Originally posted by sh76That is not a unique ability, price increases all the time. As a business owner I would not hire any more workers than I needed so I would not be able to lay them off in any case.
McDonalds is one company that has a unique ability to pass on its costs to consumers because of its market position. Most people work for small companies, which do not always have that ability. When you increase the cost of labor to companies, companies purchase less of it, as with every other commodity. Maybe they'll only cut their employees' hours rather than ...[text shortened]... if costs of labor go up, many companies will decrease the labor they consume. It's common sense.
If the price of food goes up do you stop eating? If you say you cut back on food then I say you should have done that before the price increase.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSOne consequence of high labour costs is that labour-intensive work becomes less profitable if less labour-intensive options are available. In principle I could order food from somewhere every day, but it would be extremely expensive compared to going to the supermarket and making something with fresh ingredients, even if I go to take-away restaurants. Likewise, you will certainly not find people doing something as pointless and degrading as greeting costumers in a store. It's just too expensive and there is more productive stuff to do with people's time.
That is not a unique ability, price increases all the time. As a business owner I would not hire any more workers than I needed so I would not be able to lay them off in any case.
If the price of food goes up do you stop eating? If you say you cut back on food then I say you should have done that before the price increase.
Originally posted by quackquackLogic? How about false inferences? Because a is true does not mean b is also true. Babysitting has nothing to do with the subject and has no connection with anything anyone is talking about.
Many times when minimum wage increases certain types of jobs are simply not profitable. For instance, if I everyone had to pay twice as much for a baby sitter, I do not think people would pass on costs in other ways. Instead I think people would simply not use that service. Either they would watch a movie at home or take the kids with them or have th ...[text shortened]... and decreased consumption is the logical result of dramatic increases in unskilled labor costs.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraTrue, I implied that earlier when I stated that technology and outsourcing eliminates the need for high paid workers in industrial companies.
One consequence of high labour costs is that labour-intensive work becomes less profitable if less labour-intensive options are available. In principle I could order food from somewhere every day, but it would be extremely expensive compared to going to the supermarket and making something with fresh ingredients, even if I go to take-away restaurants. L ...[text shortened]... in a store. It's just too expensive and there is more productive stuff to do with people's time.
None of that has any bearing on minimum wage jobs because min wage is the cheapest source of labour for those positions.
Originally posted by bill718I credit Teinosuke for showing me the light on this issue. I'm fully won over on a living minimum wage and ending corporate welfare.
A Conservative that get's it. Hopefully this gains more acceptance within Republican ranks.
http://gma.yahoo.com/conservative-millionaires-quest-raise-californias-minimum-wage-12-121659113.html
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSIf all employers were 100% efficient, perhaps. But they're not. Employers may theoretically only hire employees that they need, but the fact is that many businesses are overstaffed. As long as the business is making money, they won't usually cut much (especially small employers who know their employees personally). When labor costs go up, they move to streamline.
That is not a unique ability, price increases all the time. As a business owner I would not hire any more workers than I needed so I would not be able to lay them off in any case.
If the price of food goes up do you stop eating? If you say you cut back on food then I say you should have done that before the price increase.
Moreover, for a business that is only marginally profitable, increased labor costs can make the difference between a viable business and a nonviable business. If the pizza shop owner really needs 4 workers and can only afford to pay $32/hr total and make money, then an increase in labor costs to $48/he may put him out of business, thereby costing all 5 jobs (the job of the owner and the 4 workers).
I get all the railing against corporate greed. I really do. But you also need to realize that not every employer is a fat cat who could pay more but is just keeping more out of greed or heartlessness. Most businesses are small businesses and most business owners struggle to stay afloat.
1 edit
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSDo you really think that the economy runs off of necessities?
If you say you cut back on food then I say you should have done that before the price increase.
In our strong, western style economies, only a small percentage of our purchases are necessities. The rest are luxuries. Nobody "needs" a huge Christmas celebration with gifts, party decorations, huge meals with all the trimmings, etc. But take those demands away and you'll shrink your economy by 10% (number not precise, obviously).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho are you to say that a store greeter is pointless? If a company decides that, for PR reasons or whatever, they are better off with a store greeter, then it may be a perfectly sound investment of capital. If the store greeter makes shoppers feel better about the store and more likely to return, then the greeter is contributing value to the company and the economy just as much so as the factory assembly line worker who creates the widgets that the store sells.
One consequence of high labour costs is that labour-intensive work becomes less profitable if less labour-intensive options are available. In principle I could order food from somewhere every day, but it would be extremely expensive compared to going to the supermarket and making something with fresh ingredients, even if I go to take-away restaurants. L ...[text shortened]... in a store. It's just too expensive and there is more productive stuff to do with people's time.
Originally posted by sh76On the other hand, redistribution will generally boost domestic consumption, which will be good for pizza shop owners. But if redistribution is the goal, there are more efficient ways of achieving it.
If all employers were 100% efficient, perhaps. But they're not. Employers may theoretically only hire employees that they need, but the fact is that many businesses are overstaffed. As long as the business is making money, they won't usually cut much (especially small employers who know their employees personally). When labor costs go up, they move to streamlin ...[text shortened]... lessness. Most businesses are small businesses and most business owners struggle to stay afloat.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOkay, I don't disagree with that principle. Of course, you're not really making an argument in favor of raising the minimum wage then.
On the other hand, redistribution will generally boost domestic consumption, which will be good for pizza shop owners. But if redistribution is the goal, there are more efficient ways of achieving it.
Originally posted by sh76If it is a sound investment than that is perhaps an indication that the allocation of labour is completely warped and needs to be rethought. Surely there is something more productive to do than to stand somewhere and harass costumers in a store!
Who are you to say that a store greeter is pointless? If a company decides that, for PR reasons or whatever, they are better off with a store greeter, then it may be a perfectly sound investment of capital. If the store greeter makes shoppers feel better about the store and more likely to return, then the greeter is contributing value to the company and the eco ...[text shortened]... ust as much so as the factory assembly line worker who creates the widgets that the store sells.
Originally posted by sh76Yes indeed - I am not in favour. But I also wouldn't say that an increase in minimum wage will necessarily lead to an increase in unemployment; it depends.
Okay, I don't disagree with that principle. Of course, you're not really making an argument in favor of raising the minimum wage then.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSI like how you ignore an example when it leads to a conclusion that you do not like.
Logic? How about false inferences? Because a is true does not mean b is also true. Babysitting has nothing to do with the subject and has no connection with anything anyone is talking about.
Baby sitting is a job where people often get less than minimum wage and thus if you followed the law a higher minimum wage would increase costs. I picked that one because it is a job people understand. I used to work for a veterinarian and people who bathe dogs/ clean cages are similar low skilled l jobs that are time consuming, low skill, low profit jobs. Simply if minimum wages increase the costs to supply these jobs would increase, the profit would evaporate. No business person wants to lose money and jobs which do not make profits would be eliminated.
Originally posted by bill718The reason this guy isn't "better", and won't be elected either as a D or R is that he has adopted a Democrat position while professing Conservatism. Also check the first response.
A Conservative that get's it. Hopefully this gains more acceptance within Republican ranks.
http://gma.yahoo.com/conservative-millionaires-quest-raise-californias-minimum-wage-12-121659113.html
Republicans don't win by trying to be "like" Democrats.