Congressional Min Wage Failure to be Passed on to next President
The_Carpathia
that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
dangerous impact on the economy. When they first passed the bill and
raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
workers or raise prices to keep businesses in the black. Others
protested that would be the outcome. However, look around.
Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
So, the press isn't even hiding this impact, this time. This
Associated Press article...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390022,00.html
...has quotes from business owners that say they will be raising their
prices to adjust for the increased required minimum wage (saying there
is no room to do otherwise to make a profit). They admit that this
increase will also result in increased food costs, since agriculture
workers will have to be paid more. Basically, every industry that
includes minimum wage workers will be faced with increased costs in an
economy already hit hard by fuel costs and Democrat refusals to
drill. So, there will have to be increased income to the industry or
layoffs. It's basic economics. While downplaying the risk in this AP
article (which traditionally sides with Democrats), they admit the
risk of a wage-price spiral sending inflation soaring (they even
provide evidence of it happening, now, in their article...both the
demand for higher wage and the increased costs).
The impact of this wage increase won't be felt until later this year
(about election time...Democrat planned); however, the third wage
increase happens next year in the term of the next President (watch
for Democrat talk about suspending that increase, after winning the
election). So, the next President will have to pay more for Social
Security and Medicare and Medicaid to make it work, will have to pay
more for education (hit with higher gas prices and increased min wage
to some employees), pay more for healthcare, etc. However, if they
fix it by increasing taxes upon workers and companies (corporate
taxes), it is going to spell more lost jobs (taxes on companies), more
higher prices (from higher HR costs), and less money for the workers
to spend (due to increased sales and individual taxes). Looks like
Democrats dug their own grave and ensured a Republican victory, after
a failed administration in fixing these problems.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Larry Hewitt
"The_Carpathia" <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f7222fef-a6c9-41c1...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Business whines about every minimum wage hike, going back for decades.
Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that any minimum wage hike has hurt the
economy.
In fact, putting more money ion the hands of consumers, exactly what
everyone wanted with he recent stimulus package, does have a beneficial
impact.
So why do these people object to people earning a living wage?
According to census bureau figures, more and more adults and heads of
families are earning minimum wage. Minimum is no longer reserved for
teenagers and part timers.
It is the height of greed an selfishness to demand more, cheaper stuff on
the backs of others.
Larry
The_Carpathia
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Try to stay with me...I know it's hard for you. A business has a
limited budget. They are forced (by the government) to pay more to
workers. This is an increased cost or liability on the business.
They MUST increase the supply of assets (they have a lower supply of
cash) to make a balanced budget. The ONLY ways of doing this is by
limiting demand (by layoffs) or increasing the assets, which would be
price hikes. So, EVERY minimum wage will (and historically has) cause
layoffs and price hikes at the consumer market. That is the ONLY way
to adjust to such forced limitations of asset liability, short of
government tax breaks for corporations to help them adjust (which I
note Democrats didn't offer).
Therefore, the prices will go (and have gone) up. Jobs will continue
to be lost. You see it happening, and it will continue...and, you now
know the reason. By the way, how many minimum wage workers do you
think oil and gas companies employ (or are employed at service
stations)...hint hint.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The_Carpathia
> According to the news stories that are out today, the min wage hike
> that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
> dangerous impact on the economy. When they first passed the bill and
> raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
> businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
> workers or raise prices to keep businesses in the black. Others
> protested that would be the outcome. However, look around.
> Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
>
> So, the press isn't even hiding this impact, this time. This
The irony (and entertainment) is watching Democrats claim there was no
impact from the last minimum wage increase upon the economy, while
claiming the economy is so bad that we need a change in government.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Patriot Games
<writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>According to the news stories that are out today, the min wage hike
>that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
>dangerous impact on the economy. When they first passed the bill and
>raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
>businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
>workers or raise prices to keep businesses in the black. Others
>protested that would be the outcome. However, look around.
>Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
>So, the press isn't even hiding this impact, this time. This
>Associated Press article...
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390022,00.html
>(about election time...Democrat planned);
Sorry. The impact will start being felt within a month. Any wage
increase directly affects cash flow immediately and will then have to
be recouped immediately.
Larry Hewitt
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
---
Try to stay with me,. I know thinking is painful and logic eludes you, but
try anyway.
Higher wages means more disposable income in the hands of consumers.
More disposable income in the hands of consumers means more money is spent
by consumers.
More money spent by consumers means business increases sales and GDP goes
up.
More sales by business means more stuff is made to fill those sales.
More stuff being made means that more people are hired to make that stuff.
More people employed means more stuff is bought, and the cycle goes on.
Business whines about increased costs, and the need to pass those costs on
to consumers or lay off workers.
In reality, this rarely happens.. In reality there are many, many ways of
dealing with "increased costs" other than laying off employees or raising
costs.
When the last raise went into effect, for ex, local; pizza restaurants
whined it would be the end of their industry.
We're eating more pizza than ever.And pizzas are actually cheaper now than
before.
Why?
Smarts. Intelligence. Innovation. Concepts you are completely unfamiliar
with.
Chains worked with suppliers to find ways to lower costs of goods.
They changed recipes.
They found ways to be more efficient: new ovens, automation and technology
(like ordering through the web), and such
They actually expanded menus to more profitable items, so now we can get
pasta (Pizza Hut), sandwiches (Dominos), chicken and desserts (Papa John).
Or they came up with gimmicks like Little Caesar's always ready pizza.
So, despite the raises in cost for salaries. gasoline (delivery charges),
and energy ( those ovens use a lot) pizza places are thriving.
So stop whining.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The humor in this statement is you trying to conflate an inconsequential
increase in salaries at the bottom of he labor pool with the hundreds of
billions in losses in the banking industry and manufacturers that do not pay
minimum wage.
Oh, BTW, you did realize that 23 states comprising more than half the
population of the US, have state mandated minimums _above _ the new federal
standard, so more than half the country is unaffected by the change?
Larry
Cary Kittrell
> According to the news stories that are out today, the min wage hike
> that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
> dangerous impact on the economy. When they first passed the bill and
> raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
> businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
> workers or raise prices to keep businesses in the black. Others
> protested that would be the outcome. However, look around.
> Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
Of course this has nothing to do with the collapse of
the mortgage market, which had a global impact and
resulted in the destruction of a number of venerable
financial institutions -- it must be the minimum wage.
Just as it has nothing to do with the long-term decline
of the American dollar against other currencies, a trend
well in motion before the wage hike -- it must be
the minimum wag.e
Similarly it has little to do with $150 a barrel oil, which
affects the price of just about everything you buy -- it
must be the minimum wage.
Oddly enough, you seem to be the only leading economist
who sees the wage hike as having much significance
at all as compared to those three financial firestorms.
>
> So, the press isn't even hiding this impact, this time. This
> Associated Press article...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390022,00.html
Ah, yes:
So the minimum wage hike is "a drop in the bucket compared to the
increases in costs, declining labor market, and declining household
wealth that consumers have experienced in the past year," Lehman
Brothers economist Zach Pandl said.
The new minimum is less than the inflation-adjusted 1997 level of
$7.02, and far below the inflation-adjusted level of $10.06 from 40
years ago, according to a Labor Department inflation calculator.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws making the
minimum wage higher than the new federal requirement, a group covering
60 percent of U.S. workers, according to the Economic Policy Institute,
a think tank.
>
> ...has quotes from business owners that say they will be raising their
> prices to adjust for the increased required minimum wage (saying there
> is no room to do otherwise to make a profit). They admit that this
> increase will also result in increased food costs, since agriculture
> workers will have to be paid more. Basically, every industry that
> includes minimum wage workers will be faced with increased costs in an
> economy already hit hard by fuel costs and Democrat refusals to
> drill. So, there will have to be increased income to the industry or
> layoffs. It's basic economics.
And basic economics says, among other things, that if income
is increased -- by such things as a minimum wage hike --
income earners then spend more, which is good for all sectors
of the economy.
> While downplaying the risk in this AP
> article (which traditionally sides with Democrats),
Evidence for this totally unsupported assertation:
> they admit the
> risk of a wage-price spiral sending inflation soaring
You mean the part where they say:
That makes it unlikely the minimum wage increase will trigger
a "wage-price spiral,"
That part?
While we're at it, I noticed these quotes too:
But he said he did not expect the change to have a
major impact on the economy because recent increases
in productivity, which enables companies to produce more
with fewer workers, are keeping labor costs in check.
And most businesses, even restaurants and other service sector
companies, already pay above the minimum wage anyway. Dan Whitaker,
general manager at Anis Bistro in Atlanta, a casual French restaurant,
said employees earn at least $8 an hour.
"You can't get a dishwasher for minimum wage," he said.
(they even
> provide evidence of it happening, now, in their article...both the
> demand for higher wage and the increased costs).
>
> The impact of this wage increase won't be felt until later this year
> (about election time...Democrat planned); however, the third wage
> increase happens next year in the term of the next President (watch
> for Democrat talk about suspending that increase, after winning the
> election). So, the next President will have to pay more for Social
> Security and Medicare and Medicaid to make it work, will have to pay
> more for education (hit with higher gas prices and increased min wage
> to some employees), pay more for healthcare, etc. However, if they
> fix it by increasing taxes upon workers and companies (corporate
> taxes), it is going to spell more lost jobs (taxes on companies), more
> higher prices (from higher HR costs), and less money for the workers
> to spend (due to increased sales and individual taxes). Looks like
> Democrats dug their own grave and ensured a Republican victory, after
> a failed administration in fixing these problems.
You might want to check out how often minimum-wage propositions
on state ballots win before you go claiming that such will
hurt an incumbent.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> On Jul 24, 6:49=A0am, The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > According to the news stories that are out today, the min wage hike
> > that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
> > raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
> > businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
> > protested that would be the outcome. =A0However, look around.
> > Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
> >
> > Associated Press article...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390022,00.=
> html
> >
> > ...has quotes from business owners that say they will be raising their
> > prices to adjust for the increased required minimum wage (saying there
> > increase will also result in increased food costs, since agriculture
> > includes minimum wage workers will be faced with increased costs in an
> > economy already hit hard by fuel costs and Democrat refusals to
> > layoffs. =A0It's basic economics. =A0While downplaying the risk in this A=
> P
> > article (which traditionally sides with Democrats), they admit the
> > risk of a wage-price spiral sending inflation soaring (they even
> > provide evidence of it happening, now, in their article...both the
> > demand for higher wage and the increased costs).
> >
> > The impact of this wage increase won't be felt until later this year
> > (about election time...Democrat planned); however, the third wage
> > increase happens next year in the term of the next President (watch
> > for Democrat talk about suspending that increase, after winning the
> > Security and Medicare and Medicaid to make it work, will have to pay
> > more for education (hit with higher gas prices and increased min wage
> > fix it by increasing taxes upon workers and companies (corporate
> > taxes), it is going to spell more lost jobs (taxes on companies), more
> > higher prices (from higher HR costs), and less money for the workers
> > Democrats dug their own grave and ensured a Republican victory, after
> > a failed administration in fixing these problems.
> >
> > Kenneth Clifton
> > christiansuperhero.com
>
> The irony (and entertainment) is watching Democrats claim there was no
> impact from the last minimum wage increase upon the economy, while
> claiming the economy is so bad that we need a change in government.
And that is logically inconsistent...how, exactly?
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>The irony (and entertainment) is watching Democrats claim there was no
>impact from the last minimum wage increase upon the economy,
There wasn't.
>while claiming the economy is so bad that we need a change in government.
We do. The economy is the pits because of Bushwhack's war and his
record breaking deficits, and his lack of enforcement of government
regulations, and ... and ...
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>Try to stay with me...I know it's hard for you. A business has a
>limited budget. They are forced (by the government) to pay more to
>workers. This is an increased cost or liability on the business.
>They MUST increase the supply of assets (they have a lower supply of
>cash) to make a balanced budget. The ONLY ways of doing this is by
>limiting demand (by layoffs) or increasing the assets, which would be
>price hikes.
Or by increasing sales volume/productivity, or ...
>So, EVERY minimum wage will (and historically has) cause
>layoffs and price hikes at the consumer market.
Your "historical" claim lacks evidence. As he, increases in the
minimum wage have NOT damaged the economy.
>Therefore, the prices will go (and have gone) up.
They will go up anyway. The added amount caused by the minimum wage
will be noise level.
Cary Kittrell
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Try to stay with me...I know it's hard for you. A business has a
> >limited budget. They are forced (by the government) to pay more to
> >workers. This is an increased cost or liability on the business.
> >They MUST increase the supply of assets (they have a lower supply of
> >cash) to make a balanced budget. The ONLY ways of doing this is by
> >limiting demand (by layoffs) or increasing the assets, which would be
> >price hikes.
>
> Or by increasing sales volume/productivity, or ...
>
> >So, EVERY minimum wage will (and historically has) cause
> >layoffs and price hikes at the consumer market.
>
> Your "historical" claim lacks evidence. As he, increases in the
> minimum wage have NOT damaged the economy.
>
> >Therefore, the prices will go (and have gone) up.
>
> They will go up anyway. The added amount caused by the minimum wage
> will be noise level.
Ah, but Ken has reasoned this out from first principles. Armchair
economics at its best.
See, just as a physicist may say "neglecting friction..." or
"neglecting second-order considerations...", Ken can
say "neglecting the collapse of the mortgage market,
the failure of financial institutions, the decline of
the dollar, the unprecedented national debt, the
rise in fuel prices, and the fact that higher
wages leads to more spending, then we can clearly see..."
It ain't rocket science.
(really. it's not)
-- cary
Crecentius Vespasianus
>
> Try to stay with me,. I know thinking is painful and logic eludes you, but
> try anyway.
>
> Higher wages means more disposable income in the hands of consumers.
>
You know it's kind of like higher gasoline prices for your budget. I
shouldn't make a difference, by your logic.
triba_...@yahoo.com
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
as well as that "i want to see you always busy" slavemaster attitude
that has become to very prevalent in the business world now. their
ass aint' busy all the time, and they should learn to lead by
example
>
> Larry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
triba_...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
you aren't part of the solution, the_carpathia... you are part of the
problem. and you most verily shall go to hell for your greed, your
disrespect of others, and other sins....
yes,most verily, ye surely shall!
triba_...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh, we got it now... you are one of those neo-con, nazi,
repugliKKKKan slavebosses... it figures......
Larry Hewitt
"Crecentius Vespasianus" <jazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DOmdnW7KDdVscRXV...@earthlink.com...
Another logic impaired conservative trying to peer through the darkness of
his ignorance.
Larry
MACK DADDY
> According to the news stories that are out today, the min wage hike
> that happens tomorrow (the 2nd of 3 such hikes) is going to have a
> dangerous impact on the economy. When they first passed the bill and
> raised it the first time, many of us warned about the impact when
> businesses (with fixed human resources budget) would have to lay off
> workers or raise prices to keep businesses in the black. Others
> protested that would be the outcome. However, look around.
> Unemployment is going up, and prices are rising, as well.
>
> So, the press isn't even hiding this impact, this time. This
If higher wages are the problem why are you not taking a pay cut?
STupid fascist!
MACK DADDY
> "The_Carpathia" <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see all these corporate fascists who bitch and moan about
minimum wage increases willing to put holds on their own overpaid
salaries!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's funny as hell watchin' you Republitards crying about the poor
business owners struggling to make ends meet and having to pay a
slightlly higher minimum wage. Cry me a fuckin' river! Those whiners
be takin home 6 figures, or more. If they can't pay the workers maybe
they should close down shop!
MACK DADDY
wrote:
Yeah, you're right! You DON"T make a difference! ROTFLMMFAO
Bob LeChevalier
>The impact of this wage increase won't be felt until later this year
>(about election time...Democrat planned); however, the third wage
>increase happens next year in the term of the next President (watch
>for Democrat talk about suspending that increase, after winning the
>election).
Not likely. More likely they will increase it again.
>Looks like
>Democrats dug their own grave and ensured a Republican victory, after
>a failed administration in fixing these problems.
Wishful thinking.
Patriot Games
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>Try to stay with me,. I know thinking is painful and logic eludes you, but
>try anyway.
>Higher wages means more disposable income in the hands of consumers.
Let's TEST that.
Joe's Subshop:
1) 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
2) Minimum wage of $1/hr.
3) 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
4) Joe says "Hell No!" and lets one go.
4) 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
Total disposable income in the hands of consumers WAS $24.
Total disposable income in the hands of consumers IS $21.
Try again, Larry.
Bob LeChevalier
Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
him a loser.
Meanwhile, the laid off employee goes to a smarter competitor, Sam,
who pays him the $7/hr, and increases his sales proportionately.
Sam's Hero Shop
1) 4 employees as $6/hr = $24
4) 5 employees at $7/hr = $35
Net increase in income is $11, more than enough to make up for Joe's
self-punitive cutback of $3.
25% increase in business (which in such a well-managed business will
more than cover the added employee costs, which in most industries is
a small fraction of sales income.
Larry Hewitt
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in message
news:c58k841ml3vpb3ljm...@4ax.com...
You try again.
AS noted, despite the whining of the food indistry, no layoffs occured. I
Instead, they squeezed out efficiencies or made small price increases, or
both, to meet the increased costs.
In fact, as noted, the pizza industry, one of the biggest whiners, is
expereincing rising stock values and increasing proiofits, despite the last
raise in the minimum wage.
Just go the the BEA web site and check the employment numbers around hte
time of the las tincrease.
No blips, bumps, spikes., peaks, etc.
Larry
MACK DADDY
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:55:19 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
>
LOOKS TO ME LIKE JOE IS POCKETING 3 BUCKS PER HOUR, BUT UNABLE TO SELL
AS MANY SANDWICHES DUE TO NOT ENOUGH HANDS!
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:55:19 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
>><larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>Try to stay with me,. I know thinking is painful and logic eludes you, but
>>>try anyway.
>>>Higher wages means more disposable income in the hands of consumers.
>>Let's TEST that.
>>Joe's Subshop:
>>1) 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>>2) Minimum wage of $1/hr.
>>3) 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
>>4) Joe says "Hell No!" and lets one go.
>>4) 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
>>Total disposable income in the hands of consumers WAS $24.
>>Total disposable income in the hands of consumers IS $21.
>>Try again, Larry.
>Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
>minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
>Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
>1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
>him a loser.
Only an idiot would assume constant productivity. If they are getting
PAID MORE then they must WORK MORE.
>Meanwhile, the laid off employee goes to a smarter competitor, Sam,
>who pays him the $7/hr, and increases his sales proportionately.
>Sam's Hero Shop
>1) 4 employees as $6/hr = $24
>4) 5 employees at $7/hr = $35
>Net increase in income is $11, more than enough to make up for Joe's
>self-punitive cutback of $3.
Joe's "self-punitive cutback of $3" allowed him to pass on a 12.5%
price cut to consumers.
Sam has to increase prices 45.83%...
Sam will be out of business very soon.
Joe won't.
>25% increase in business
You mean a 25% increase in EMPLOYEES.
His COST increased 45.83%...
Patriot Games
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in message
>news:c58k841ml3vpb3ljm...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:55:19 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
>> <larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>>>Try to stay with me,. I know thinking is painful and logic eludes you, but
>>>try anyway.
>>>Higher wages means more disposable income in the hands of consumers.
