right? Or how if everybody is qualified to be a surgeon that won't actually increase the number of available victims so it'll end up being like a HS Diploma, you absolutely must have it to flip burgers but that's because everybody has one?

You have no way of knowing that. You think you know what a business man's profit margin "should be," like all good totalitarians, you'd like to tell him what he can make and what he can't make. Unfortunately, this is the United states of America. Obama hasn't quite made the transition to the Soviet Union yet.

Of course we can. It's called being human and even in America we long since started setting "limits" we just call them tax brackets and they are currently skewed by the foolish idea that simpler is better by people like you who never graduated from checkers to chess.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Soviet Union has been gone for almost 15 years now, but some folks here have a very hard time letting go of their favorite bogeyman.

Sad.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not so sure this is less labor. Sounds like the labor is moving from a fast food establishment to a grocery store.

No, to bulk processing (automated) and bulk distribution which will need to add fewer employees to distribute more bulk food that it take to distribute it and process it over many smaller mom & pops, which is what most fast-food places are.

People see Mickey Dees and think corporate giant, which they may be, but at the bottom of their pyramid is mainly the middle class who have gambled their entire life on making a franchise location their livelihood.

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Most of those here need to take a few courses in Economics.

OK, imagine we raise the MW to $15 /hr. Because McD's needs to collect the funds to pay it's employees, from their customers, prices MUST go up.

In fact the BigMac would be nearly $5, the price goes up, more customers realize they can make the same thing at home for $1.50. Result: McD's has fewer customers. Fewer customers mean McD's has more employees than they need to service fewer customers. Result: Either McD's lays people off or they close their doors.

The real reason for raising the MW is to collect more in Payroll Taxes. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes.

ALL TAXES INCREASE PRICES!!!!

Imagine the basics. You own a bakery and sell loaves of bread for 50cents. The government step in and says they are going to TAX you 25cents for every loaf you make. What price do you have to charge your customers? Most believe the new cost will be 75cents. WRONG!!!

The new price will be $1.00, because you are now forced to hire another employee, simply to track how many loaves you bake and maintain records proving ALL taxes have been paid for the last 7 years, in order to prove you are in FULL LEGAL COMPLIANCE with the new Federal Tax.

don't use logic, especially on that SeanR as the R stands for Retarded. You have to remember that the pro obama people suffer from some sort of mental defect. they are unable to see the big picture or what these fantasies are...

just look back 50 years and the price of a home vs today....
the price of a car 50 years ago vs today ...

as uncle obama tells mcDonald's people they are worth $15 an hour ... shit will role down hill and in time that burger flipper will have to pay more in rent ... pay more for that CarMax car ....

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Sorry Carol, that's not how it functions in the real world, that's how it functions in a text book.

And no possum, the workers are not surviving in any functional way. Some of them can get better jobs but ultimately that doesn't really change the crux of the problem.

help me understand ... why is a burger flipper worth $15 an hour?????
that burger flipper is worth $4 an hour...if that.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The "Profits Over People" crew has long regarded profit margins as sacrosanct.

you have no fucking idea what a 'profit' is because fatman you hide from reality.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, to bulk processing (automated) and bulk distribution which will need to add fewer employees to distribute more bulk food that it take to distribute it and process it over many smaller mom & pops, which is what most fast-food places are.

People see Mickey Dees and think corporate giant, which they may be, but at the bottom of their pyramid is mainly the middle class who have gambled their entire life on making a franchise location their livelihood.

That's super but I must not have been clear in my post.

The grocery store will need more employees to stock shelves, more cashiers because they have more business, will need more employees to clean because there's more foot traffic, possibly more administration because they have more employees, they'll need more truck drivers to get all the things you mentioned to the store.

The labor does move from fast food to the grocery store. If the grocery store is doing more business as you suggest they'll want more employees.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's super but I must not have been clear in my post.

The grocery store will need more employees to stock shelves, more cashiers because they have more business, will need more employees to clean because there's more foot traffic, possibly more administration because they have more employees, they'll need more truck drivers to get all the things you mentioned to the store.

The labor does move from fast food to the grocery store. If the grocery store is doing more business as you suggest they'll want more employees.

I did not say grocery store did I? I said Box Store.

But the principle is still the same. One stocker is more productive since all he has to do is open boxes and stock freezers so the jobs from multiple mom and pops will nowhere near equal the few that it takes to replace them. Similarly, they will need fewer truck drivers because they will be able to employ full loads where oftentimes you see the individual franchises being, of course, of less volume, being serviced by smaller trucks or trucks running less than full, i.e., less efficiently. In Cconomics, volume is your friend for it leads to productivity gains.

They will need very few more employees compared to the jobs lost. It will not be a one for one. It will be a gradual, you know, that's pretty expensive, lets eat at home tonight. You do not just displace the jobs, but you displace the entrepreneurs who were willing to take a risk and create jobs. You also put a brake on future entrepreneurs who calculate the risks and costs and then decide the benefit will not be there, so then they take a lesser job at your grocery store thus putting up another barricade to the unskilled worker, for you can get someone with skills to do the job for a lot less than what they are worth.