If minimum wage were raised ...

[BillyZane]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.

Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.

But it MUST be accompanied by two things.

1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.

Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.

 

[BillyZane]

If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.

Probably correct.

So what?

You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.

I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.

 

[BillyZane]

If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.

Probably correct.

So what?

You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.

I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.

 

[asterism]

If the minimum wage was raised, in a year everyone who was poor would be just as poor.

Probably correct.

So what?

You know who wouldn't be as poor? People like you and me who are paying taxes to go towards welfare for people who are being paid welfare wages.

I'd love for my taxes to be less. If that means McDonalds has to pay $10 per hour , than so be it.

There is no evidence to show that any rise in the minimum wage is followed by reductions in welfare and lower tax rates.

 

[Againsheila]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.

Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.

But it MUST be accompanied by two things.

1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.

Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.

In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery. I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.

 

[Dragonlady]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.

When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.

The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.

People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.

Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.

When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.

The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.

People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.

Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.

 

[Care4all]

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.

Damn, this is going to be fun.

Here is what your link says.

The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes are included and divided by taxable income.

Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.

Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.

Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?

=======================
interesting

so on individuals it's on earned income but corporations it is on earned profits? Are what individuals earn considered profits being taxed?

 

[MeBelle]

All you are saying really is that prices need to come down. Lower taxes and reduce strangling regulation.

Walmart's effective tax rate for 2012 was 0.01%. How much lower do you want it to go? OBTW, how much was yours?

Which 'strangling regulation'? Safety guards for meat slicers?

Did you pull that number out of thin air, or just make it up?

As for strangling regulations, here is one example.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9cJMO4B18]Little American Dream Factory: Chicago Bureaucrats Put the Brakes on an Innovative Business - YouTube[/ame]

He pulled it:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) | Income Taxes

 

[Againsheila]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.

When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.

The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.

People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.

Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.

You know, you really did pick a perfect name for yourself.

 

[BillyZane]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.

Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.

But it MUST be accompanied by two things.

1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.

Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.

In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery. I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.

Do NOT care.

The federal government's ONLY function is to provide a baseline wage that no state may have a minimum wage below. Beyond that, it up to states or localities to say "no that minimum won't work here"

Otherwise you end up with a situation where companies in the boonies of Mississippi are paying wages equal to costs in NYC and obviously that wouldn't work.

 

[Againsheila]

Historically in this nation there is 2% higher unemployment the year after a raise in the minimum wage than the year prior to the raise, that increase is usually a one year bump then things return to the previous level.

Of course, that assumes a rational increase, which $15 an hour would not be. $10 an hour would be fine.

But it MUST be accompanied by two things.

1. A guarantee that the poverty threshold will not increase
2. An index to inflation. Set it to $10 an hour today and make sure that is is ALWAYS worth a relative $10 an hour.

Also, I would prefer to remove all welfare for able bodied people. Instead we should put people to work @ min wage for the government if they can't find a job elsewhere. I can't think of a single community that couldn't use more clean up or whatever.

In most places you can't live on $10.00 an hour, even indexing it for inflation, requiring people to work for that is nothing more than slavery. I'm all for people on welfare contributing, but give them a living wage.

Do NOT care.

The federal government's ONLY function is to provide a baseline wage that no state may have a minimum wage below. Beyond that, it up to states or localities to say "no that minimum won't work here"

Otherwise you end up with a situation where companies in the boonies of Mississippi are paying wages equal to costs in NYC and obviously that wouldn't work.

I concede your point. You're talking about Federal Minimum Wage, I'm talking about Minimum Wage in general.

 

[kaz]

If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.

So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?

And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?

As you say if you increase minimum wage you increase everyone's wages.

So in the best case, if you think about it, that means that employers have to increase the price of products proportionally to cover that. Which means now people can't afford them by the same amount they couldn't before and you need to increase the minimum wage again...

Worst case is that companies automate, consolidate and do without and you increase unemployment.

The answer, as always, is free markets. Government making decisions for people never works out.