>> Let's TEST that.
>> Joe's Subshop:
>> 1) 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>> 2) Minimum wage of $1/hr.
>> 3) 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
>> 4) Joe says "Hell No!" and lets one go.
>> 4) 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
>> Total disposable income in the hands of consumers WAS $24.
>> Total disposable income in the hands of consumers IS $21.
>> Try again, Larry.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Jobless Claims Surge by 34,000 to 406,000
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/jobless-claims-surge/
You're a LIAR.
>In fact, as noted, the pizza industry, one of the biggest whiners, is
>expereincing rising stock values and increasing proiofits, despite the last
>raise in the minimum wage.
Tricon Global Restaurants (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC) DOWN 34.17.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/research.html?searchString=pizza+hut&searchType=quotes
You're a LIAR.
Domino's Pizza:
1-Jan-06 to 31-Dec-06
Net Income Applicable
To Common Shares: -1.89%
You're a LIAR.
31-Dec-06 to 30-Dec-07
Net Income Applicable
To Common Shares: -64.35%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=DPZ&annual
You're a LIAR.
>Just go the the BEA web site and check the employment numbers around hte
>time of the las tincrease.
>No blips, bumps, spikes., peaks, etc.
The LAST increase was affordable, just barely.
The CURRENT increase is NOT affordable.
Patriot Games
That's why Joe is an employer and NOT an employee, like you.
>BUT UNABLE TO SELL
>AS MANY SANDWICHES DUE TO NOT ENOUGH HANDS!
Harder working hands means MORE sales.
Bob LeChevalier
>>Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
>>minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
>>Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
>>1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
>>him a loser.
>
>Only an idiot would assume constant productivity. If they are getting
>PAID MORE then they must WORK MORE.
Why would someone think that?
If that was the case, then there would not need to be a minimum wage
law to force Joe to pay them more.
>>Meanwhile, the laid off employee goes to a smarter competitor, Sam,
>>who pays him the $7/hr, and increases his sales proportionately.
>>Sam's Hero Shop
>>1) 4 employees as $6/hr = $24
>>4) 5 employees at $7/hr = $35
>>Net increase in income is $11, more than enough to make up for Joe's
>>self-punitive cutback of $3.
>
>Joe's "self-punitive cutback of $3" allowed him to pass on a 12.5%
>price cut to consumers.
Why would he do that? He can only serve 3/4 as many customers (and
hiring another employee to serve more customers would be at the higher
minimum wage, in which case he didn't save any wage money by laying
off, and instead lost the money required in hiring and training a new
employee.)
>Sam has to increase prices 45.83%...
Nope. Because like most good businessmen, he knows that the increase
in minimum wage didn't cost nearly as much as the added business he
will take away from Joe will provide in profits.
>Sam will be out of business very soon.
Nope. He'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
>Joe won't.
>
>>25% increase in business
>
>You mean a 25% increase in EMPLOYEES.
Which in a business like that is a 25% increase in productivity (which
is needed to deal with the increased business taken from Joe who can't
serve as many customers).
>His COST increased 45.83%...
Nope. Merely his wages expense. His rent, utilities, cost of pizza
materials, etc. didn't go up.
I can see that you've never actually run a business.
Larry Hewitt
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in message
You're an idiot.
Prove that this was a result of a minimum wage hike not yet in force
instead of "Nervous employers, chafing under high energy prices and
uncertain about the economy's direction and their own sales prospects," that
the article said caised the layoffs.
Sheesh, I get tired of rightard liars.
Larry
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
>>>minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
>>>Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
>>>1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
>>>him a loser.
>>Only an idiot would assume constant productivity. If they are getting
>>PAID MORE then they must WORK MORE.
>Why would someone think that?
>If that was the case, then there would not need to be a minimum wage
>law to force Joe to pay them more.
Bingo!
>>>Meanwhile, the laid off employee goes to a smarter competitor, Sam,
>>>who pays him the $7/hr, and increases his sales proportionately.
>>>Sam's Hero Shop
>>>1) 4 employees as $6/hr = $24
>>>4) 5 employees at $7/hr = $35
>>>Net increase in income is $11, more than enough to make up for Joe's
>>>self-punitive cutback of $3.
>>Joe's "self-punitive cutback of $3" allowed him to pass on a 12.5%
>>price cut to consumers.
>Why would he do that?
No one knows.... If he has a better product he may not need to
compete on service. Or he might pass on half the difference as a
price cut. That's the beauty of being the owner....
>>Sam has to increase prices 45.83%...
>Nope. Because like most good businessmen, he knows that the increase
>in minimum wage didn't cost nearly as much as the added business he
>will take away from Joe will provide in profits.
What? (Just say no to drugs.)
First, ZERO "added business" has occurred in this scenario, yet. What
HAS occurred is that Sam has MORE EXPENSE. That INCREASE of 45.83%
happenned BEFORE any business occurred.
>>Sam will be out of business very soon.
>Nope. He'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
It used to be that the honorable way for a Socialist Democrat to lose
an argument was to run away and hide. Apparently now the honorable
way for a Socialist Democrat to lose an argument is make a complete
fool of herself in public until the actual winner of the argument
leaves....
And I bet you think NOBODY had caught on to that...?
Sam MIGHT be laughing all the way to the bank because he'll be going
there for a LOAN. Remember, HIS expenses went UP with NO CHANGE in
income.
Joe's expenses went DOWN with NO CHANGE in income.
>>Joe won't.
>>>25% increase in business
>>You mean a 25% increase in EMPLOYEES.
>Which in a business like that is a 25% increase in productivity (which
>is needed to deal with the increased business taken from Joe who can't
>serve as many customers).
Think about what you typed... You've assumed that Joe's 3 employees
can't work as fast as Sam's 4 employees and all things being equal
that's a fair assumption.
Now we assume that not a single one of Joe's customers is willing to
wait a little longer even though Joe's products are 12.5% cheaper. So
Sam picks up 25% more customers but has a 45.83% greater cost to
overcome just to break even!
That doesn't work out for Sam... Sam needs ALL of Joe's 25% PLUS he
needs another 20%!!!
>>His COST increased 45.83%...
>Nope. Merely his wages expense. His rent, utilities, cost of pizza
>materials, etc. didn't go up.
>I can see that you've never actually run a business.
Bwahahahahhahaha!!!
Patriot Games
Employers might get nervous about any number of things but they don't
fire people based on NERVOUSNESS. They fire people based on the
NUMBERS.
The COMING minimum wage increase was a HARD number. It wasn't going
to go away or change. All the other things that an employer might get
nervous about could change.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
>>>>minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
>>>>Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
>>>>1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
>>>>him a loser.
>>>Only an idiot would assume constant productivity. If they are getting
>>>PAID MORE then they must WORK MORE.
>>Why would someone think that?
>>If that was the case, then there would not need to be a minimum wage
>>law to force Joe to pay them more.
>
>Bingo!
But since we are evaluating the situation, using Sams Hero Shop
DEFINED to be identical to Joe's in all other parameters before the
minimum wage increase, we cannot suddenly make the assumption that one
of the two will have higher productivity.
And no, we cannot assume that someone has to work more in order to be
paid more, because on the real world that is not generally true.
>>>>Meanwhile, the laid off employee goes to a smarter competitor, Sam,
>>>>who pays him the $7/hr, and increases his sales proportionately.
>>>>Sam's Hero Shop
>>>>1) 4 employees as $6/hr = $24
>>>>4) 5 employees at $7/hr = $35
>>>>Net increase in income is $11, more than enough to make up for Joe's
>>>>self-punitive cutback of $3.
>>>Joe's "self-punitive cutback of $3" allowed him to pass on a 12.5%
>>>price cut to consumers.
>>Why would he do that?
>
>No one knows...
Then you have no argument.
>That's the beauty of being the owner....
The beauty of being the owner is that he can obey the law or lose his
shirt.
>>>Sam has to increase prices 45.83%...
>>Nope. Because like most good businessmen, he knows that the increase
>>in minimum wage didn't cost nearly as much as the added business he
>>will take away from Joe will provide in profits.
>
>What? (Just say no to drugs.)
>
>First, ZERO "added business" has occurred in this scenario, yet.
There needs to be no "added business". Sam just takes away the
business that Joe's no longer can support with 3/4 of the employees.
>What HAS occurred is that Sam has MORE EXPENSE.
NO - that hasn't occurred until after Joe has had to reduce his
service because he got rid of an employee.
>That INCREASE of 45.83% happenned BEFORE any business occurred.
Nope.
>>>Sam will be out of business very soon.
>>Nope. He'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
>
>It used to be that the honorable way for a Socialist Democrat
I don't know any of those.
>to lose
>an argument was to run away and hide. Apparently now the honorable
>way for a Socialist Democrat to lose an argument is make a complete
>fool of herself in public until the actual winner of the argument
>leaves....
I haven't left yet, and I didn't know that you were a Socialist
Democrat. You sure don't sound like one.
>Sam MIGHT be laughing all the way to the bank because he'll be going
>there for a LOAN.
Only if he wants to expand his business.
>Remember, HIS expenses went UP with NO CHANGE in income.
There is no reason to assume that demand for pizza went down. Joe can
only produce 3/4 as many pizzas and Sam can produce the extra
difference when he hires that guy that Joe fired.
>Joe's expenses went DOWN with NO CHANGE in income.
Of course there is a change in income. Joe cannot produce and deliver
more than 3/4 as many pizzas. Indeed, he might have to close his
store down a couple evenings a week because he has no one to work that
evening.
>>>Joe won't.
>>>>25% increase in business
>>>You mean a 25% increase in EMPLOYEES.
>>Which in a business like that is a 25% increase in productivity (which
>>is needed to deal with the increased business taken from Joe who can't
>>serve as many customers).
