Author Topic: The Minimum Wage debate  (Read 8989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2014, 08:44:54 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.

*snip*

Very well thought out, Chino! I agree with the majority of it.
On the last paragraph I guess the question is does the extra 1.2 mil force the business to close its doors? Walmart can survive, but many small business owners will drop like flies, unfortunately.

The business wouldn't close its doors, but something somewhere would have to be sacrificed. In all reality, hours would be slashed quite a bit. People would be making the same amount of money and working less hours, but then the customer experience would begin to suffer. I know that particular company well enough to understand the ripple effect that it would have. In all honestly, it would not be pretty. I'm sure many of other small business would experience similar problems.

The bit about small businesses dropping like flies is an issue I'm on the fence about. I love mom and pop stores, I really do. I live in a small town that in the last 10 years has had a Stop and Shop, three Dunkin Donuts, a Blockbuster (which went under), an Auto Zone, an Advance Autoparts, two Subways, two Rite Aids, a CVS, and a few other big chains come in and develop. On one hand, it sucks. On the other hand, my town's population (along with many others) has increased significantly over the last decade. The mom and pop stores can't really cut it. Honestly, many of them were poorly managed and only stayed in business because there was no other game in town. Part of me hates the idea of big businesses coming in, but the other part of me thinks that's just the evolution of business. Mom and pop stores have been on their way out for 30+ years now, even before Walmart (although they greatly exacerbated the process). Maybe we just happen to be in the time period where we are seeing the final nails in the coffin. It's going to happen eventually. It's inevitable.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2014, 11:07:59 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.

*snip*

Very well thought out, Chino! I agree with the majority of it.
On the last paragraph I guess the question is does the extra 1.2 mil force the business to close its doors? Walmart can survive, but many small business owners will drop like flies, unfortunately.

The business wouldn't close its doors, but something somewhere would have to be sacrificed. In all reality, hours would be slashed quite a bit. People would be making the same amount of money and working less hours, but then the customer experience would begin to suffer. I know that particular company well enough to understand the ripple effect that it would have. In all honestly, it would not be pretty. I'm sure many of other small business would experience similar problems.

The bit about small businesses dropping like flies is an issue I'm on the fence about. I love mom and pop stores, I really do. I live in a small town that in the last 10 years has had a Stop and Shop, three Dunkin Donuts, a Blockbuster (which went under), an Auto Zone, an Advance Autoparts, two Subways, two Rite Aids, a CVS, and a few other big chains come in and develop. On one hand, it sucks. On the other hand, my town's population (along with many others) has increased significantly over the last decade. The mom and pop stores can't really cut it. Honestly, many of them were poorly managed and only stayed in business because there was no other game in town. Part of me hates the idea of big businesses coming in, but the other part of me thinks that's just the evolution of business. Mom and pop stores have been on their way out for 30+ years now, even before Walmart (although they greatly exacerbated the process). Maybe we just happen to be in the time period where we are seeing the final nails in the coffin. It's going to happen eventually. It's inevitable.







Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #72 on: June 07, 2014, 07:49:37 AM »
What is a "livable wage" and who defines what that is?

Without getting in to the rest of the post, this is an important issue.

Livable wage is one in which a family doesn't die and children don't get sick without government assistance.



I think the worst part about this whole ordeal is that no politician will admit that the low paying jobs is the new middle class. We can no longer address this as raising the wages of the lowest paying jobs in the country, but rather raising the wage of the most common jobs in the country. All this filler talk about job creation is complete bullshit for the most part. I hate the argument people my age (and adults) make, saying things like "well just start a business", "go get an education", "go get a valuable skill", etc... 1) It's not that easy. 2) Most of their parents fell into the category of having no real skills, but luckily for them there were factories that had lots of buttons they could push while still earning a pension. Between globalization, robotics, and other efficiency increases through technology, we've made the jobs that paid livable wages obsolete. Unless CEOs suddenly decide to take businesses back to the stone age, we will never see those jobs again. And that process is still occurring. Regardless of whether or not wages increase at fast food establishments and in retail locations, I'd bet my testicles that at least 50% (that's low balling it) of those positions will be automated before I die.

There is way more to this debate than just the wage. Other things that need to be discussed;
1) Having too many children
2) Having too many children too early
3) A society that is obsessed with spending money they don't have
4) A congress that has no interest in serving the people
5) A population that is convinced that the lack of jobs is somehow all some how Obama's fault
6) The fact that the six Waltons (Walmart is the largest employer in the US) have more wealth than the bottom 35% of people in this country.

That last one says it all. And the fact that people can't see that as an issue really boggles my mind. I understand the whole free market argument, but c'mon. What we are witnessing is the closest thing we can get to slavery in our society.


