Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lol what? You have no idea what you are saying.It would initially, yes, but over time the huge boom in consumer spending would change that.I don't understand how you can be so dense. The economic benefits of raising the minimum wage would occur because the change would happen in the entire economy. Overall, a good portion of the economy would have more disposable income, so yeah, business in general would see an increase in demand.the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$.
If I pay my employees another $500,000 a year, are my sales supposed to increase by $500,000?
Is that supposed to be an even trade?
Overall, a good portion of the economy would have more disposable income, so yeah, business in general would see an increase in demand.
And the increase still leaves them less profitable.
Wrong. Every increase in spending my the minimum wage earners would be exactly compensated for by a decrease in the spending of customers who patronize those businesses.
1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
I don't know about the climate change part, but I do know that raising the MW generally does no harm to businesses, and in fact helps them by putting more money into the pockets of those who we depend on to sell our products to. Keeping the MW low only helps very large businesses, who employ very large numbers of low wage workers. If necessary, these companies could be given exceptions if they could show a legitimate hardship case. I highly that they could though, because the sales would increase dramatically, and firstly from their own workers.The problem with conservatives -including many on this board - is that they are too immature to admit they were wrong. Years back it may have been conventional wisdom to keep the minimum wage where it is, but the evidence of the economic benefits of raising it are undeniable. It it is crucial if we want to signficantly increase consumer spending - the driving force of our whole economy.Just now, I saw another report about the topic of minimum wage increase. This one was on CNN, hosted by Julie Banderas. She was talking to Scott Gamm, of HelpSaveMyDollars.com, a financial website focused on helping consumers save and learn about money. They were talking about the recent 14-1 vote by the city of Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Scott might be well versed on various aspects pertaining to consumer finances but, on the minimum wage raise, he is waaay off the mark. He said three things about the minimum wage raise topic. And he was WRONG on all three. Gamm merely recited the 3 most commonly heard (and programmed) descriptions about minimum wage raises.
1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
2. He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
3. He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ? Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away. Some businesses could do it. Not many.
So here's the real crux of all this. As in 1000 other media reports I've seen on minimum wage increases, the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$. All businesses get this, and generally it far outweighs labor increases, since the number of wage raised consumers (not just those at the minimum wage) by far outnumbers any one employer's workers who are getting wage increases.
Then there's also the fact that many business, while receiving this big SALES boost, do NOT have any wage loss at all. These are businesses who are mom & pop and have no employees, those whose workers are all working just on sales commission (car lots, furniture, real estate, insurance, etc), and third, those with skilled workers (ex. machine shops) whose workers all already get well over $15 hour, or whatever the MW would be raised to.
I think back to when I owned a business. I paid my commission salespeople $350/hour (in 2015 dollars), and they still were only receiving 15% of the sale. In all, I made fine profits and expanded the business. Biggest downer ? All the people who called in and said > "Sorry. I can't afford it." Of course they can't. Not one somebody out there is paying them a low minimum wage. To be successful in business, you have a lot fo things to do. But you can't do anything, if the public around you doesn't have money in their pockets to buy what you're trying to sell.
This is why Conservatives who support raising the MW nationwide, outnumber Conservatives who don't, 54% to 44%.
The same can be said about climate change. Their pathetic pride keeps them from seeing the truth.
Answered in Post # 24.Just now, I saw another report about the topic of minimum wage increase. This one was on CNN, hosted by Julie Banderas. She was talking to Scott Gamm, of HelpSaveMyDollars.com, a financial website focused on helping consumers save and learn about money. They were talking about the recent 14-1 vote by the city of Los Angeles to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2020.
Scott might be well versed on various aspects pertaining to consumer finances but, on the minimum wage raise, he is waaay off the mark. He said three things about the minimum wage raise topic. And he was WRONG on all three. Gamm merely recited the 3 most commonly heard (and programmed) descriptions about minimum wage raises.
1. He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
2. He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
3. He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ? Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away. Some businesses could do it. Not many.
So here's the real crux of all this. As in 1000 other media reports I've seen on minimum wage increases, the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$. All businesses get this, and generally it far outweighs labor increases, since the number of wage raised consumers (not just those at the minimum wage) by far outnumbers any one employer's workers who are getting wage increases.
Then there's also the fact that many business, while receiving this big SALES boost, do NOT have any wage loss at all. These are businesses who are mom & pop and have no employees, those whose workers are all working just on sales commission (car lots, furniture, real estate, insurance, etc), and third, those with skilled workers (ex. machine shops) whose workers all already get well over $15 hour, or whatever the MW would be raised to.