>
>Think about what you typed... You've assumed that Joe's 3 employees
>can't work as fast
If they could, then Joe and Sam could have gotten by with 3 employees
before the minimum wage increase.
>as Sam's 4 employees and all things being equal that's a fair assumption.
The scenario in making such a comparison MUST be "all things being
equal".
>Now we assume that not a single one of Joe's customers is willing to
>wait a little longer even though Joe's products are 12.5% cheaper. So
>Sam picks up 25% more customers but has a 45.83% greater cost to
>overcome just to break even!
Nope, because as I said, Sam knows that his labor costs are a small
fraction of his total costs
>That doesn't work out for Sam... Sam needs ALL of Joe's 25% PLUS he
>needs another 20%!!!
Nope.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Think for a moment, damnit! If the crew is already working as fast as
they can they aren't going to be able to make up the difference caused
by laying off one fifth of the crew. Quality will suffer, food will
be fucked up, thereby losing customers which in turn will cause them
to lay off even more people.
Too fuckin' Stupid, ya damn Republitard!
MACK DADDY
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
You still don't understand that Joes 3 workers can't produce as much
food as Sams 5 workers!
MACK DADDY
> Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam can afford more expense now because he picked up some disgruntled
customers who stopped supporting Joes minimum wage sweatshop!
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>Ignoring the silly claim that the entirety of the wages paid to a
>>>>>minimum wage employee are "disposable income" ...
>>>>>Assuming constant productivity, Joe, with one fewer employee, loses
>>>>>1/4 of his business, while saving only 1/8 of his costs. This makes
>>>>>him a loser.
>>>>Only an idiot would assume constant productivity. If they are getting
>>>>PAID MORE then they must WORK MORE.
>>>Why would someone think that?
>>>If that was the case, then there would not need to be a minimum wage
>>>law to force Joe to pay them more.
>>Bingo!
>But since we are evaluating the situation, using Sams Hero Shop
>DEFINED to be identical to Joe's in all other parameters before the
>minimum wage increase, we cannot suddenly make the assumption that one
>of the two will have higher productivity.
That's ridiculous. No employer will pay people MORE without GETTING
MORE for paying MORE.
>And no, we cannot assume that someone has to work more in order to be
>paid more, because on the real world that is not generally true.
Of course its true - unless you're a Socialist or a Communist.
Mirror mirror on the wall....
Which is irrelevant. A cost increase is a cost increase.
>>That doesn't work out for Sam... Sam needs ALL of Joe's 25% PLUS he
>>needs another 20%!!!
>Nope.
Bwahahhahahahahahaa!!!
Let's recap.
You first tried to claim there would be an increase in "disposable
income." This is FALSE.
Joe has 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
If Joe fires 1 employee:
Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
Sam had 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
There is a $7/hr. DECREASE in employee "disposable income." Your
CLAIM that there would be an increase in "disposable income" IS FALSE.
Then you tried to claim that somehow Sam will be more successful.
Joe's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
Sam's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
Joe and Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr., making 100 subs or
pizzas a day at $5 each.
Joe and Sam net $308. $500 - (8*$24) $192 = $308.
Joe fires one person.
Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
each.
$500 - $168 = $332 + $24 = $356.
Sam has 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
each.
$500 - $224 = $276.
Joe's is MORE successful than Sam.
Patriot Games
<pepsiv...@msn.com> wrote:
>You still don't understand that Joes 3 workers can't produce as much
>food as Sams 5 workers!
Thanks for saving me the time and proving yourself the public fool.
Patriot Games
>they can they aren't going to be able to make up the difference caused
>by laying off one fifth of the crew.
One-fourth, moron.
>Quality will suffer, food will be fucked up,
>thereby losing customers which in turn will cause them
>to lay off even more people.
Then somebody gets fired and better people are hired.
Bob LeChevalier
>>But since we are evaluating the situation, using Sams Hero Shop
>>DEFINED to be identical to Joe's in all other parameters before the
>>minimum wage increase, we cannot suddenly make the assumption that one
>>of the two will have higher productivity.
>
>That's ridiculous. No employer will pay people MORE without GETTING
>MORE for paying MORE.
Of course they will. Just look at wages in NYC vs those in rural
Mississippi for the same job. Do you think New Yorkers really work
twice as hard at the same jobs as Mississippians, or ten times as hard
as Chinese peons?
>>And no, we cannot assume that someone has to work more in order to be
>>paid more, because on the real world that is not generally true.
>
>Of course its true - unless you're a Socialist or a Communist.
Did Bill Gates really work several thousand times more than his
employees?
>>>Now we assume that not a single one of Joe's customers is willing to
>>>wait a little longer even though Joe's products are 12.5% cheaper. So
>>>Sam picks up 25% more customers but has a 45.83% greater cost to
>>>overcome just to break even!
>>Nope, because as I said, Sam knows that his labor costs are a small
>>fraction of his total costs
>
>Which is irrelevant. A cost increase is a cost increase.
Which will be absorbed, and dealt with by increasing sales with his
added workforce and the newly weakened competition.
>You first tried to claim there would be an increase in "disposable
>income." This is FALSE.
I made no claims about "disposable income". Minimum wage earners
seldom have any such, and an increase won't generally change that.
>Joe has 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>
>Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>
>If Joe fires 1 employee:
>
>Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
>
>Sam had 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
>
>There is a $7/hr. DECREASE in employee "disposable income."
There is no change in "employee disposable income", because none of
the employees had any disposable income. But there is a 1/8 drop in
the total capacity of the two businesses to serve the market, and
SOMEONE will take up that market volume by hiring the employee that
was fired.
>Then you tried to claim that somehow Sam will be more successful.
>
>Joe's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
Nope.
>Sam's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
Nope.
>Joe and Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr., making 100 subs or
>pizzas a day at $5 each.
>
>Joe and Sam net $308. $500 - (8*$24) $192 = $308.
>
>Joe fires one person.
>
>Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
>each.
If three employees could make 100 units a day, then both Sam and Joe
would have fired the 4th employee before the minimum wage increase.
Thus we must assume that each employee can make 25 units a day, and
that Joe after firing a worker can only make 75 units.
But since prices haven't changed, there remains market for 200 units,
not the 175 that can be produced. If Sam hires the extra person and
can produce the missing 25 units, then he expands, and Joe's market
share shrinks.
>$500 - $168 = $332 + $24 = $356.
$375 ->$231
>Sam has 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
>each.
>
>$500 - $224 = $276.
Sam adds the extra employee and now produces 125 units.
$625 - $280 = $345
>Joe's is MORE successful than Sam.
Wrong. Sam is making more money, and has increased market share.
Indeed, he could cut his sales price to $4.20, undercutting Joe
$525 - $280 - $245
and he is STILL making slightly more money than Joe, but since Sam is
selling at a lower price, Joe will soon be out of business.
There is a reason why WalMart drives all the smaller stores out of
business. Their increased sales volume means that they can have a
smaller margin per unit, and still make much more money, while selling
at a lower price.
MACK DADDY
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:31:51 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
>
>
>
>
>
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:48 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> >><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are forgetting that Joes 3 sub makers can't make as many subs as
Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day.
MACK DADDY
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:38:45 -0700 (PDT), SMACKED ASS DADDY
>
> >You still don't understand that Joes 3 workers can't produce as much
> >food as Sams 5 workers!
>
> Thanks for saving me the time and proving yourself the public fool.
I just made a fool outta yo wass by showing the reallity of the
situation which is that 3 workers can't make as many subs as 4 or 5
workers. What brand of crack do you smoke?
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well somewhere along the way you changed the number for Sams from 5
back to 4. Try to keep up!
The earlier scenario was based on the laid off worker from Joes going
to work at Sams who has increased sales due to Joe fuckin up!
Patriot Games
>back to 4.
It was NEVER 5. You're TOO STUPID to be using the computer.
>The earlier scenario....
Is completely over your little head because you're TOO STUPID.
Patriot Games
>Sams 4 workers.
With a boot in the ass they can. Or they can get another job.
>Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day.
Then he hires better people.
You're probably familiar with getting fired for being a loser, right?
Bob LeChevalier
With a boot in the ass, they can charge him with assault.
>Or they can get another job.
Working for Sam, who is doing just fine with employees who make 25
units a day.
>>Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day.
>
>Then he hires better people.
Not for minimum wage, he won't get better people. And while Joe is
looking, Sam is selling even more since Joe, having fired more
employees, can't even make the 75 units that he had been able to make.
>You're probably familiar with getting fired for being a loser, right?
I've heard of Usenet posters losing arguments because they are losers,
and you just lost.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your little Republitard ass can backpedal all you want, but it doesn't
change the fact that Sams will be more successful than Joes. You
can't argue that fact!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not a chicken-shit like you. I can admit to being fired before.
But it always turned out for the best, I always got a better job. I'd
rather work for the Sams of the world than the Joes of the world.
Patriot Games
>change the fact that Sams will be more successful than Joes. You
>can't argue that fact!
Sam took a PAY CUT, idiot.
Patriot Games
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>But since we are evaluating the situation, using Sams Hero Shop
>>>DEFINED to be identical to Joe's in all other parameters before the
>>>minimum wage increase, we cannot suddenly make the assumption that one
>>>of the two will have higher productivity.
>>That's ridiculous. No employer will pay people MORE without GETTING
>>MORE for paying MORE.
>Of course they will. Just look at wages in NYC vs those in rural
>Mississippi for the same job. Do you think New Yorkers really work
>twice as hard at the same jobs as Mississippians, or ten times as hard
>as Chinese peons?
You're confusing COST OF LIVING with WAGES.
Bwahahahahahhahahaha!!
>>>And no, we cannot assume that someone has to work more in order to be
>>>paid more, because on the real world that is not generally true.
>>Of course its true - unless you're a Socialist or a Communist.
