pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!  (Read 17395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #75 on: April 04, 2015, 17:01 »
-2
One main thing that a lot of the workers don't understand is the difference between cost of "living wage" and "minimum wage".  The living wage is what you need to have a decent life in that area so for example if you live in San Diego, California you would need around $30 an hour to have a good apartment and food on your table. In Louisville, Kentucky you would need $14 per hour to have the same standard of living.  Minimum wage was never intended to be 'Living wage'...

If someone's earnings aren't high enough to match the living wage of the city what's the solution? Use the government to force higher pay? Or maybe let the market dictate who can afford to live there? Can't afford to live in ultra expensive San Diego or Seattle? Simple. The United States is huge with a lot of affordable options. Move to an area you can afford. Debate over.

Except that's not what people are doing. They just complain and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. That seems to be the way of things nowadays. I don't buy that there aren't opportunities for the next generation. There's plenty.

There's plenty of opportunities for people who have the right skills for jobs that are in demand and are motivated to get a job

It seems like the go-getter is a dying breed.



« Reply #76 on: April 04, 2015, 19:33 »
-1
One main thing that a lot of the workers don't understand is the difference between cost of "living wage" and "minimum wage".  The living wage is what you need to have a decent life in that area so for example if you live in San Diego, California you would need around $30 an hour to have a good apartment and food on your table. In Louisville, Kentucky you would need $14 per hour to have the same standard of living.  Minimum wage was never intended to be 'Living wage'...

If someone's earnings aren't high enough to match the living wage of the city what's the solution? Use the government to force higher pay? Or maybe let the market dictate who can afford to live there? Can't afford to live in ultra expensive San Diego or Seattle? Simple. The United States is huge with a lot of affordable options. Move to an area you can afford. Debate over.

Except that's not what people are doing. They just complain and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. That seems to be the way of things nowadays. I don't buy that there aren't opportunities for the next generation. There's plenty.

There's plenty of opportunities for people who have the right skills for jobs that are in demand and are motivated to get a job

It seems like the go-getter is a dying breed.

It is widely reported on the Interweb that The Millennials are quite a departure from previous generations of humanity, in ways which are perhaps not all positive.

« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2015, 19:47 »
+4

It is widely reported on the Interweb that The Millennials are quite a departure from previous generations of humanity, in ways which are perhaps not all positive.

That has been widely reported about every generation for centuries, if not longer.  ::)

« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2015, 20:49 »
+3

It is widely reported on the Interweb that The Millennials are quite a departure from previous generations of humanity, in ways which are perhaps not all positive.

That has been widely reported about every generation for centuries, if not longer.  ::)

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

Any guesses who's quote this is?

Batman

« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2015, 22:00 »
0

It is widely reported on the Interweb that The Millennials are quite a departure from previous generations of humanity, in ways which are perhaps not all positive.

That has been widely reported about every generation for centuries, if not longer.  ::)

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

Any guesses who's quote this is?

Plato?

ultimagina

« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2015, 23:37 »
+1
Quote
Plato?

Socrates (469399 B.C.)

Uncle Pete

« Reply #81 on: April 05, 2015, 00:00 »
+1
Dude that's So-Crates

Quote
Plato?

Socrates (469399 B.C.)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #82 on: April 05, 2015, 00:26 »
+1

There's plenty of opportunities for people who have the right skills for jobs that are in demand and are motivated to get a job

It seems like the go-getter is a dying breed.

yes but only as long as the US limits the number of H1B visas and as the EU sticks with draconian work laws, the whole supply/demand is totally artificial and if it was for the employers they would flood the market with millions of skilled but low-paid immigrants.


« Reply #83 on: April 05, 2015, 00:33 »
+2
Yes I'm sure. It's a document issued by the swedish police. Is that reliable enough?
Now good luck finding a single Guardian article about it.