I think back to when I owned a business. I paid my commission salespeople $350/hour (in 2015 dollars), and they still were only receiving 15% of the sale. In all, I made fine profits and expanded the business. Biggest downer ? All the people who called in and said > "Sorry. I can't afford it." Of course they can't. Not one somebody out there is paying them a low minimum wage. To be successful in business, you have a lot fo things to do. But you can't do anything, if the public around you doesn't have money in their pockets to buy what you're trying to sell.
This is why Conservatives who support raising the MW nationwide, outnumber Conservatives who don't, 54% to 44%.
the most important aspect of this is NEVER MENTIONED. Not a word. That is the increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME resulting in INCREASES SALES$$$.
If I pay my employees another $500,000 a year, are my sales supposed to increase by $500,000?
Is that supposed to be an even trade?
He refuted nothing/Hallow. It's nothing. No substance.
1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
That depends on the particular business. In general, the INCREASED SALES, by far. exceed the increased costs. In most companies, the number of employees given wage raises is a tiny fraction of the number of consumers with now more money to spend in the community around them. As I said it is only big companies, with very large #s of MW workers who might have a problem, and even they are going to gain SALES$$$.And the increase still leaves them less profitable.
Conservatives who support raising the MW outnumber conservatives who oppose it 54% to 44%, you blockhead. Try reading the whole OP, before tumbling in here like a fool.I'm not surprised you support increasing the minimum wage because you are a socialist moron, and you are certainly no conservative.
1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.
And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?
Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.
They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?
If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.
Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.
machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.
You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.
Wow, you really were a bad teacher.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.
Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?
That depends on the particular business. In general, the INCREASED SALES, by far. exceed the increased costs. In most companies, the number of employees given wage raises is a tiny fraction of the number of consumers with now more money to spend in the community around them. As I said it is only big companies, with very large #s of MW workers who might have a problem, and even they are going to gain SALES$$$.And the increase still leaves them less profitable.
Your answer is right in your quote >> "That depends on the particular business" And do you know what "in general" means ?How? A business pays $500,000 more, because the minimum wage jumps.
How are their increased sales FAR MORE than $500,000?
Work thru the steps, Prof.
1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.
And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?
Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.
They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?
If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.
Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.
machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.
You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.
Wow, you really were a bad teacher.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.
Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?
2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.
3. You flunked.
4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?
PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.
Your answer is right in your quote >> "That depends on the particular business" And do you know what "in general" means ?How? A business pays $500,000 more, because the minimum wage jumps.
How are their increased sales FAR MORE than $500,000?
Work thru the steps, Prof.
1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.
And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?
Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.
They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?
If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.
Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.
machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.
You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.
Wow, you really were a bad teacher.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.
Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?
2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.
3. You flunked.
4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?
PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.
Great. Now count the number of people living in the community around you, and figure out your INCREASED SALES. Don't know the answer ? Then you're only dealing with half of the scenario, and you don't have a definitive conclusion. That combined with Post # 32 is the bottom line here. Get it ? And you still didn't answer my question in Post # 30 ("dictate terms")1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.
And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?
Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.
They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?
If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.
Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.
machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.
You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.
Wow, you really were a bad teacher.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.
Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?
2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.
3. You flunked.
4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?
PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.
3. You flunked.
Being flunked because you showed the teacher was an idiot, isn't the worst thing.
Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business.
If we're talking a $3 an hour hike, it only takes 83 workers, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to eat up an extra $500,000. Even ignoring the extra payroll taxes.
Wouldn't matter if you got exempted would it ? But first you'd have to show your INCREASED SALES would be significantly insufficient. If you have any substance to show that, let's hear it.Your answer is right in your quote >> "That depends on the particular business" And do you know what "in general" means ?How? A business pays $500,000 more, because the minimum wage jumps.
How are their increased sales FAR MORE than $500,000?
Work thru the steps, Prof.
Great. What particular business can offset $500,000 in extra payroll costs with an extra $500,000 in sales? In general?
Great. Now count the number of people living in the community around you, and figure out your INCREASED SALES. Don't know the answer ? Then you're only dealing with half of the scenario, and you don't have a definitive conclusion. That combined with Post # 32 is the bottom line here. Get it ? And you still didn't answer my question in Post # 30 ("dictate terms")1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?
He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?
He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?
Did anyone say moving was free?
Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.
Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.
2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.
3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.
The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.
And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?
Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.
They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?
If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.
Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.
machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.
You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.
Wow, you really were a bad teacher.
Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.
Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?
2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.
3. You flunked.
4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?
PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.
3. You flunked.
Being flunked because you showed the teacher was an idiot, isn't the worst thing.
Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business.
If we're talking a $3 an hour hike, it only takes 83 workers, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to eat up an extra $500,000. Even ignoring the extra payroll taxes.
Well, currently the overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the Minimum Wage nationwide. This includes most Conservatives (55% to 45%). Maybe that knocks a hole in your Marxism card, you think ?What right do I have to set wages at my own firm? LOL!
Were you teaching Marxist economics?