But it is a touchy subject for just this reason. I worked at a family owned grocery store as a cook for eight years. They have four locations. A minimum wage increase to $10 would be an extra $1.2 million dollars a year for the owner of that company. I can understand why people would be opposed to it. But my brain tells me to think about the greater good. What's more important? The 300 employees that work for that guy to make more money, or the 2.2 million people who work at Walmart?
Very well thought out, Chino! I agree with the majority of it.
On the last paragraph I guess the question is does the extra 1.2 mil force the business to close its doors? Walmart can survive, but many small business owners will drop like flies, unfortunately.

Many small businesses already pay more than minimum wage.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2014, 04:49:37 PM »
Walmart can survive, but many small business owners will drop like flies, unfortunately.

Many small businesses already pay more than minimum wage.
And many don't. And even if they already do, is the new minimum higher than what they're currently paying (paying more than the minimum does mean more than the proposed minimum)?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #74 on: June 08, 2014, 11:29:40 PM »
Clearly, though, it's very possible to pay your workers more than minimum wage, make money, and survive.

Some small businesses might have to raise their prices to compensate for the new wage they ahve to pay. But guess what? They'll have more customers because the workers of Wal-Mart, a company which can undoubtedly afford to pay their employees more, will now have money to occasionally spend at those businesses. Not to mention the fact that if their employees don't have to be on public assistance and actually have some ability to enjoy their time off, and not work three jobs, they'll be happier, healthier and more productive. Oh, and taxes would eventually come down because there wouldn't need to be as much money spent on safety nets which are strained when companies don't pay their workers a livable wage.

The problem I have with arguments against the minimum wage is that they're a sound starting hypothesis... they just don't have much facts to support them as theory.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #75 on: January 04, 2015, 09:10:13 AM »
Well as an employer, there is a requirement to update your Employment Notice posters.  For the most part, you can buy a combined poster for the Fed/Your State.  I've noticed it is much messier this year with the cities changing their minimum wage laws independent of the state.

Come on government(s).  Get it together already.  You need a freaking treasure map to make sure you are following the rules.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2015, 05:57:46 AM »
So the $15 minimum wage protests have officially hit the city I work in (Hartford). I walked past two demonstration while on my lunch walk yesterday.

Came across this photo online from one of the rallies.



I know we don't have a national language, but if you're serious about getting this wage and you want to get the people with money on your side, write your sign in fucking English.

I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but if I was one of these women, or a parent in this situation, my number one priority would be to master the English language and make damn sure my children could speak it. I'd be ashamed to be sitting there with a sign written in Spanish. It's like you're asking people to immediately dismiss you.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 06:59:49 AM by Chino »

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14459
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #77 on: November 12, 2015, 07:35:01 AM »
Yes, but they are entitled to speak whatever language they want and get paid more than the small businesses can afford.

I really liked that the GOP candidates stood up and all talked about how raising the minimum wage is bad, but when I read an article about it on the web, the comments are so ridiculously negative like not a single person understands the bigger picture, just they WANT more money.  I think that's the simpliest temporary solution, but the long term results will be a disaster for these people working minimum wage jobs... as in those jobs won't exists at those price points.  Rubio did say something that is likely true for the future, unskilled worked will be replaced by robots if they price themselves too high where a robot is chepaer.  I can totally see this being the case sometime in the near future.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #78 on: November 12, 2015, 07:44:03 AM »
I think that day is coming regardless. Even at $8 an hour, fast food jobs aren't safe. I did a few McDonalds case studies when I was in school, and the amount of automation already being implemented is pretty amazing. There are McDonalds currently testing VOIP drive through windows. When you order, you're talking to someone overseas via the internet and that person sends the order to the kitchen of whatever location you're at. McDonalds could get 5 or 6 drive through people overseas for the price of a single American worker.

 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #79 on: November 12, 2015, 07:50:59 AM »
So the $15 minimum wage protests have officially hit the city I work in (Hartford). I walked past two demonstration while on my lunch walk yesterday.

Came across this photo online from one of the rallies.



I know we don't have a national language, but if you're serious about getting this wage and you want to get the people with money on your side, write your sign in fucking English.

I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but if I was one of these women, or a parent in this situation, my number one priority would be to master the English language and make damn sure my children could speak it. I'd be ashamed to be sitting there with a sign written in Spanish. It's like you're asking people to immediately dismiss you.

I don't for a second think Chino is xenophobic - and neither am I - but this is right, for a very subtle reason.  Whether you think the wage is right or wrong (I am very much against the raising of the minimum wage, for various reasons) there is an underlying message to this that is really the crux of several problems:  the demand to get more without giving more.   

When the "rush" of immigrants came to this grand melting pot, they were as desperate as any class of citizen has been in this country since it's formation (with one obvious exception).  And in keeping with Hobbes, those people effectively "volunteered" to do their part.  They learned the language, they entered the work force, and while some of the proletariat abused that (and were taken to task for it) very quickly it resolved that people were paid what they were worth, and based on what they put into the system.