 

[kaz]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said. You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.

Hmm...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's a link

Effective Tax Rate Definition | Investopedia

Still waiting for one of those 'strangling regulation'.

Damn, this is going to be fun.

Here is what your link says.

The average rate at which an individual or corporation is taxed. The effective tax rate for individuals is the average rate at which their earned income is taxed. The effective tax rate for a corporation is the average rate at which its pre-tax profits are taxed. An individual's effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax expense by taxable income. For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the firm's earnings before taxes. The effective tax rate is the net rate a taxpayer pays if all forms of taxes are included and divided by taxable income.

Nothing there about math, interesting. Anyway, lets go back and use those numbers.

Pretax income for WalMart $24.4 billion, taxes were still $7.94 billion. That makes their effective tax rate a whopping 32.5%.

Want me to do the math to tell you how many orders of magnitude that puts you off by?

=======================
interesting

so on individuals it's on earned income but corporations it is on earned profits? Are what individuals earn considered profits being taxed?

Take it up with the idiot, not me.

 

[Dragonlady]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said. You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.

Hmm...

Your argument fails to note that the big chains have to pay the same minimum wages as the mom and pop stores so there is no cost savings to be had with staffing between the big chain and the Mom and Pop. If anything, the big chain would have more highly paid staff, because they have an overall store manager, assistant manager, and managers for each of the major departments, so wages were the one area where Mom and Pop are on a more equal footing.

Big chains can negotiate "anchor tenant" store rents which are cheaper than market rents, as well as cheaper wholesale prices, so there are multiple areas of cost savings for the big chain which are not available to local one-offs, but wages are always subject to the same minimum wage. Big chains get no breaks there at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Big chain stores have a competitive advantage over locally owned business because of volume purchasing. Your mom and pop store may buy a case or two of ketchup, but a chain of stores will buy hundreds of cases so they'll pay less per case than the small store which only buys a couple of cases. If the customer saves a few cents off of every item they purchase, their overall grocery bill will be much cheaper at the supermarket than the mom and pop store, and pretty soon the local grocer is closing his doors.

When gas stations were able to purchase the technology to control and monitor the gas pumps without pumping the gas themselves, they stopped filling your tank for you and let you do it yourself, this saving the money paid to the gas jockeys.

The services that mom and pop stores and gas stations provided didn't disappear because minimum wages went up, the disappeared because customers would rather have cheaper prices and more selection than great service.

People don't shop at big box stores for a great shopping experience, they go there to get stuff cheap. If you want a sales clerk to personally assist you in putting together a great new wardrobe, you don't go Walmart.

Higher minimum wages didn't kill mom and pop stores and their personal touch service, the demand for the cheapest possible prices did.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you should understand that you are lying to yourself.

You know, you really did pick a perfect name for yourself.

If only you got the joke inherent in my choice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said. You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.

Hmm...

Logic can be so annoying.

 

[kaz]

Neighborhood grocery stores weren't killed off by higher minimum wages, they were unable to compete with chain supermarkets which offered [huge aisles filled with multiple choices for goods[color, at prices the one-off stores couldn't hope to compete with.

Granted wages were not the only factor, but think about the logic of what you just said. You just said that neighborhood markets couldn't compete with the prices of larger competitors because larger competitors costs are lower, and then rejected that neighborhood stores paying higher wages impacted that.

Hmm...

Your argument fails to note that the big chains have to pay the same minimum wages as the mom and pop stores so there is no cost savings to be had with staffing between the big chain and the Mom and Pop.

OK, let's do the unliberal thing and think this through. You pointed out the big stores have big aisles and lots of products. While the cost per employee is subject to the same minimum, and even if you speculated their personal wages are a bit higher (not sure why you think that given the Wal-Mart debates, but I'll stipulate to it anyway since it doesn't matter) the big chain stores are selling way more units per employee than the mom and pop. So the labor cost ... per unit ..., which is what drives the ... unit price ..., is way lower. Seriously, you didn't get that? I find that astounding it's so obvious.