>Did Bill Gates really work several thousand times more than his
>employees?
You're confusing OWNER with EMPLOYEE.
Bwahahahahahahhahahaha!!!
>>>>Now we assume that not a single one of Joe's customers is willing to
>>>>wait a little longer even though Joe's products are 12.5% cheaper. So
>>>>Sam picks up 25% more customers but has a 45.83% greater cost to
>>>>overcome just to break even!
>>>Nope, because as I said, Sam knows that his labor costs are a small
>>>fraction of his total costs
>>Which is irrelevant. A cost increase is a cost increase.
>Which will be absorbed, and dealt with by increasing sales with his
>added workforce and the newly weakened competition.
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Absorbed? By magic? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>>You first tried to claim there would be an increase in "disposable
>>income." This is FALSE.
>I made no claims about "disposable income". Minimum wage earners
>seldom have any such, and an increase won't generally change that.
>>Joe has 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>>Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>>If Joe fires 1 employee:
>>Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
>>Sam had 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
>>There is a $7/hr. DECREASE in employee "disposable income."
>There is no change in "employee disposable income",
The UNEMPLOYED (former) employee has ZERO disposable income.
Bwahahahahahahah!!
>because none of
>the employees had any disposable income.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>But there is a 1/8 drop in
>the total capacity of the two businesses to serve the market, and
>SOMEONE will take up that market volume by hiring the employee that
>was fired.
Maybe, maybe not.
>>Then you tried to claim that somehow Sam will be more successful.
>>Joe's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
>Nope.
>>Sam's OTHER costs are unchanged, they might as well be ZERO.
>Nope.
>>Joe and Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr., making 100 subs or
>>pizzas a day at $5 each.
>>Joe and Sam net $308. $500 - (8*$24) $192 = $308.
>>Joe fires one person.
>>Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
>>each.
>If three employees could make 100 units a day, then both Sam and Joe
>would have fired the 4th employee before the minimum wage increase.
>Thus we must assume that each employee can make 25 units a day, and
>that Joe after firing a worker can only make 75 units.
Joe will make his employees TAKE UP THE SLACK. Or, Joe will find
employees that will.
>But since prices haven't changed, there remains market for 200 units,
>not the 175 that can be produced. If Sam hires the extra person and
>can produce the missing 25 units, then he expands, and Joe's market
>share shrinks.
Sam already took ONE PAY CUT. Now you think he'll PAY OUT EVEN MORE?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>>$500 - $168 = $332 + $24 = $356.
> $375 ->$231
>>Sam has 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
>>each.
>>$500 - $224 = $276.
>Sam adds the extra employee and now produces 125 units.
> $625 - $280 = $345
Sam ALREADY took ONE PAY CUT. How does Sam AFFORD MORE PAY OUT for
the new employee??????
>>Joe's is MORE successful than Sam.
>Wrong. Sam is making more money, and has increased market share.
>Indeed, he could cut his sales price to $4.20, undercutting Joe
> $525 - $280 - $245
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
>and he is STILL making slightly more money than Joe, but since Sam is
>selling at a lower price, Joe will soon be out of business.
>There is a reason why WalMart drives all the smaller stores out of
>business. Their increased sales volume means that they can have a
>smaller margin per unit, and still make much more money, while selling
>at a lower price.
But they NEVER LOSE MONEY.....
Patriot Games
But Sam isn't doing "just fine." Sam took ONE PAY CUT thanks to Nancy
Pelosi, then took a SECOND PAY CUT, to hire a loafer....
Bwahahahahahaha!!
>>>Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day.
>>Then he hires better people.
>Not for minimum wage, he won't get better people.
Because you say so............
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>>You're probably familiar with getting fired for being a loser, right?
>I've heard of Usenet posters losing arguments because they are losers,
>and you just lost.
Here's what YOU proved.
You're either a Socialist or a Communist who has NEVER owned a
business, NEVER held executive-level responsibility for a business,
and has no idea how the business world works except for your
bottom-feeding hourly-wage view of the world.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Patriot Games
I was never fired because one can't fire oneself.
>But it always turned out for the best, I always got a better job. I'd
>rather work for the Sams of the world than the Joes of the world.
And that explains WHY you were repeatedly fired. You want the least
work for the most money.
INCORRECT Response: "I'd rather work for the Sams of the world than
the Joes of the world."
Correct Response: I'd rather BE one of the Joe's or Sam's of the
world...
You're a natural-born loser.
Now take your fat lazy ass to work. And don't forget your little blue
'How May I Help You' vest....
Hahahahahahhahahaha!!!
Grendel
> Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day
You forget that both Joe and Sam's quantity of business is not driven
by how many each person can make, but how many customers come in to
order a sub. If 100 customers come in to buy subs from both Joe and
Sam, then they will sell 100 subs. Sam's workers will be responsible
for making 25 each. Joe's will be responsible for making 33-34 each.
Thus they will work harder, have fewer breaks, and generally be more
depressed. And Joe's fourth employee, the one that was fired, is
still making zero dollars.
The reality is that most businesses have to meet a quota, and that
quota does not change if you have four employees, or only three. The
business with fewer employees will just have employees that are forced
to work harder.
This is the reality.
The other reality is that employee pay is based on profit margin. To
keep his profit margin, Sam will have to increase the cost of the subs
from $4 to $5 to make up for the difference in employee pay. Joe went
the other route, he kept his subs at $4 and fired an employee to keep
the margin viable. Customers start thinking, "Why should I pay $5 for
a Sam's Sub when Joe is selling the same sub for $4." A significant
portion of customers then migrate to Joe's place. They are now
selling 120 subs a day (40 per employee). Joe's business is booming.
Sam's is only selling 80 per day (or, 20 each) and profits suck. Sam
realizes he now does not have the quantity of business to justify 4
workers, and fires one. So Sam's 3 employees are now making 27 per
day and there are now 2 employees out of work.
Sam talks to Joe and asks, "How many subs are each of your employees
putting out?" Joe replies, "40 each". Sam thinks, "If his guys can
put out 40 each, and I'm only selling 80 per day, I only need 2
employees." Thus Sam fires a second employee. You now have three
unemployed workers, five overworked workers, and 40% of the subs are
now higher priced.
This scenario is closer to reality.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:11:39 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>But since we are evaluating the situation, using Sams Hero Shop
>>>>DEFINED to be identical to Joe's in all other parameters before the
>>>>minimum wage increase, we cannot suddenly make the assumption that one
>>>>of the two will have higher productivity.
>>>That's ridiculous. No employer will pay people MORE without GETTING
>>>MORE for paying MORE.
>>Of course they will. Just look at wages in NYC vs those in rural
>>Mississippi for the same job. Do you think New Yorkers really work
>>twice as hard at the same jobs as Mississippians, or ten times as hard
>>as Chinese peons?
>
>You're confusing COST OF LIVING with WAGES.
No.
But cost of living does affect wages regardless of productivity.
>>>>And no, we cannot assume that someone has to work more in order to be
>>>>paid more, because on the real world that is not generally true.
>>>Of course its true - unless you're a Socialist or a Communist.
>>Did Bill Gates really work several thousand times more than his
>>employees?
>
>You're confusing OWNER with EMPLOYEE.
Bill Gates was both. He got some money as a stockholder, but he was
also paid a large salary. So are most CEOs. But they really don't do
more work.
>>>>>Now we assume that not a single one of Joe's customers is willing to
>>>>>wait a little longer even though Joe's products are 12.5% cheaper. So
>>>>>Sam picks up 25% more customers but has a 45.83% greater cost to
>>>>>overcome just to break even!
>>>>Nope, because as I said, Sam knows that his labor costs are a small
>>>>fraction of his total costs
>>>Which is irrelevant. A cost increase is a cost increase.
>>Which will be absorbed, and dealt with by increasing sales with his
>>added workforce and the newly weakened competition.
>
>Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!!!
>
>Absorbed? By magic?
By economics.
>>>You first tried to claim there would be an increase in "disposable
>>>income." This is FALSE.
>>I made no claims about "disposable income". Minimum wage earners
>>seldom have any such, and an increase won't generally change that.
>>>Joe has 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>>>Sam had 4 employees at $6/hr. = $24/hr.
>>>If Joe fires 1 employee:
>>>Joe has 3 employees at $7/hr. = $21/hr.
>>>Sam had 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr.
>>>There is a $7/hr. DECREASE in employee "disposable income."
>>There is no change in "employee disposable income",
>
>The UNEMPLOYED (former) employee has ZERO disposable income.
The scenario doesn't create any unemployed, because demand for the
product remains constant, which means that someone will be hired for
each person laid off.
>>But there is a 1/8 drop in
>>the total capacity of the two businesses to serve the market, and
>>SOMEONE will take up that market volume by hiring the employee that
>>was fired.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
No maybe about it.
>>If three employees could make 100 units a day, then both Sam and Joe
>>would have fired the 4th employee before the minimum wage increase.
>>Thus we must assume that each employee can make 25 units a day, and
>>that Joe after firing a worker can only make 75 units.
>
>Joe will make his employees TAKE UP THE SLACK.
You are presuming that there is slack to be taken up. That is not
part of the scenario.
>Or, Joe will find employees that will.
No he won't. He's paying minimum wage. He'll take what is available
for minimum wage. And since Sam doesn't require more work to get that
minimum wage, Sam will have an advantage in hiring.
You seem to think that in the workforce marketplace, that the
employers hold all the cards. They don't.
>>But since prices haven't changed, there remains market for 200 units,
>>not the 175 that can be produced. If Sam hires the extra person and
>>can produce the missing 25 units, then he expands, and Joe's market
>>share shrinks.
>
>Sam already took ONE PAY CUT.
No he didn't.
>Now you think he'll PAY OUT EVEN MORE?
He'll make more profit, because he can produce more.