The introduction to the police document (via google translate) says: "In Sweden , there are currently 55 geographic areas where local criminal networks is considered to have a negative impact on the local community . The areas are spread across 22 cities - from big cities to small towns and is regarded as socio- economically disadvantaged . The vast criminal law covers of the local community appears to be linked to the social context in the areas of rather than on the willingness of criminals to take control and auditing in the local community ."
That doesn't seem like an admission of no-go areas, more of a guide to areas where more action is needed. However, as you presumably read Swedish and have read the report you refer to, could you point me to the section of the report that admits these are "no go areas" and I can google-translate from the original for myself?
I like to check the basis of unexpected assertions for myself, in line with Sagan's mantra that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2015, 00:40 »
-3
If someone's earnings aren't high enough to match the living wage of the city what's the solution? Use the government to force higher pay? Or maybe let the market dictate who can afford to live there? Can't afford to live in ultra expensive San Diego or Seattle? Simple. The United States is huge with a lot of affordable options. Move to an area you can afford. Debate over.

it's slavery, pure and simple.
actually the slaves got free accomodation and free meals at least, that's why slavery was abolished since it was becoming too expensive.

what's your solution ? living in a trailer camp and renting an RV ?
that's not very cheap either once you check the costs involved.

in europe we don't even have that option in most of the cases, they made sure to make it illegal almost everywhere.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #85 on: April 05, 2015, 00:49 »
+1
Except that's not what people are doing. They just complain and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. That seems to be the way of things nowadays. I don't buy that there aren't opportunities for the next generation. There's plenty.

i totally disagree.

until the 50s the salary of a worker or even of a clerk in a shop was enough to rent a house and feed a wife and a couple kids, now it's barely enough for yourself and to get a roof on your head, the buying power in the West is reaching the point where having a single kid is now a luxury and if you lose you job while you're over 50 you're basically Fk'ed and nobody will hire you.

20% of the workforce is probably doing fine while the remaining 80% is struggling to pay the bills and constantly kept in fear of being fired.

while we can all agree the social welfare in places like Sweden or Germany are excessive and prone to abuse there's a good reason they're still going strong.

when unemployment in america will reach the point of non-return it will be obvious to everyone that it's a failed model and unsustainable.

as witnessed already so many times in history, it will be followed by riots, uprisings, and civil wars.
in the case of the US i predict it will be both a class war and a race war.

technology is making humans obsolete and redundant, there's no fix for that, just look at Japan for instance ..
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 00:52 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #86 on: April 05, 2015, 00:49 »
+2
Quote
Plato?

Socrates (469399 B.C.)

Neither - it's a well-known fake. So, too, is "Times are bad, children no longer obey their parents - and everybody is writing a book", falsely attributed to Cicero and various ancient civilisations.  A pity, really.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2015, 00:52 »
+3
In the UK you can't even work, without the employer filing for you. And if you want to start your own business (as a non-resicdent) You need proof of finances and assert that you will provide at least two new jobs.

If a prospective employee is not otherwise exempt from the need for an immigration clearance to work in the UK then it will be necessary to apply for a work permit.

The ability to obtain a work permit is measured against a number of criteria including:

whether there is a genuine vacancy for an employee in this country

whether the skills, qualifications and experience needed to do the job meet specific requirements;

whether the person is suitably qualified or experienced to do the job on offer and whether there is a need for them to do the job on offer; and

whether there are suitably qualified or experienced 'resident workers'.

A work permit application is made by the employer to Work Permits UK.


I think people need to see, what it's like elsewhere, before they start pointing fingers at the US.

As for employment in the US and opportunity. There is free education. If someone dropped out, there is free education, to get caught up. Many jobs and companies will train people who are willing to apply and learn. There are on the job training programs, internships, and other programs.

Minimum wage is not a guaranteed living wage. It's just a wage. If people want more, they can work and earn more.

Look at the people here? Self employed for the majority, or supplemental income. Earn based on their own efforts, education and creativity. There are no handouts in Microstock! Are there? (not even a fair percentage in many cases)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2015, 01:00 »
+3
Minimum wage is not a guaranteed living wage. It's just a wage. If people want more, they can work and earn more.

Look at the people here? Self employed for the majority, or supplemental income. Earn based on their own efforts, education and creativity. There are no handouts in Microstock! Are there? (not even a fair percentage in many cases)

all the odds are against the jobseekers : housing prices are totally overpriced while salaries are being kept artificially low and the government isn't moving a finger.

this is self-destructive scenario, it's also the reason now the right-wing is booming all across europe because people finally realized the wave of immigrants of the last decades totally destroyed the job market and at the same time the citizens have been betrayed by the housing policies and the welfare state all favoring foreigners instead of locals.

the issue is therefore systemic, and there's no fix for it as so far nobody ever came up with an economic model that guarantees high employment rates, even in the USSR they never managed to reach full employment.



« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2015, 01:24 »
+4
Except that's not what people are doing. They just complain and expect someone else to fix their problems for them. That seems to be the way of things nowadays. I don't buy that there aren't opportunities for the next generation. There's plenty.

i totally disagree.

until the 50s the salary of a worker or even of a clerk in a shop was enough to rent a house and feed a wife and a couple kids, now it's barely enough for yourself and to get a roof on your head, the buying power in the West is reaching the point where having a single kid is now a luxury

If you lived today the way people lived in the 50s - half the money going on food, most of the other half going on rent, two suits and three shirts in your wardrobe, two pairs of shoes, no TV only a radio, hardly any labour-saving appliances, no computerised devices and perhaps much of your spare time spent growing vegetables - then you would probably keep a wife and a couple of kids quite easily (assuming you could find a woman happy to hand-wash and put your clothes through the wringer, while darning your socks, cleaning the house using materials such as vinegar, lemon juice and bicarb and dusting with cast-off [but thoroughly boiled] underwear). And I know people who were made to hide behind the couch some weeks when the rent-collector or the tallyman called in the late 50s, so there were plenty of families struggling to get by.

20% of the workforce is probably doing fine while the remaining 80% is struggling to pay the bills and constantly kept in fear of being fired.
True, as businesses have become bigger and more impersonal job security has become more tenuous.

technology is making humans obsolete and redundant, there's no fix for that, just look at Japan for instance ..

Technology destroys some jobs but in doing so it frees-up people to do other things. By comparison with today, the 50s were almost technology-free yet the massive growth in technological capability and the massive growth in the human population (more than doubled) has not been matched by a massive growth in unemployment. So I don't think there is a clear link.

My doom-and-gloom scenario is rapid climate change destabilising societies - and I don't see how it's going to be prevented though it may take a century for the full impact to be apparent. Syria is probably one of the first climate wars.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2015, 06:05 »
+1
Technology destroys some jobs but in doing so it frees-up people to do other things. By comparison with today, the 50s were almost technology-free yet the massive growth in technological capability and the massive growth in the human population (more than doubled) has not been matched by a massive growth in unemployment. So I don't think there is a clear link.


unemployment in the west is also exarcebated by de-industrialization caused by outsourcing in the third world and these jobs will never come back, the UK is the living example of this and London in particular can give you an outlook on what's to come next at a broader level.

on top of outsourcing you've millions of unskilled immigratings picking up all the entry level and low-paid jobs leaving nothing for the locals and keeping wages below the poverty line and most of the previous protectionist laws have been dismantled in favor of a globalist open-door agenda which only favored the chinese exports so far while our industry have been killed as they couldn't compete with goods priced 10x times cheaper, this is especially true for high-tech ... believe it or not we had a very good high tech industry in EU until the '80s, now it's all gone to the dogs, fist because of the japanese, then the taiwanese, and now the chinese.

moral of the story, western capitalism is totally stacked against its own citizens and they've also turned into full blown police states.

as the cold war is gone and the menace of communism and USSR is gone, the West has no more reason to provide the same welfare and benefits we enjoyed until the '80s, every single social net will be removed one by one, little by little.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2015, 06:23 »
+1
cleaning the house using materials such as vinegar, lemon juice and bicarb and dusting with cast-off [but thoroughly boiled] underwear). And I know people who were made to hide behind the couch some weeks when the rent-collector or the tallyman called in the late 50s, so there were plenty of families struggling to get by.

hahaha, i can certainly learn to wash my home with vinegar and bicarb if this allows me to buy/rent at decent prices.

moreover, i'm also complaining about the cost of farm land and the insane regualations the EU put on it, for instance it's now forbidden to put mobile homes in a farm land, this includes RVs, campers, even your own car in some cases, depending on the country, in short we're forced to be enslaved in renting a home or paying a mortgage for decades, no way out and no other options.

i predict more and more people will go live "off the grid", probably on illegal land too, just like the gypsies or the survivalists.


« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2015, 06:26 »
+3

unemployment in the west is also exarcebated by de-industrialization caused by outsourcing in the third world and these jobs will never come back, the UK is the living example of this



But UK unemployment is now around the lowest it has been in the last 30 years. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk:de&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:uk&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

As for the welfare state, it wasn't created out of a fear of the USSR it was the first Labour government that set it up, in line with its socialist beliefs. It's being eroded because politicians believe it costs too much and is not efficiently targeted, not because the USSR vanished a generation ago.

« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2015, 06:33 »
+3
cleaning the house using materials such as vinegar, lemon juice and bicarb and dusting with cast-off [but thoroughly boiled] underwear). And I know people who were made to hide behind the couch some weeks when the rent-collector or the tallyman called in the late 50s, so there were plenty of families struggling to get by.

hahaha, i can certainly learn to wash my home with vinegar and bicarb if this allows me to buy/rent at decent prices.

My point is that on current wages it is largely lifestyle choices that make prices seem "indecent".  I'll agree that UK house prices have been inflated and it would be better if they fell (this is largely the work of mortgage lenders, since increasing the multiple you can borrow at automatically seems to feed into an increase in prices, tightening borrowing - or raising interest rates - depresses prices) but what you can afford still depends largely on your priorities and if you are austere in other areas you can afford more for the rent or mortgage.   

Shelma1

« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2015, 06:39 »
0
I wonder if the business owners who are tacking on a visible surcharge for the wage increase also tacked on visible surcharges when the cost of coffee went up, or the cost of flour, or the cost of every other thing they buy on a daily basis. Seems to me like they are making more of a political statement.

I suspect the 'political statement' theory is true. But it's also true about the costs of flour, coffee, labor and everything else: When businesses have to pay more to be in business, they have to raise prices or else operate at a loss.

If costs of labor go up 15%, then most of what businesses buy will go up (suppliers eventually have to pay higher labor costs too). The result is that employees make more money, but the things they buy cost more. All that has really happened is inflation. Unfortunately gov can't create new wealth by passing laws.

Yes, prices will go up. But they won't go up as much as salaries will rise. Payroll is just one expense of running a business. Rent, for example, won't double overnight. Equipment has already been purchased. And I'm glad to see the public backlash. Do business owners think people will want to see some poor working person's slight minimum wage increase broken out on their bill? Customers interact with staff, not business owners, most of the time. So customers will have sympathy for the people they know and see every day.

You clearly don't own a business that deals in retail in any significant way. Customers go to where they feel they get the best value, and lot of them think the best value is the cheapest. They don't care how much the employees are paid.

Why do you think foreign car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Hyundai build all their plants in the Southeast? They do it because the labor costs are cheaper. And now American workers also have to compete with foreign workers who make $1 a day, and you want to price small businesses out of business because you hate corporations? Left-wing thinking is so nonsensical and bankrupt. Guess what? Unemployment doesn't pay more than minimum wage, and it doesn't last forever.

Many people think "value" means "good quality at a fair price," and actually do care about how much people are paid. If some people weren't willing to pay more for better quality everyone would own a Kia.

Yes, foreign car manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW absolutely take advantage of the lower wages people are willing to accept in the Southeastwhere people and corporations get a disproportionately higher share of federal aid and government handoutsthen turn around sell those cars to people like me, who get less back in federal "welfare" than they pay in federal taxes. (That includes corporate "welfare.")

I love to hear people who live in the "taker" states complain about other people feeling "entitled" when I live in the state that gets the least amount back from federal taxes of any in the nation. We support you with our taxes. (And that includes the military and the GI Bill.)

Why would I want to put corporations or small businesses out of business? I've worked for both. I've also owned my own retail business. All I'm saying is pay people a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Parity. That's all. Assume the cost of your payroll is going to rise each year right along with all your other costs.

If people were going to "coast" on minimum wage they would have done that back in 1978, when minimum wage was worth a lot more than it is now. But somehow that didn't happen.

I really don't get why you're so angry about people being paid an amount of minimum wage that's equivalent to the minimum wage from 40 years ago. Do you own a pizza shop on the side?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 07:12 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2015, 07:58 »
0

It is widely reported on the Interweb that The Millennials are quite a departure from previous generations of humanity, in ways which are perhaps not all positive.

That has been widely reported about every generation for centuries, if not longer.  ::)

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

Any guesses who's quote this is?

Great quote!  It sounded familiar, but kuddos to Batman and Ultimagaina for creditiing it to Socrates in The Dialogues of Plato.  Its been more than 30 years since I read it, and at the time it definitely applied to me.

« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2015, 08:03 »
+2
Interesting discussion and we will see how it all plays out.  I doubt the place raising prices by 21% really had their costs go up by that much, and it sounds like their customers are mostly supporting labor.  In general I don't have a lot of sympathy for companies whining about increasing costs while dramatically increasing the pay of their CEOs.  For example, a couple of years ago McDonald's increased CEO pay over three times despite decreasing sales (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/mcdonalds-ceo-pay_n_3070833.html?).  How can they justify that?  CEO compensation rates are made by other CEOs or retired CEOs who sit on their boards - and get paid handsomely for a few meetings a year.  It's obscene.  When the CEO of McDonald's gets paid more than $27 million in a year I certainly think they can give a bit more to their employees.  It's the same with the cable companies - they always raise rates and complain about rising costs while their CEOs get $15-20 million a year.  I would think you could survive off the first couple of million and there are plenty of equally qualified people who would do just as well or better for a paltry 4 or 5 million.  If they want to cut costs they should start at the top.  Then they could pay their rank-and-file employees more, who would stimulate the economy by spending most of what they get, rather than giving more to people who don't need it.  They will also find that by paying employes more they will have less turnover, less theft and much more loyalty when they need to ask for something extra.  Progressive leaders know this already and that is why most of those companies are thriving.


The thing you don't understand is that a lot of those McDonald's are franchises, owned by people running a small business. They aren't rich CEOs. They're people living in small towns trying to squeeze as much as they can out of their budgets so they can pay their employees and themselves. People who own small businesses often work 7 days a week for no pay in the hopes that they will turn a profit. And you all are talking about hitting them even harder.


No, I understand that completely, that's why their recent raising of minimum wages only applied to 10% of their workforce.  The franchising system is designed so that owners can make a good profit, otherwise nobody would do it and the fact that 90% of all McDonald's stores are franchises attests to that.  In an interview with a franchise owner in New Zealand who was retiring and selling his stores (http://www.business-opportunities.biz/2014/07/24/what-its-really-like-to-own-a-mcdonalds-franchise/), he said he was making well over US $500 K per year, so still plenty of room to pay his employees a little more and live very well himself.  He also said he typically put in around 48 hours a week, 5-6 of them a day working hard.  Here's a quote from the article (it was question and answer format):

In that time did you make enough money to retire? I know someone who started up his own comic book store and in only ten years he claimed he made enough money to retire and shut the store down and sold everything off.

After having my first store for 5 years, I could have retired and lived nicely.

So after owning one franchise for 5 years he thought he could have retired and lived a nice life.  In the US they say franchise owners can expect to earn at least 10% of total sales and the average sales amount per store is $2.6 million so the owners should be pocketing at least $250 K per year (per store!).  Of course they work very hard to achieve that and the hard part is coming up with the initial investment, but your supposition that franchise owners have to squeeze costs to barely eke out a living is not supported by reality.

I agree that salaries in general should be determined by supply and demand and that those with better skills and abilities should be paid more.  This works well for many jobs but there are severe problems at the top and bottom ends.  CEOs, sports coaches and many others often make far more than they deserve.  At many US universities nowadays the most highly paid people on campus are the football and basketball coaches, which is obscene.  The person at the top certainly makes a difference and they deserve to be paid well, but I'm sure there are many other people who could do just as well or better for half those salaries if they were allowed to submit bids for those jobs.  At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.

The minimum wage was not meant to be a living wage, just as social security was not meant to be a pension plan.  However, it should have some measure to keep up with inflation and to protect those at the lowest levels so that they are not taken advantage of by those in power.  Ideally, only those starting out would be paid minimum wage because others should be paid more as they increase skills and experience, but in reality this does not seem to happen.

Companies are always trying to cut costs and of course the CEOs have to if they want to keep shareholders happy and keep their jobs.  We've had a big period of outsourcing to maintain profits by sending jobs to China, India and other countries with lower labor costs.  That works great for individual companies for the short term.  However, that means that huge amounts of salaries are being paid out to people in other countries, who are not going to spend their money in the US (or other developed countries), so eventually your own sales dry up and your economy collapses.  It's better in the long run to pay more and put the money in the pockets of people at home, even if it means a decrease in short-term profits.  The leaders in Seattle seem to have realized this and I suspect the city will benefit in the end (to get back to the OP).

« Reply #97 on: April 05, 2015, 08:12 »
+4
Minimum wage is not a guaranteed living wage. It's just a wage. If people want more, they can work and earn more.