This just seems to smack to me of more of the recent trend of "gimme gimme gimme, on MY terms, mofo", as opposed to any kind of bargain, whereby they do get more and are willing to do what it takes to make sure there is more, generally, to give.  Wal-Mart is going to pay out $x dollars in labor.  Their business model depends on that.  And whether that "$x" is hours times $10/hr, or times $15/hr, the total number is NOT going to change unless it results in more sales. 

I'm all for cultural diversity; I have made sure my daughter speaks at least two languages, and she is probably going to come out speaking three (English, Spanish, and French).  I loved the diversity of the city (I lived in Philly) where you could move easily from the Italian section to the Spanish section to the Chinese/Asian section with ease, and find yourself in those rich cultures... but "melting pot" by definition means "blend", not little islands of whatever I want when I want for the wage I feel I deserve regardless of what the market says.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40215
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #80 on: November 12, 2015, 08:03:14 AM »
I think that people asking for $15.00/hour for the minimum wage don't fully understand what the repercussions will be of doubling the current amount. 

Having said that, if we are going to have a minimum wage in the first place (which is fine), the current rate seems to be too low.  I would be OK with an increase to something like $9.00 or maybe even $10.00 per hour.  But anything more than that (and hell, maybe even that much) seems like it would have very negative effects on many employers, especially small businesses.  The result would likely be that fewer people would be employed, or people that are employed would be offered fewer hours to work.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #81 on: November 12, 2015, 08:07:57 AM »
Quote
I don't for a second think Chino is xenophobic

Thanks. And just to be extra clear, I am not in any way suggesting that we abandon other languages and only have English speaking people in this country. There are plenty of studies that show that learning multiple languages, much like playing music (which I guess is a language), can do wonders for the way your brain wires itself. Speak however you want in your house and in your community, that's fine, and I think it's great that people can hold onto their heritage. But the reality is that English is the language of business. Unless you find under the table work as a contractor, you're never going to make shit in this country without speaking English. I attribute my entire success to being good with words (I'm sure at times that isn't reflected on this forum). I'm not great at my job, and many people in this office run circles around me, but I know how to talk. Being able to speak to rich people is the single most valuable skill one could have, at least in my mind. After nearly two years in corporate America, I can confidently say your ability to speak well is valued far more than the work you produce.

The fact that we cater to these people really irritates me. Wolcott recently hired several Spanish teachers. Not teachers for Spanish classes, I mean teachers whose job it is to teach the school curriculum entirely in Spanish. I'm sorry, but if I was a tax payer in that town, I'd be raising hell. DMVs offers driving tests in Spanish? Come on. Stop catering. I'm completely willing to accept you into this country and welcome you into the workforce, but put in a little effort. When you participate in a rally in a City that only exists because of rich, English speaking corporations, at least try and speak the language. Even if you can't, have someone write a sign in English for you.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #82 on: November 12, 2015, 08:15:10 AM »
I think that people asking for $15.00/hour for the minimum wage don't fully understand what the repercussions will be of doubling the current amount. 

Having said that, if we are going to have a minimum wage in the first place (which is fine), the current rate seems to be too low.  I would be OK with an increase to something like $9.00 or maybe even $10.00 per hour.  But anything more than that (and hell, maybe even that much) seems like it would have very negative effects on many employers, especially small businesses.  The result would likely be that fewer people would be employed, or people that are employed would be offered fewer hours to work.

I think $10 an hour would be a fine minimum wage if other measures were taken as well. The minimum wage is only one half of the equation. The cost of living is the real culprit (or at least a bigger chunk). I live in a city with the second highest mil rate in the state. It cost me $1100 to park my car on my property last year. $1100 just to have my car in the city. Sure, a minimum wage worker wont have a car with a value equivalent to mine, but they could still be stuck with $400-$500 a year for their vehicle. And if you look at it from the other end of the spectrum, why would anyone with money want to move to the city? If a family has a 5 series BMW and an Audi A6, they are going to be paying nearly $5k a year in taxes just to have their cars in their driveway. You are driving out the demographic that could support the slightly higher wages for the poor people. It's stupid. I pay as much in taxes as I do my mortgage. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #83 on: November 12, 2015, 08:15:40 AM »
After nearly two years in corporate America, I can confidently say your ability to speak well is valued far more than the work you produce.

This is not wrong, and you should be paid accordingly.  The whole notion of "minimum wage", and more specifically, DEMANDING a minimum wage instead of EARNING one, turns that on it's head.   