>>>$500 - $168 = $332 + $24 = $356.
>> $375 ->$231
>>>Sam has 4 employees at $7/hr. = $28/hr., making 100 units a day at $5
>>>each.
>>>$500 - $224 = $276.
>>Sam adds the extra employee and now produces 125 units.
>> $625 - $280 = $345
>
>Sam ALREADY took ONE PAY CUT.
Nope.
>How does Sam AFFORD MORE PAY OUT for the new employee??????
By selling more product, since that extra employee can produce another
25 units. The 25 additional units at $5 will sell for $125, whereas
he only has to pay the extra employee 8hrs * $7 = $56. Net profit of
$69 for each additional employee, if there is enough market for him to
sell the 25 extra units that employee produces.
>>>Joe's is MORE successful than Sam.
>>Wrong. Sam is making more money, and has increased market share.
>>Indeed, he could cut his sales price to $4.20, undercutting Joe
>> $525 - $280 - $245
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You haven't identified any flaws yet.
>>and he is STILL making slightly more money than Joe, but since Sam is
>>selling at a lower price, Joe will soon be out of business.
>>There is a reason why WalMart drives all the smaller stores out of
>>business. Their increased sales volume means that they can have a
>>smaller margin per unit, and still make much more money, while selling
>>at a lower price.
>
>But they NEVER LOSE MONEY.....
The competitors do, even though they may be paying the same wages.
That is because WalMart makes up in volume of sales far more than the
added costs of the extra employees.
Bob LeChevalier
Yes he is.
>Sam took ONE PAY CUT thanks to Nancy Pelosi,
No. Sam is an owner, not an employee (none of the scenarios presume
that either Sam or Joe produce a single unit of product. If Joe
chooses to stay competitive, Sam will have a decrease in profits, but
since he is doing no work, and making $308 or 6 times that of his
employees who ARE doing the work, it is hard to feel sorry for him.
And if Joe chooses to lay someone off, and lose market share, then Sam
can hire someone, and make a lot more than the minimum wage increase
is costing him, an extra $125 for an expenditure of less than half.
>then took a SECOND PAY CUT, to hire a loafer....
If he produces 25 units like all the others, then he isn't a loafer,
and Sam gets the added sales for those 25 units, which is a LOT more
than the employee is costing him.
>>>>Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day.
>>>Then he hires better people.
>>Not for minimum wage, he won't get better people.
>
>Because you say so............
If he could get better people, he would have done so before the
minimum wage increase. If he could get people who could do 34 units a
day for minimum wage (which is what he needs in order to produce 100
units with 3 employees), then he would have been stupid to have 4
employees in the first place.
>>>You're probably familiar with getting fired for being a loser, right?
>>I've heard of Usenet posters losing arguments because they are losers,
>>and you just lost.
>
>Here's what YOU proved.
>
>You're either a Socialist
No.
>or a Communist
No
>who has NEVER owned a business,
Never owned, but I've run one.
>NEVER held executive-level responsibility for a business,
Wrong,
>and has no idea how the business world works
I seem to know more than you do.
>except for your bottom-feeding hourly-wage view of the world.
I last was paid an hourly wage in 1974 when I was still in college.
Bob LeChevalier
>> You are forgetting that Joe's 3 sub makers can't make as many subs as
>> Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day
>
>You forget that both Joe and Sam's quantity of business is not driven
>by how many each person can make, but how many customers come in to
>order a sub.
Both are involved.
>If 100 customers come in to buy subs from both Joe and
>Sam, then they will sell 100 subs.
Not if they can't make 100 subs.
>Sam's workers will be responsible for making 25 each. Joe's will be responsible for making 33-34 each.
If Joe's employees could make 33-34 apiece, then Joe could have fired
the 4th employee a long time ago.
>Thus they will work harder, have fewer breaks, and generally be more
>depressed.
No, they'll quit and go to work for Sam, who doesn't expect them to
produce more for the same amount of money. Then, since Joe no longer
can produce the product, and Sam can, Sam makes more money.
>And Joe's fourth employee, the one that was fired, is still making zero dollars.
Actually he collects unemployment for several months. But since Sam
will probably be happy to hire him to increase market share in the
fact of Joe's voluntary contraction, he'll be making minimum wage in
no time at all.
>The reality is that most businesses have to meet a quota, and that
>quota does not change if you have four employees, or only three.
If the quota is more than can be produced, then the quota won't be
made. And if you push the employees too hard, quality goes down.
>The
>business with fewer employees will just have employees that are forced
>to work harder.
Why would they work harder? It isn't like there aren't plenty of
other minimum wage jobs around.
>This is the reality.
The reality is in fact that minimum wage employees can't be forced to
do much of anything, unless there is only one employer, and in fact
employers who hire minimum wage employees have to accept that there
will be plenty of slacking, irresponsibility, absenteeism, etc.
>The other reality is that employee pay is based on profit margin. To
>keep his profit margin,
If he increases sales, then he can get the MORE dollars in profit from
a smaller percentage profit margin.
>Sam will have to increase the cost of the subs
>from $4 to $5 to make up for the difference in employee pay.
No. He has to increase sales by the amount that the extra employee
costs, in order to cover the cost of the employee. In the given
scenario, merely 14 more sales breaks even on the cost of an
additional employee who can produce 25.
>Joe went
>the other route, he kept his subs at $4 and fired an employee to keep
>the margin viable.
And he no longer could produce as many units. Because he has NO way
to force those employees to work harder. All he can do is fire them,
in which case he gives up even more sales to Sam, who can hire them as
quickly as Joe fires them.
Customers start thinking, "Why should I pay $5 for
>a Sam's Sub when Joe is selling the same sub for $4." A significant
>portion of customers then migrate to Joe's place. They are now
>selling 120 subs a day (40 per employee).
The employees can only produce 25. If they could produce 40, he
wouldn't have had 4 employees at the start of the scenario.
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you show proof of that?
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're a fuckin dilhole! I never said I was repeatedly fired, you
buttplug! And I'm not impressed by you owning a Kool Aid stand,
biotch!
MACK DADDY
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have yet to answer how Joes employees can handle going from 25
subs each to 40 each. Quality will suffer, for sure, maybe they don't
have time to wash their hands anymore, they sell E-coli subs, and the
health department comes down and shuts the doors. Meanwhile, business
is booming at Sams because they have higher quality, and happier
employees. This is quite like reallity!
Grendel
> Grendel <wstho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> You are forgetting that Joe's 3 sub makers can't make as many subs as
> >> Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day
>
> >You forget that both Joe and Sam's quantity of business is not driven
> >by how many each person can make, but how many customers come in to
> >order a sub.
>
> Both are involved.
The workforce is set by the demand.
> >If 100 customers come in to buy subs from both Joe and
> >Sam, then they will sell 100 subs.
>
> Not if they can't make 100 subs.
But, if forced to do so, the owner will use the mimum number of
employees.
> >Sam's workers will be responsible for making 25 each. Joe's will be responsible for making 33-34 each.
>
> If Joe's employees could make 33-34 apiece, then Joe could have fired
> the 4th employee a long time ago.
The way it works is that Joe, when he started the business, calculated
that he would be able to pay "X" number of dollars for labor. He also
figure that he could hire 4 people for $X. Seeing as this was more
than enough to handle the work load, the employees enjoyed a light
work load, frequent breaks and an enjoyable work experience. Joe was
able to run his business in a supervisory position. Everyone was
happy.
Then comes the government mandated wage increase. This increase puts
the four employees collective wages above $X. One employee is fired
(the worst worker). The slack is taken up by the other three. Work
load is increased, breaks are restricted to government mandated
miminum, and work is not as fun. At such times that the three workers
can not handle the load, Joe pitches in and makes a few subs himself.
This is called a 'working supervisor'. He now had to perform
bookworking at home instead of during working hours, but the sums
still get done and the fourth worker is still out of a job. Now, the
3 employees may not be as happy, but they can always be replaced. The
employees are no longer enjoying taking as much time off as they were
as there is now no extra help to take up the slack.
> >Thus they will work harder, have fewer breaks, and generally be more
> >depressed.
>
> No, they'll quit and go to work for Sam, who doesn't expect them to
> produce more for the same amount of money.
But, in your scenario, Sam can not afford to hire all of them. And,
as Joe and Sam are the only employers, they can either work for Joe,
or not get paid.
> Then, since Joe no longer
> can produce the product, and Sam can, Sam makes more money.
>
> >And Joe's fourth employee, the one that was fired, is still making zero dollars.
>
> Actually he collects unemployment for several months.
Seeing as unemployment is based on earned salary for the previous
year, and is never anywhere near what you would make while working, he
is still out of money.
> But since Sam
> will probably be happy to hire him to increase market share in the
> fact of Joe's voluntary contraction, he'll be making minimum wage in
> no time at all.
>
> >The reality is that most businesses have to meet a quota, and that
> >quota does not change if you have four employees, or only three.
>
> If the quota is more than can be produced, then the quota won't be
> made. And if you push the employees too hard, quality goes down.
If the quota is more than the 3 can make, then Joe will have to do
some of the work himself. The one guy is STILL out of work.
> >The
> >business with fewer employees will just have employees that are forced
> >to work harder.
>
> Why would they work harder? It isn't like there aren't plenty of
> other minimum wage jobs around.
But, EVERYJOB now cost the owner more, and EVERY owner is expecting to
keep their labor cost below $X. So EVERY employee is expect to
produce more.
> >This is the reality.
>
> The reality is in fact that minimum wage employees can't be forced to
> do much of anything,
Sure they can. They have a great motivation. It's called "WORK, or
get fired." The great thing about minimum wage workers is that they
are easily replacable. How difficult is it to assemble a sub? (for
you, probably very). The conversation goes like this: "So, you're
unwilling to make 40 subs in an hour? Well, Leroy here that just
walked off the street is, so you're fired."
