Laws of economics are as immutable as gravity

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

 

[depotoo]

Who didn’t see this coming...

 

[itfitzme]

So they were overstaffed?
Or are they just planning to sell less?
Or were the employees inefficient?

 

[danielpalos]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

The short run equilibrium. Areas with a higher minimum wage have greater Labor force participation. And, in the long run, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[danielpalos]

Who didn’t see this coming...

why bother with corporate tax cuts.

 

[pinqy]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

 

[depotoo]

All it does is increase govt coffers, while raising prices.

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

The short run equilibrium. Areas with a higher minimum wage have greater Labor force participation. And, in the long run, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

The short run equilibrium. Areas with a higher minimum wage have greater Labor force participation. And, in the long run, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Then why not set the min wage at 1000.00 and let the economy really boom?

 

[danielpalos]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

The short run equilibrium. Areas with a higher minimum wage have greater Labor force participation. And, in the long run, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Then why not set the min wage at 1000.00 and let the economy really boom?

we may be able to afford the expensive version of a green new deal, in that case.

 

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

I agree with you there. BUT, in the end, TANSTAAFL.

 

[DGS49]

Any time the cost of any commodity is arbitrarily raised above its true economic value, three things will result:

(1). The consumers' usage of that commodity will be reduced,
(2). The consumers will seek alternatives, and
(3). A "black market" will be created for that commodity.

Consider: Let's say that the legislature of Pennsylvania, in a fit of healthy enthusiasm, decrees that a single-serving-size bag of potato chips will henceforth carry a tax of $5. (Larger containers proportionately larger tax). What will happen?

(1). Consumers of potato chips will eat less of them,
(2). Potato chip consumers will seek out other salty snacks, and
(3). Small-time entrepreneurs will start making potato chips in their basement and selling them out of the trunks of their cars.

Let's say the national Minimum Wage is increased to $15. Base-level services are a commodity.

(1). The consumers of MW employment (i.e., employers) will use less of it. Hours and headcount reduced.
(2). Employers will look to automation and other options to employment of people, and
(3). Employers will start contracting out services formerly done by employees to less scrupulous employers who may not obey the law, strictly speaking. Or paying people under the counter.

The laws of economics are pretty much valid.

 

[danielpalos]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

 

[Crepitus]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

 

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

Even for you that was a stupid thing to say.

 

[DOTR]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

 

[martybegan]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

 

[danielpalos]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

so what; that minimum Standard can be fixed by Government.

 

[martybegan]

Any time the cost of any commodity is arbitrarily raised above its true economic value, three things will result:

(1). The consumers' usage of that commodity will be reduced,
(2). The consumers will seek alternatives, and
(3). A "black market" will be created for that commodity.

Consider: Let's say that the legislature of Pennsylvania, in a fit of healthy enthusiasm, decrees that a single-serving-size bag of potato chips will henceforth carry a tax of $5. (Larger containers proportionately larger tax). What will happen?

(1). Consumers of potato chips will eat less of them,
(2). Potato chip consumers will seek out other salty snacks, and
(3). Small-time entrepreneurs will start making potato chips in their basement and selling them out of the trunks of their cars.

Let's say the national Minimum Wage is increased to $15. Base-level services are a commodity.

(1). The consumers of MW employment (i.e., employers) will use less of it. Hours and headcount reduced.
(2). Employers will look to automation and other options to employment of people, and
(3). Employers will start contracting out services formerly done by employees to less scrupulous employers who may not obey the law, strictly speaking. Or paying people under the counter.

The laws of economics are pretty much valid.

You forget one other impact, that the higher wage will attract more competent persons, leaving the original jobholder unemployed.

 

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

lol. Is Crepitus a parody account? It’s hard to tell with these people at times because even when not parodies they try to twist and corrupt ideas.

 

[danielpalos]

Any time the cost of any commodity is arbitrarily raised above its true economic value, three things will result:

(1). The consumers' usage of that commodity will be reduced,
(2). The consumers will seek alternatives, and
(3). A "black market" will be created for that commodity.

Consider: Let's say that the legislature of Pennsylvania, in a fit of healthy enthusiasm, decrees that a single-serving-size bag of potato chips will henceforth carry a tax of $5. (Larger containers proportionately larger tax). What will happen?

(1). Consumers of potato chips will eat less of them,
(2). Potato chip consumers will seek out other salty snacks, and
(3). Small-time entrepreneurs will start making potato chips in their basement and selling them out of the trunks of their cars.

Let's say the national Minimum Wage is increased to $15. Base-level services are a commodity.

(1). The consumers of MW employment (i.e., employers) will use less of it. Hours and headcount reduced.
(2). Employers will look to automation and other options to employment of people, and
(3). Employers will start contracting out services formerly done by employees to less scrupulous employers who may not obey the law, strictly speaking. Or paying people under the counter.

The laws of economics are pretty much valid.

You forget one other impact, that the higher wage will attract more competent persons, leaving the original jobholder unemployed.

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.