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9260
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #84 on: November 12, 2015, 03:52:22 PM »
That seems to be the case nowadays and it just seems like this and other issues are coming to a head all at once but it's pretty clear the people demanding the changes have no clue what they're actually asking for. Take the Million Student March with all those Sanders supporters who parrot his debt plan like it's actually rooted in reality for example. Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish? Well, damn, I didn't realize it was that easy! With the minimum wage issue I'm not really sure where $15 dollars came from outside of being a round number. It seems like someone just came up with it and everyone else went "well that sounds pretty good!" and didn't really put much more thought into it.

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #85 on: November 12, 2015, 04:15:23 PM »
With the minimum wage issue I'm not really sure where $15 dollars came from outside of being a round number. It seems like someone just came up with it and everyone else went "well that sounds pretty good!" and didn't really put much more thought into it.

And that sums up the entire problem with the debate as well.  The numbers just seem to come out of somebody's ass.  They make no real argument for the validity of the number other than "living wage".  For starters, living wage varies greatly on where you live and your expectations.  When I was near the bottom (high school job), I would take advantage of the free goodies at work.  Obviously you can't survive on that, so many days I would walk over to the Taco Bell and get two bean and cheese burritos and a small (refillable) drink for $2.01.  I remember specifically because I had to have that penny with me.  Did I love that lunch?  No.  But it got me through the day with minimal impact on my attempt to save what I earned.

I grew up being so tight with my wallet, that if I'm outside of the business, I can survive on very little.  When all I have to worry about is me, living on a shoestring budget is very plausible.  That also propels you to climb the ladder so you can enjoy life a bit more.

And the creativity is nil.  Carson hit on what I had thought about a bit, but from a different angle.  Minimum full time wage v. minimum probationary wage.  Employers are more willing to hire people if it is a trial basis (especially for the level they are talking about).  Less or no benefits and a lower wage.  This allows you to try somebody that you might have passed on had you been required to start them at $15 to $25/hr.  Anybody can talk themselves up and other employers are so afraid of being sued, they usually won't tell you much (or anything) negative about an employee.  And the more negative and loud mouthed the employee, the less a previous employer will be willing to risk negative feedback.  So many times, that process actually hurts the humble, get it done employees.

The real problem is the sharp rise in food prices, that for some reason is cut out of the inflation index that is reported.  As far as minimum wage, I have never paid anybody minimum wage.  In fact, my minimum wage is closer to the $15 minimum wage and is rarely used.  Usually for that probationary period I'm talking about.  But it brings up a good discussion point.  Why would you go work at what is now a $15/hr job if you could go get a much easier retail job for $15/hr.  A jump that high will create massive havoc beyond the current minimum wage jobs.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4505
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #86 on: November 12, 2015, 04:45:20 PM »
Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish?

He doesn't claim that. He does claim that taxing Wall Street transactions (a tax that doesn't exist in this country yet) will pay for public student tuition across the board. The surplus (and there will be) from that policy, I assume, will help students refinance their college debt.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4562
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #87 on: November 12, 2015, 07:29:23 PM »
I know we don't have a national language, but if you're serious about getting this wage and you want to get the people with money on your side, write your sign in fucking English.

Ignoring the issue of whether or not they should use English, I always thought the bigger issue is that these types of things, while small in the eyes of some, are going to work against you in the PR battle. People may be ambivalent to your demands and/or causes, but alienating them by holding up a sign they can't even read is going to do more to turn them away from your cause than it will to turn them to it. I'd always see people marching on May 01 holding Mexican flags. If you are asking for better wages or benefits or whatever, ok. But what the hell are you attempting to accomplish by holding up a foreign flag?

It cost me $1100 to park my car on my property last year. $1100 just to have my car in the city.

Holy crap I just saw that. Is that a tax/fee that is part of your auto registration?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 10:18:02 PM by Cool Chris »
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14459
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #88 on: November 13, 2015, 04:52:50 AM »
13 years ago I took on a high school job at Boston Market so that I could buy a car.  I worked for $6 an hour, after 1 year I got a dime raise!  I can't imagine Boston Market surviving paying $15 now.  I do hope they pay a little more than 6 though just to adjust for inflation.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #89 on: November 13, 2015, 05:58:01 AM »
But it brings up a good discussion point.  Why would you go work at what is now a $15/hr job if you could go get a much easier retail job for $15/hr.  A jump that high will create massive havoc beyond the current minimum wage jobs.

That all depends on what retail job you're in. I can't think of a retail job I'd prefer to do over this one if the salaries were the same (and that's saying a lot as I really hate my job). I look at the people behind the counter at the Dunkin I go to every morning and it seems like absolute hell. They probably work harder in their first hour than I have to in an entire day. Not to mention, they often get weekend and night shifts with a week of PTO if they're lucky. Fast food, same thing. Those jobs really really suck. The stresses and the emphasis on what's happening on a minute by minute basis is far worse than anything I encounter in my cube making quadruple what they make. If someone came up to me and offered me a job at Mcdonalds for $5 an hour more than I currently make, I wouldn't contemplate taking it for a second. But that's just me.