> unless there is only one employer, and in fact
> employers who hire minimum wage employees have to accept that there
> will be plenty of slacking, irresponsibility, absenteeism, etc.
No, employers who hire minimum wage employees are willing to hire,
then fire, enough people to find employees that will accomplish what
is needed. When your only job skill is assembling subs, you can't
really negotiate your wage.
> >The other reality is that employee pay is based on profit margin. To
> >keep his profit margin,
>
> If he increases sales, then he can get the MORE dollars in profit from
> a smaller percentage profit margin.
If he increass sales, his margin is up, and he can hire more people.
The converse is true: If you raise the cost of the workforce (i.e.
raise minimum wage), it lowers his margin and he may have to let
people go (thanks for proving my point).
> >Sam will have to increase the cost of the subs
> >from $4 to $5 to make up for the difference in employee pay.
>
> No. He has to increase sales by the amount that the extra employee
> costs, in order to cover the cost of the employee. In the given
> scenario, merely 14 more sales breaks even on the cost of an
> additional employee who can produce 25.
You seem to think that increased supply equates increased demand. It
doesn't. If you only have 200 people in town who will buy a sub each
day, you can make 5,000 but will still only sell 200.
> >Joe went
> >the other route, he kept his subs at $4 and fired an employee to keep
> >the margin viable.
>
> And he no longer could produce as many units.
Sure he could, he just worked his employees harder. Those that
couldn't produce were replace by some that could.
> Because he has NO way
> to force those employees to work harder.
Sure he does, it's called the "Work or Get Fired" philosophy. It's
very effective. Using your logic, there would be no reason for anyone
to work minimum wage jobs at all.
> All he can do is fire them,
> in which case he gives up even more sales to Sam, who can hire them as
> quickly as Joe fires them.
No, he just fires them, and hires some who will make the required
amount. It's not rocket science. ANY fool can make a sub.
> Customers start thinking, "Why should I pay $5 for
>
> >a Sam's Sub when Joe is selling the same sub for $4." A significant
> >portion of customers then migrate to Joe's place. They are now
> >selling 120 subs a day (40 per employee).
>
> The employees can only produce 25. If they could produce 40, he
> wouldn't have had 4 employees at the start of the scenario.
Not necessarily. YOU say employees can only make 25. Could be they
could make more. It could be that Joe had four employees because he
calculated that he could afford 4, have a light workload, happy
workers and not be in a bind if one layed out (minimum wage workers
being so undependable...it's called redundency). Now, he can't, so he
only hires three, works them harder and tells them he will fire them
and replace them if they lay out or they don't produce.
That's the reality.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm nor cynical, just experienced."
Bob LeChevalier
>On Jul 31, 8:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Grendel <wstho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> You are forgetting that Joe's 3 sub makers can't make as many subs as
>> >> Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day
>>
>> >You forget that both Joe and Sam's quantity of business is not driven
>> >by how many each person can make, but how many customers come in to
>> >order a sub.
>>
>> Both are involved.
>
>The workforce is set by the demand.
And the assumptions of the scenario were that there was a market for
the product of a workforce of 4 people in each of the two competing
stores, which the other guy arbitrarily said was 25 units per person
that was being sold for $5 per unit. If 3 employees instead of 4
could have met the demand (100 units) that each store served (by
producing 33-34 units each), then the initial conditions would NOT
have been 4 employees per store.
No >I< know that in reality minimum wage employees do not work very
efficiently, have high absenteeism, and are generally not very
responsible. This tells me that employers DON'T have that much
leverage to push them harder, merely by the threat of firing if they
don't (which is all the threat that Joe in the scenario can manage),
because if they did have such leverage, the employees would already be
more efficient.
I also know that in reality labor costs are only a small portion of
the costs of operating a fast food joint, so that an increase in the
minimum wage probably has less effect on profits than a couple of days
of bad weather.
>> >If 100 customers come in to buy subs from both Joe and
>> >Sam, then they will sell 100 subs.
>>
>> Not if they can't make 100 subs.
>
>But, if forced to do so, the owner will use the mimum number of
>employees.
Why is he "forced" to do so any more than before?
>> >Sam's workers will be responsible for making 25 each. Joe's will be responsible for making 33-34 each.
>>
>> If Joe's employees could make 33-34 apiece, then Joe could have fired
>> the 4th employee a long time ago.
>
>The way it works is that Joe, when he started the business, calculated
>that he would be able to pay "X" number of dollars for labor.
If he didn't budget for inflation, not to mention longevity raises,
then he had a lousy business plan.
>He also
>figure that he could hire 4 people for $X. Seeing as this was more
>than enough to handle the work load,
Why would he hire more employees than needed?
>Then comes the government mandated wage increase.
Other than the source, this is no different than any other increase of
costs, which increases are inevitable in an inflationary economy (and
our society panics at the mere thought of deflation)
>The slack is taken up by the other three.
Why would they be willing to work harder?
They are minimum wage employees, and having fired one of them, Joe has
sacrificed the luxury of being able to fire more. There is no
guarantee that he will find a new worker more willing to work harder
for minimum wage (indeed, he knows that there are WORSE workers
available, because the one he fired was the worst. Meanwhile there
are costs in both the firing and hiring process, as well as training
costs for a new employee.
>Work load is increased, breaks are restricted to government mandated
>miminum, and work is not as fun.
Then the employees will quit, or not show up as often.
>At such times that the three workers
>can not handle the load, Joe pitches in and makes a few subs himself.
>This is called a 'working supervisor'.
That was not part of the scenario as originally defined. Joe was a
non-producing owner. If he wishes to step in and replace the fired
worker's production, that is his option, but then he is just using
himself as an overpaid, overqualified "minimum wage employee").
>He now had to perform bookworking at home instead of during working hours,
which means that he is working more hours for the same pay, and
presumably he thinks that HIS time is worth a lot more than minimum
wage.
but the sums
>still get done and the fourth worker is still out of a job. Now, the
>3 employees may not be as happy, but they can always be replaced.
Not for free (if at all Joe can only satisfactorily replace an
employee of the odds are that the replacement will be better than the
original employee by an amount sufficient to pay the cost of
replacement and training.. The cost of replacing a employee in the
real world probably exceeds that wages that the replacement earns in a
month.
> The employees are no longer enjoying taking as much time off as they were
>as there is now no extra help to take up the slack.
Nothing will stop them from taking as much time off. You have to
posit that there are harder working unemployed people out there.
>> >Thus they will work harder, have fewer breaks, and generally be more
>> >depressed.
>>
>> No, they'll quit and go to work for Sam, who doesn't expect them to
>> produce more for the same amount of money.
>
>But, in your scenario, Sam can not afford to hire all of them.
If he can increase his sales, he can (and we have posited a constant
demand for 200 subs, so if Joe meets less of the demand, then Sam has
the opportunity to gain in sales).
>> But since Sam
>> will probably be happy to hire him to increase market share in the
>> fact of Joe's voluntary contraction, he'll be making minimum wage in
>> no time at all.
>>
>> >The reality is that most businesses have to meet a quota, and that
>> >quota does not change if you have four employees, or only three.
>>
>> If the quota is more than can be produced, then the quota won't be
>> made. And if you push the employees too hard, quality goes down.
>
>If the quota is more than the 3 can make, then Joe will have to do
>some of the work himself.
The Joe is effectively working a minimum wage job. He is saving the
cost of 1 employee, and putting in the hours of that employee.
>> Why would they work harder? It isn't like there aren't plenty of
>> other minimum wage jobs around.
>
>But, EVERYJOB now cost the owner more, and EVERY owner is expecting to
>keep their labor cost below $X. So EVERY employee is expect to
>produce more.
They can expect all that they want, but it ain't gonna happen.
>> >This is the reality.
>>
>> The reality is in fact that minimum wage employees can't be forced to
>> do much of anything,
>
>Sure they can. They have a great motivation.
No they don't.
>It's called "WORK, or get fired."
They can't productively be fired unless there are unemployed workers
who are willing and able to produce more for minimum wage. But that
postulates something that wasn't necessarily part of the initial
conditions. Barring some new postulate, the only workers that are
available, is the one that he fired earlier because he was even WORSE
than the others.
>The great thing about minimum wage workers is that they are easily replacable.
In some marketplaces. Around here, fast food places have to pay more
like $10 an hour for even lousy employees.
>How difficult is it to assemble a sub? (for you, probably very). The conversation goes like this: "So, you're
>unwilling to make 40 subs in an hour? Well, Leroy here that just
>walked off the street is, so you're fired."
But who says Leroy is any more willing to make 40 subs?
>> unless there is only one employer, and in fact
>> employers who hire minimum wage employees have to accept that there
>> will be plenty of slacking, irresponsibility, absenteeism, etc.
>
>No, employers who hire minimum wage employees are willing to hire,
>then fire,
In the real world, hiring and firing have their own costs, and in fact
employers don't fire quite so easily as you say.
>> >The other reality is that employee pay is based on profit margin. To
>> >keep his profit margin,
>>
>> If he increases sales, then he can get the MORE dollars in profit from
>> a smaller percentage profit margin.
>
>If he increass sales, his margin is up, and he can hire more people.
>The converse is true: If you raise the cost of the workforce (i.e.
>raise minimum wage), it lowers his margin and he may have to let
>people go (thanks for proving my point).
If he lets people go, then he offers someone else a chance to grab
market share.
>> >Sam will have to increase the cost of the subs
>> >from $4 to $5 to make up for the difference in employee pay.
>>
>> No. He has to increase sales by the amount that the extra employee
>> costs, in order to cover the cost of the employee. In the given
>> scenario, merely 14 more sales breaks even on the cost of an
>> additional employee who can produce 25.