Yes, exactly. 

For several summers while in school I worked at a large theme park where they paid below minimum wage because the jobs were seasonal.  The low wages were very annoying but we knew this going in and you could work extra shifts to make more money if you wanted.  At one stretch I worked every day for 6 weeks and was averaging over 60 hours a week to make money for school.  At least it was pleasant work and overall you could make more by working extra hours.  That was fine for a summer job but anyone working full time should be paid at least minimum wage. 

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #98 on: April 05, 2015, 08:47 »
+3
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.

exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.



« Reply #99 on: April 05, 2015, 09:02 »
+2
I wonder if the business owners who are tacking on a visible surcharge for the wage increase also tacked on visible surcharges when the cost of coffee went up, or the cost of flour, or the cost of every other thing they buy on a daily basis. Seems to me like they are making more of a political statement.


I suspect the 'political statement' theory is true. But it's also true about the costs of flour, coffee, labor and everything else: When businesses have to pay more to be in business, they have to raise prices or else operate at a loss.

If costs of labor go up 15%, then most of what businesses buy will go up (suppliers eventually have to pay higher labor costs too). The result is that employees make more money, but the things they buy cost more. All that has really happened is inflation. Unfortunately gov can't create new wealth by passing laws.


Yes, prices will go up. But they won't go up as much as salaries will rise. Payroll is just one expense of running a business. Rent, for example, won't double overnight. Equipment has already been purchased. And I'm glad to see the public backlash. Do business owners think people will want to see some poor working person's slight minimum wage increase broken out on their bill? Customers interact with staff, not business owners, most of the time. So customers will have sympathy for the people they know and see every day.


You clearly don't own a business that deals in retail in any significant way. Customers go to where they feel they get the best value, and lot of them think the best value is the cheapest. They don't care how much the employees are paid.

Why do you think foreign car makers such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Kia and Hyundai build all their plants in the Southeast? They do it because the labor costs are cheaper. And now American workers also have to compete with foreign workers who make $1 a day, and you want to price small businesses out of business because you hate corporations? Left-wing thinking is so nonsensical and bankrupt. Guess what? Unemployment doesn't pay more than minimum wage, and it doesn't last forever.


Many people think "value" means "good quality at a fair price," and actually do care about how much people are paid. If some people weren't willing to pay more for better quality everyone would own a Kia.

Yes, foreign car manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW absolutely take advantage of the lower wages people are willing to accept in the Southeastwhere people and corporations get a disproportionately higher share of federal aid and government handoutsthen turn around sell those cars to people like me, who get less back in federal "welfare" than they pay in federal taxes. (That includes corporate "welfare.")

I love to hear people who live in the "taker" states complain about other people feeling "entitled" when I live in the state that gets the least amount back from federal taxes of any in the nation. We support you with our taxes. (And that includes the military and the GI Bill.)

Why would I want to put corporations or small businesses out of business? I've worked for both. I've also owned my own retail business. All I'm saying is pay people a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living. Parity. That's all. Assume the cost of your payroll is going to rise each year right along with all your other costs.

If people were going to "coast" on minimum wage they would have done that back in 1978, when minimum wage was worth a lot more than it is now. But somehow that didn't happen.

I really don't get why you're so angry about people being paid an amount of minimum wage that's equivalent to the minimum wage from 40 years ago. Do you own a pizza shop on the side?


First of all, so-called "taker" states get more back than they put in because they have fewer wealthy people. It's leftwing thinking that set that system up, and it continues to do so. You only have people yourself to blame for that. The more you support "taxing the rich" the more money will leave the wealthiest areas and flow to middle and low income areas out of your state. I personally think that's unfair, but you continue to vote against your own interests.

Also, Kia cars are built in Georgia, which is not a taker state. It is about even with California and Massachusetts, but still offers a lower cost of living and lower local taxation. 
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

I explained why I oppose an increase in federal minimum wage already. You just don't care enough to read what I say.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2015, 09:05 by robhainer »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1447 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 17:27
by Rahul Pathak
1 Replies
1277 Views
Last post September 13, 2012, 11:36
by StanRohrer
11 Replies
2400 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 22:52
by Silken Photography
3 Replies
2711 Views
Last post May 04, 2014, 13:34
by Click Images
0 Replies
1220 Views
Last post January 28, 2015, 12:06
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results