It cost me $1100 to park my car on my property last year. $1100 just to have my car in the city.
Holy crap I just saw that. Is that a tax/fee that is part of your auto registration?

It's part of my property tax.

13 years ago I took on a high school job at Boston Market so that I could buy a car.  I worked for $6 an hour, after 1 year I got a dime raise!  I can't imagine Boston Market surviving paying $15 now.  I do hope they pay a little more than 6 though just to adjust for inflation.

I think they'd be okay. Connecticut Boston Markets are currently paying $9.10 minimum. Increasing to $15 an hour would be a 40% increase. I know Mcdonalds' wages only make up 17% of its budget. Boston Markets' wages are probably similar relative to their budget. That would only work out to Boston Market having to charge customers 6% more than they currently do (I might be wrong. Someone check my math). If I'm spending $50 at Boston Market today, I'm really not going to mind spending $53 next week for the same food, especially if that money is going to help someone feed their kid.

As far as raises go. I got my first job in September 2005. I started at $8.00 when minimum wage was $7.10. After 7 years I worked up to $12.71 an hour.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 06:10:24 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #90 on: November 13, 2015, 09:17:19 AM »
Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish?

He doesn't claim that. He does claim that taxing Wall Street transactions (a tax that doesn't exist in this country yet) will pay for public student tuition across the board. The surplus (and there will be) from that policy, I assume, will help students refinance their college debt.

And all those people - all the people who make their living on Wall Street are just going to roll over and give up that 100 BILLION dollars.  Oh, wait, no they're not.   They are going to pass those down to the people that invest with them, and guess what?  The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands.  You know, the people that have modest retirement accounts like 401(k)s.   You know, YOU AND ME.

Please.  This is a pipe dream. 

For the life of me, I do not know why people haven't embraced the truism yet that "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is".  This scheme is only a few steps away from that scheme involving the Nigerian prince who needs his bail posted by that kind old lady outside of Cleveland. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #91 on: November 13, 2015, 09:21:50 AM »
It cost me $1100 to park my car on my property last year. $1100 just to have my car in the city.

Holy crap I just saw that. Is that a tax/fee that is part of your auto registration?

And that is cheap compared to places like Philly.  I know a guy who bought a piece of land in Society Hill, and he thought he would build apartments there... turned out he could sell parking spaces for upwards of $65,000 A PIECE.  Think about that.   I sold my home in Philly in 2010; he made more selling 15 parking spaces and HE STILL OWNS THE LAND (it's not a lease, technically; it is the sale of the right to use). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #92 on: November 13, 2015, 09:31:39 AM »
I think they'd be okay. Connecticut Boston Markets are currently paying $9.10 minimum. Increasing to $15 an hour would be a 40% increase. I know Mcdonalds' wages only make up 17% of its budget. Boston Markets' wages are probably similar relative to their budget. That would only work out to Boston Market having to charge customers 6% more than they currently do (I might be wrong. Someone check my math). If I'm spending $50 at Boston Market today, I'm really not going to mind spending $53 next week for the same food, especially if that money is going to help someone feed their kid.

As far as raises go. I got my first job in September 2005. I started at $8.00 when minimum wage was $7.10. After 7 years I worked up to $12.71 an hour.

Sorry, boss.  This is not accurate.  The 17% number for Mickey D's is closer to 20, but more importantly, that is just the corporation.  They work on a franchisee model, so that does not include the labor for the guy tossing your salad fries.  And even at that, the corporate number is skewed, because much of it's revenue is from franchise payments, so it isn't a typical restaurant structure (meaning, you can't extrapolate the 17% number down to the franchises themselves).   I don't imagine the number is radically different, but it IS different.    McDonald's is  VERY VERY price sensitive business.  You will recall they tried to have a "higher end" product using Black Angus beef, and it died a quick death, in part because the price was over $5.00 just for the sandwich. 

EDIT:  Franchise labor costs are in the 20% range, so as I suspected, higher, not radically so.  Still, you double wages, that potentially adds just under a dollar to every Big Mac; they are, what, $3.75?  $4.00?  So you're adding 25% on to every Big Mac.  Not going to happen. 

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #93 on: November 13, 2015, 10:43:59 AM »
The idea that the Big Mac will go up just the amount of the increased labor cost is a highly flawed one.  Every dollar spent is basically an "investment" for a business.  And they expect a return on that investment (gross margin).

The labor to final cost ratio doesn't just happen in a vacuum.  They won't just accept that the labor share of the pie went from 20% to 42%.
$4 Big Mac * 20% labor cost = $0.80 labor per Big Mac at $7.25/hr min wage
$15/$7.25 *$0.80 = $1.66 new labor cost $1.66/$4 = 42%

Of course, that's not how it works.  Think of being in business as buying a stock or mutual fund.  You just bought $8000 worth of stock.  You've decided that will return 10% (let's ignore the duration).  So $800 return.  But it isn't a guaranteed return.  Your stock could also be worth $0 instead of $8,800.  Well, high risk, high return.  Otherwise you would just throw it in a savings account or CD (although not in this economy).