>
>You seem to think that increased supply equates increased demand.
The demand is constant at 200 units per day. If Joe goes from
supplying 100 of those units to 75 at the same time Sam increases what
he can produce to 125, demand has stayed the same.
>> >Joe went
>> >the other route, he kept his subs at $4 and fired an employee to keep
>> >the margin viable.
>>
>> And he no longer could produce as many units.
>
>Sure he could, he just worked his employees harder.
They won't work harder, and he cannot be sure that he can find harder
working replacements.
>Those that couldn't produce were replace by some that could.
Adding the assumption that such exist.
>> Because he has NO way
>> to force those employees to work harder.
>
>Sure he does, it's called the "Work or Get Fired" philosophy.
Which really doesn't work that well with minimum wage employees.
>> All he can do is fire them,
>> in which case he gives up even more sales to Sam, who can hire them as
>> quickly as Joe fires them.
>
>No, he just fires them, and hires some who will make the required
>amount
Assuming that such exist.
> It's not rocket science. ANY fool can make a sub.
In reality, the new employee will be less efficient than the old one,
and won't necessarily work any harder.
>> The employees can only produce 25. If they could produce 40, he
>> wouldn't have had 4 employees at the start of the scenario.
>
>Not necessarily. YOU say employees can only make 25
The initial scenarios said so.
>Could be they could make more.
But you can't assume that they can.
> It could be that Joe had four employees because he
>calculated that he could afford 4, have a light workload, happy
>workers and not be in a bind if one layed out (minimum wage workers
>being so undependable...it's called redundency). Now, he can't, so he
>only hires three, works them harder and tells them he will fire them
>and replace them if they lay out or they don't produce.
Then he ends up getting the benefit (whatever it is) of the redundancy
that he had formerly built in ,
Dennis Kemmerer
news:iil69496denjg1v4e...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> I also know that in reality labor costs are only a small portion of
> the costs of operating a fast food joint, so that an increase in the
> minimum wage probably has less effect on profits than a couple of days
> of bad weather.
Actually, the National Restaurant Association 'estimates that 29 cents of
every fast-food dollar goes toward wages and benefits'
(http://www.qsrmagazine.com/articles/features/116/minimum_wage-1.phtml),
which is consistent with my experience when I was in the industry in the
1970s. Of course, that percentage is generally a bit lower in higher volume
units and higher in lower volume units, where you can't schedule a fraction
of a person for any given shift. The only bigger expense is food cost,
which generally runs around 50%.
[snip]
Larry Hewitt
"Grendel" <wsth...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:b7d4a7e2-d0ab-4374...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 8:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> Grendel <wstho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> You are forgetting that Joe's 3 sub makers can't make as many subs as
> >> Sams 4 workers. Joes loses some business and sells 75 subs per day
>
> >You forget that both Joe and Sam's quantity of business is not driven
> >by how many each person can make, but how many customers come in to
> >order a sub.
>
> Both are involved.
The workforce is set by the demand.
--And by the productivity of workers.
New equipment, for example, can increase productivity and change the sizeof
the work force with no change in demand.
> >If 100 customers come in to buy subs from both Joe and
> >Sam, then they will sell 100 subs.
>
> Not if they can't make 100 subs.
But, if forced to do so, the owner will use the mimum number of
employees.
--- That is the goal of all employers. Paying people to be idle is not
goodness.
> >Sam's workers will be responsible for making 25 each. Joe's will be
> >responsible for making 33-34 each.
>
> If Joe's employees could make 33-34 apiece, then Joe could have fired
> the 4th employee a long time ago.
The way it works is that Joe, when he started the business, calculated
that he would be able to pay "X" number of dollars for labor.
-- Nope.
He surveyed the local economy to find out what comparable busineses paid
ther employees.
This is then added to the business plan, along with all other costs
projected sales, to determine if any profit can be expected.
If not, the business does not open.
He cannot open, for example. if your calculation determines he can only pay
$3.00 an hour or only pay minimum wage for experienced, skilled labor.
--
He also
figure that he could hire 4 people for $X. Seeing as this was more
than enough to handle the work load, the employees enjoyed a light
work load, frequent breaks and an enjoyable work experience. Joe was
able to run his business in a supervisory position. Everyone was
happy.
--- Only a fool would operate like this,
Then comes the government mandated wage increase. This increase puts
the four employees collective wages above $X. One employee is fired
(the worst worker). The slack is taken up by the other three. Work
load is increased, breaks are restricted to government mandated
miminum, and work is not as fun. At such times that the three workers
can not handle the load, Joe pitches in and makes a few subs himself.
This is called a 'working supervisor'. He now had to perform
bookworking at home instead of during working hours, but the sums
still get done and the fourth worker is still out of a job. Now, the
3 employees may not be as happy, but they can always be replaced. The
employees are no longer enjoying taking as much time off as they were
as there is now no extra help to take up the slack.
--- This isa formula for expensive high employee turnover.
Minimum wage workers are not tied to a particular job, but can get a job in
a variety of indtries.
Piss 'em off and they will leave for another job.
> >Thus they will work harder, have fewer breaks, and generally be more
> >depressed.
>
> No, they'll quit and go to work for Sam, who doesn't expect them to
> produce more for the same amount of money.
But, in your scenario, Sam can not afford to hire all of them. And,
as Joe and Sam are the only employers, they can either work for Joe,
or not get paid.
-- SAm can afford to hire them all.
Demand is stabele ---- a minimu wage jraise does not mean people eat
significanlty fewer subs.
If Joe cuts his labor to the point he ticks off custoemrs then they will run
to Sam, who has the labor to satify his cutomers.
> Then, since Joe no longer
> can produce the product, and Sam can, Sam makes more money.
>
> >And Joe's fourth employee, the one that was fired, is still making zero
> >dollars.
>
> Actually he collects unemployment for several months.
Seeing as unemployment is based on earned salary for the previous
year, and is never anywhere near what you would make while working, he
is still out of money.
Maybe. It costs money to go to work, especially if you, for ex., have to pay
for a ride to and from work. That is the theory behind unemployment --- it
costs less to sit on your butt tan to work.
> But since Sam
> will probably be happy to hire him to increase market share in the
> fact of Joe's voluntary contraction, he'll be making minimum wage in
> no time at all.
>
> >The reality is that most businesses have to meet a quota, and that
> >quota does not change if you have four employees, or only three.
>
> If the quota is more than can be produced, then the quota won't be
> made. And if you push the employees too hard, quality goes down.
If the quota is more than the 3 can make, then Joe will have to do
some of the work himself. The one guy is STILL out of work.
--- Nope.
Joe is already busy taking orders, running the cash register, oredering
suplies, placing ads, doing the books supervising the workers, etc.
> >The
> >business with fewer employees will just have employees that are forced
> >to work harder.
>
> Why would they work harder? It isn't like there aren't plenty of
> other minimum wage jobs around.
But, EVERYJOB now cost the owner more, and EVERY owner is expecting to
keep their labor cost below $X. So EVERY employee is expect to
produce more.
--- Nope.
Smart employers grow the business, find efficiencies, cut supply csts, etc.
> >This is the reality.
>
> The reality is in fact that minimum wage employees can't be forced to
> do much of anything,
Sure they can. They have a great motivation. It's called "WORK, or
get fired." The great thing about minimum wage workers is that they
are easily replacable. How difficult is it to assemble a sub? (for
you, probably very). The conversation goes like this: "So, you're
unwilling to make 40 subs in an hour? Well, Leroy here that just
walked off the street is, so you're fired."
-- But ther e are millions of jobs available. And replacing workers is
expensive.
> unless there is only one employer, and in fact
> employers who hire minimum wage employees have to accept that there
> will be plenty of slacking, irresponsibility, absenteeism, etc.
No, employers who hire minimum wage employees are willing to hire,
then fire, enough people to find employees that will accomplish what
is needed. When your only job skill is assembling subs, you can't
really negotiate your wage.
--- Employees of the caliber you posit do not stay in minimum wage jobs
long --- they work their way up and out to better paying jobs.
You really need to get a job to see what really happens.
Larry
Bob LeChevalier
Which means that a 6.3% increase in labor costs, as described in the
article, being only 29% of the total fast food dollar, amounts to a 2%
increase in total costs, which isn't that far from the inflation rate.
The restaurants say that they are having to raise prices by 5% and
that this causes a drop in sales volume of 1-2%.
Now this is real money across an entire industry of billions of
dollars, but a 1-2% drop in sales volume or a 5% increase in costs can
occur for a lot of other reasons - bad weather or a recession in the
first place, and massive increases in oil prices for the second. Thus
I suspect that the current economy and oil price hike are having more
of an effect than 3 years of minimum wage increases would have on the
restaurant industry.
Someone who cared, could check. The article says that only 21 states
are actually affected by the July increase - the others already have
minimum wages higher than the Feds. So compare business in those 21
states to business in the others.
Dennis Kemmerer
> "Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:iil69496denjg1v4e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
Which, I suppose, would be someone who's in the industry.
I'm not challenging your hypothesis, just your assertion that 29% is 'only a
small portion.'
[snip]
Bob LeChevalier
Context is everything. My statement was
<I also know that in reality labor costs are only a small portion of
<the costs of operating a fast food joint, so that an increase in the
<minimum wage probably has less effect on profits than a couple of days
<of bad weather.
The "so that" indicates that the "smallness" is such as to cause the
indicated effect. This in comparison to the other guy's concocted
scenario, where minimum wage labor constituted the ONLY cost
acknowledged in the scenario. Compared to 100%, 29% is indeed
"small", and not all of that is minimum wage, with the result that the
increase in labor costs caused by a minimum wage increase amounts to a
2% increase in total costs, which is VERY small compared to other
things that can effect costs and sales.