Now Etrade has a pop up window asking "would you like to invest $16,552 instead of $8,000 for the same $800 return?"  You'd say "that's stupid" and click no.  That's not greed.  That's common sense.

So with that in mind, let's pretend the most extreme.  20% is the ideal labor ratio.  So $1.66 is 20% of $8.28 (the new Big Mac cost).  This is probably the extreme, but you can see how the calculations are way off.  That extreme is not so out of whack because those material costs probably didn't stay the same with the wage increases affecting their final cost as well.

But let's pretend McDonald's lives in a vacuum and only their labor is affected.  And let's pretend their gross margin is 15% (Gross Margin, not actual profit margin).  So $1.66-$0.80 = $0.86 of new labor cost.  $0.86 / (1-0.15) = $1.01

So there would be a bare minimum of $1.01 added to the $4 Big Mac or a 25% increase across the board.  But that's in a vacuum so it is the extremely optimistic minimum. 

Let's include that their food cost (CoG) went up 25%.  And let's say the CoG is 65% (100%  - 20% Labor - 15% Gross Margin).  So $4 x 0.65 = $2.60.  $2.60 * 1.25 = $3.25.

So now $3.25 CoG + $1.66 Labor = $4.91 CoGS.  $4.91 / (1-15%GM) = $5.78 Big Mac.  Or $5.78 / $4 = 44% increase.  Probably the more realistic new Big Mac cost.  But don't forget, that 44% increase assumed their vendors operated in that 25% increase vacuum, so even that is probably on the low side.

But the idea that the Big Mac will just go up the new cost of labor is way off base.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4562
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #94 on: November 13, 2015, 11:23:14 AM »
It's part of my property tax.

Sorry if I am hung up on this and birdwalking in the thread, but I can't wrap my brain around this. So when you register your vehicle with the DMV, they notify your local tax jurisdiction and they add the appropriate amount to your property tax bill? What a pile of crap. I've never heard of such a thing.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #95 on: November 13, 2015, 11:33:54 AM »
I'm guessing the Chino parking / property tax thing is this:

You get your property value (decided by the government) x a property tax rate.  They try to keep that relatively low so they can say "look how cheap our property taxes are!  Come to our state / county!"

But then the shenanigans begin.  There's 18 lines of property tax addendum rates.  Some imposed, but most added through out the years with propositions.  Chino's was probably "cure parking problems by going after the fat cat home owners."  The non-home owners more or less voted yes.  I get all the benefit and none of the bill (faulty logic).  Then about 30% of the homeowners think they are being noble.  And it is only 0.5%.  I mean, how can you complain about 0.5%?  Think of the children('s parking problems).

Before you know it, you have 6 to 20 little nips at your wallet on your property tax bill.  Each one by itself seems manageable.  But together, they are more than your 1% property tax (the actual tax).  So your effective property tax rate is 2%, but the county/city advertises 1%.

This also explains your telephone bill.

By the way, these noble gestures are a regressive tax.
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline orcus116

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 9260
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #96 on: November 13, 2015, 08:35:21 PM »
But it brings up a good discussion point.  Why would you go work at what is now a $15/hr job if you could go get a much easier retail job for $15/hr.  A jump that high will create massive havoc beyond the current minimum wage jobs.

Are you putting words in my mouth?  :lol

Offline Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4505
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #97 on: November 13, 2015, 10:08:39 PM »
Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish?

He doesn't claim that. He does claim that taxing Wall Street transactions (a tax that doesn't exist in this country yet) will pay for public student tuition across the board. The surplus (and there will be) from that policy, I assume, will help students refinance their college debt.

And all those people - all the people who make their living on Wall Street are just going to roll over and give up that 100 BILLION dollars.  Oh, wait, no they're not.   They are going to pass those down to the people that invest with them, and guess what?  The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands.  You know, the people that have modest retirement accounts like 401(k)s.   You know, YOU AND ME.

Please.  This is a pipe dream. 

For the life of me, I do not know why people haven't embraced the truism yet that "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is".  This scheme is only a few steps away from that scheme involving the Nigerian prince who needs his bail posted by that kind old lady outside of Cleveland.

I don't think a 0.5% tax (2 quarters for every 100 dollar bill) on wall street transactions is going to hurt anyone except those people trading hundreds of stocks per second through online methods. And it's not as if a single company is going to be paying "100 BILLION" dollars, multiple companies will be paying smaller amounts together. You act as if this is the method he'll get the most money out of the richest.

"The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands."

Why would it get waved for those people? The entire policy Bernie is proposing is meant to take money from the rich and make it so college becomes available to lower class citizens and less stressful financially for everyone else. It's called the Robin Hood tax for a reason (check out the public opinion section!  ;) ).

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #98 on: November 13, 2015, 10:32:32 PM »
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #99 on: November 16, 2015, 09:39:47 AM »
Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish?

He doesn't claim that. He does claim that taxing Wall Street transactions (a tax that doesn't exist in this country yet) will pay for public student tuition across the board. The surplus (and there will be) from that policy, I assume, will help students refinance their college debt.

And all those people - all the people who make their living on Wall Street are just going to roll over and give up that 100 BILLION dollars.  Oh, wait, no they're not.   They are going to pass those down to the people that invest with them, and guess what?  The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands.  You know, the people that have modest retirement accounts like 401(k)s.   You know, YOU AND ME.

Please.  This is a pipe dream. 

For the life of me, I do not know why people haven't embraced the truism yet that "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is".  This scheme is only a few steps away from that scheme involving the Nigerian prince who needs his bail posted by that kind old lady outside of Cleveland.

I don't think a 0.5% tax (2 quarters for every 100 dollar bill) on wall street transactions is going to hurt anyone except those people trading hundreds of stocks per second through online methods. And it's not as if a single company is going to be paying "100 BILLION" dollars, multiple companies will be paying smaller amounts together. You act as if this is the method he'll get the most money out of the richest.

"The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands."

Why would it get waved for those people? The entire policy Bernie is proposing is meant to take money from the rich and make it so college becomes available to lower class citizens and less stressful financially for everyone else. It's called the Robin Hood tax for a reason (check out the public opinion section!  ;) ).

Show me an example where this fantasy notion that "we're going to tax the rich!!!" actually works/worked.   Every one of these schemes - and I use that in every sense of the word - has that same lingo: "isn't going to hurt anyone EXCEPT...."   And what makes you qualified to speak and give acceptance for that "exception"?   Why should they roll over and fund this?  The goodness of their hearts?   Whether it's $0.25 cents per transaction or not, it's $100 BILLION DOLLARS.  One of the differences between those that amass great wealth and those that don't is that they keep track of the "$0.50 per $100 transaction".    Railroad companies negotiate fuel prices down to the fractions of a penny, because when you're using BILLIONS of gallons of fuel, it adds up.   

To me, Bernie's plan smacks of not understanding how business works, and more importantly, how BIG economies work.  Someone once mentioned that Bernie's net worth (including a home) was something like $350K, and wondered whether that was relevant or not.  And certainly in this case, the answer is OF COURSE it is relevant.  He doesn't understand how this stuff works. 

Regardless, it WILL trickle down to the participants.   If I have $250, yeah, I'll pay the $1.25, but if I have $1 billion to invest, why would I pay the $500,000 or whatever it is when I can put that billion somewhere else?  And faced with the loss of that investment, the brokers will take responsibility for that tax (waive it) and pass that on in the form of fees to everyone else.  So the $250 person will pay $1.25 in tax, but their load will be $2.00 per transaction instead of $1.00.   The "rich" (ah, whence did that become a dirty word, instead of the dream of millions of Americans?)  WILL NOT BE FOOTING THIS BILL. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14459
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #100 on: November 16, 2015, 09:58:08 AM »
Im not 100% sure I understand why college should be free in the first place.  I understand the tuition prices are ridiculous, but I am not sure why we should have the right to free college.

Offline Lucien

  • composer
  • Posts: 4505
  • Gender: Male
    • my music
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #101 on: November 16, 2015, 10:22:17 AM »
Oh, just tax Wall Street more and all student debt will vanish?

He doesn't claim that. He does claim that taxing Wall Street transactions (a tax that doesn't exist in this country yet) will pay for public student tuition across the board. The surplus (and there will be) from that policy, I assume, will help students refinance their college debt.

And all those people - all the people who make their living on Wall Street are just going to roll over and give up that 100 BILLION dollars.  Oh, wait, no they're not.   They are going to pass those down to the people that invest with them, and guess what?  The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands.  You know, the people that have modest retirement accounts like 401(k)s.   You know, YOU AND ME.

Please.  This is a pipe dream. 

For the life of me, I do not know why people haven't embraced the truism yet that "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is".  This scheme is only a few steps away from that scheme involving the Nigerian prince who needs his bail posted by that kind old lady outside of Cleveland.

I don't think a 0.5% tax (2 quarters for every 100 dollar bill) on wall street transactions is going to hurt anyone except those people trading hundreds of stocks per second through online methods. And it's not as if a single company is going to be paying "100 BILLION" dollars, multiple companies will be paying smaller amounts together. You act as if this is the method he'll get the most money out of the richest.

"The people that invest billions and millions will get that waved, as they do with fees like that, and it will trickle down to those that invest thousands."

Why would it get waved for those people? The entire policy Bernie is proposing is meant to take money from the rich and make it so college becomes available to lower class citizens and less stressful financially for everyone else. It's called the Robin Hood tax for a reason (check out the public opinion section!  ;) ).

Show me an example where this fantasy notion that "we're going to tax the rich!!!" actually works/worked.   Every one of these schemes - and I use that in every sense of the word - has that same lingo: "isn't going to hurt anyone EXCEPT...."   And what makes you qualified to speak and give acceptance for that "exception"?   Why should they roll over and fund this?  The goodness of their hearts?   Whether it's $0.25 cents per transaction or not, it's $100 BILLION DOLLARS.  One of the differences between those that amass great wealth and those that don't is that they keep track of the "$0.50 per $100 transaction".    Railroad companies negotiate fuel prices down to the fractions of a penny, because when you're using BILLIONS of gallons of fuel, it adds up.   

To me, Bernie's plan smacks of not understanding how business works, and more importantly, how BIG economies work.  Someone once mentioned that Bernie's net worth (including a home) was something like $350K, and wondered whether that was relevant or not.  And certainly in this case, the answer is OF COURSE it is relevant.  He doesn't understand how this stuff works. 

Regardless, it WILL trickle down to the participants.   If I have $250, yeah, I'll pay the $1.25, but if I have $1 billion to invest, why would I pay the $500,000 or whatever it is when I can put that billion somewhere else?  And faced with the loss of that investment, the brokers will take responsibility for that tax (waive it) and pass that on in the form of fees to everyone else.  So the $250 person will pay $1.25 in tax, but their load will be $2.00 per transaction instead of $1.00.   The "rich" (ah, whence did that become a dirty word, instead of the dream of millions of Americans?)  WILL NOT BE FOOTING THIS BILL.

No point continuing this argument. I'm too stubborn.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18592
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #102 on: November 16, 2015, 10:37:49 AM »
Im not 100% sure I understand why college should be free in the first place.  I understand the tuition prices are ridiculous, but I am not sure why we should have the right to free college.

From a country-wide economic standpoint, I can understand the desire to have as many citizens well educated as possible. That's why we have free (funded by the tax payer) pre-k, grammar schools, junior highs, and high schools. That being said, college is a different beast. Everyone going to college isn't going to magically change our economy, and odds are, schools will just dumb down the curriculum so as many people can pass as possible. College diplomas are slowly becoming the new GEDs. It's hard for me to pick a side with this one. I've known people that would never have been able to go to college without assistance and they've paid their debt back in full. I also know people who got assistance and can barely make themselves a grilled cheese. If there is tax payer funded college in the future, I hope it's very selective in regards to who gets the benefits. 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 10:55:06 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7880
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #103 on: November 16, 2015, 10:49:55 AM »
Im not 100% sure I understand why college should be free in the first place.  I understand the tuition prices are ridiculous, but I am not sure why we should have the right to free college.

From a country-wide economic standpoint, I can understand the desire to have as many citizens well educated as possible. That's why we have free (funded by the tax payer) pre-k, grammar schools, junior highs, and high schools. That being said, college is a different beast. Everyone going to college isn't going to magically change are economy, and odds are, schools will just dumb down the curriculum so as many people can pass as possible. College diplomas are slowly becoming the new GEDs. It's hard for me to pick a side with this one. I've known people that would never have been able to go to college without assistance and they've paid their debt back in full. I also know people who got assistance and can barely make themselves a grilled cheese. If there is tax payer funded college in the future, I hope it's very selective in regards to who gets the benefits.

Great post.   College is NOT THE SAME as that which comes before it.  To get "free" high school (and let's just skip the lecture how IT ISN'T FREE: there just isn't a tuition) you have to live in the town in which the school is located (thus the tax, thus how you pay for it).   If I live in Dubai or Taiwan, I can't send my kid to Glastonbury High School unless I establish a residence for him there.    BUT, college, I can and do send my kids from all over the world to that school, even public ones.    This is much like private high schools, which operate more like colleges than public high schools. 

Offline Calvin6s

  • Posts: 3404
Re: The Minimum Wage debate
« Reply #104 on: November 16, 2015, 11:00:05 AM »
and odds are, schools will just dumb down the curriculum so as many people can pass as possible.
Holy crap.  I think you just brought a very important aspect of this whole discussion (on minimum wage? oh college).

Quote
If there is tax payer funded college in the future, I hope it's very selective in regards to who gets the benefits.

Yes because the hallmark of government is setting standards by merit  :rollin
I wish death upon Mitch McConnell and Pat Robertson in comment sections all the time. I'll admit that I'd be thrilled if either one of them died of a stroke tonight.