CDZ Minimum Wage Madness

[oldsoul]

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

Truly I would not, but then again, nobody was held at gunpoint and forced to open a 3% margin business, now where they? I'm not going to feel for someone or several someone's who willfully chose to invest their resources into the restaurant business and who subsequently complains about the low profit margin. (Not saying that's you; just saying one had/has other options...one had to because nobody is forced to open a restaurant.)

No, they weren't. They chose it, not realizing they would be forced by others to run their businesses on either less profit, or having to increase their pricing, ,whch might not work, just to satisfy others wants.
And neither did anyone force the employeed at these restaurants to go to work for the wages the owners can sustain for their businesses to succeed.

I see....so in other words, they elected to enter a market and after doing so found at least one of the following to be so:

• The business/market risk(s) they wagered would not materialize did, and now that they have, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They failed to consider all the potential business/market risks that could happen, and now that one or some they failed to foresee and incorporate into their business decisions/plans have become manifest, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They did consider all the potential business/market risks that could happen, but assigned the incorrect weighting to them when incorporating them into their business decisions/plans, and now, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They didn't thoroughly understand (or bother to gain a thorough understanding) what it means to go into business and what it takes be successful at it, and having more money than sense, went into the restaurant business, and now that rising wage and food costs have materialized, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.

Puh-lease...I'm just not of a mind or heart to say more than "I'm sorry things didn't work out for you" to such business owners/investors. The reason is that such things as those above are exactly what distinguishes successful businesses/business owners and managers from unsuccessful ones. That's the nature of opting to go into business.

Unlike restaurant owners/investors who, before starting it, clearly had some meaningful extent of material resources to invest into their business and had options for what to do with their lives, low wage workers often don't have such or as many options. So if there's any group for whom I have a greater degree of sympathy, it's low wage workers.

FWIW, there is one line of argument that I could conceivably support with regard to the assertion that minimum wage increases have net negative impacts or have at best a neutral impact. I have yet to see anyone present one of those lines, and none of them have appeared in the popular press that I've seen over the past decade or more. I'm certainly not going to open the door to any of them because, quite frankly, I don't know whether I'd arrive at one or the other of the two conclusions I noted, for I'd need to do the research to find out how I'd conclude. Frankly, I lack the will to do the research if I don't have to. Call me lazy, if you want, but I'm not willing to grind anyone's ideological "axe."

Sooo. Being forced to do something, against ones will, is somehow their own fault? Whether or not they did do dilligence before entering a market is, IMO, irrelevant. They are being forced to pay a wage that their business cannot support. How is it their fault? They entered a market based on the realities fo the time. I guess, by your logic, their only realistic means of remedying the situation is to leave that market, and take the jobs with them. I guess those who work for them would be better off that way then (at least they wouldn't be exploited anymore).

 

[oldsoul]

What a laugh you are! Did anyone hold a gun to these peoples heads to accept the wages these fast food places can sustain?

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

The need for fast food workers to depend on that job for a living is a failure of the education system.

Perhaps the owners could take just a little less profit ?

If your business plan involves paying slave wages then you dont deserve anything. In fact you are making it worse for legit concerns who pay more. Its a race to the bottom.

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What a laugh you are! Did anyone hold a gun to these peoples heads to accept the wages these fast food places can sustain?

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

Perhaps the owners could take just a little less profit ?

If your business plan involves paying slave wages then you dont deserve anything. In fact you are making it worse for legit concerns who pay more. Its a race to the bottom.

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The purpose of an economic system is not to allow avaricious individuals free reign to play King of the Hill. The purpose is to support the institutions of marriage and child-rearing. When an economy consistently forces more and more people to live in poverty, to raise their children in poverty, that economy has failed, no matter what its GDP.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The social problems caused by poverty wages are another bill that the taxpayer picks up, to the benefit of the entrepreneur. In the UK we also have something called Zero hours contracts which are the equivalent of dockers queueing up at the gate to see if they have work that day.
The upshot of supporting the likes of Burger King et al is a generation that cannot even pay into a pension. Who will support them when they are old ?

 

[320 Years of History]

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

Truly I would not, but then again, nobody was held at gunpoint and forced to open a 3% margin business, now where they? I'm not going to feel for someone or several someone's who willfully chose to invest their resources into the restaurant business and who subsequently complains about the low profit margin. (Not saying that's you; just saying one had/has other options...one had to because nobody is forced to open a restaurant.)

No, they weren't. They chose it, not realizing they would be forced by others to run their businesses on either less profit, or having to increase their pricing, ,whch might not work, just to satisfy others wants.
And neither did anyone force the employeed at these restaurants to go to work for the wages the owners can sustain for their businesses to succeed.

I see....so in other words, they elected to enter a market and after doing so found at least one of the following to be so:

• The business/market risk(s) they wagered would not materialize did, and now that they have, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They failed to consider all the potential business/market risks that could happen, and now that one or some they failed to foresee and incorporate into their business decisions/plans have become manifest, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They did consider all the potential business/market risks that could happen, but assigned the incorrect weighting to them when incorporating them into their business decisions/plans, and now, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.
• They didn't thoroughly understand (or bother to gain a thorough understanding) what it means to go into business and what it takes be successful at it, and having more money than sense, went into the restaurant business, and now that rising wage and food costs have materialized, the restauranteurs' struggle is someone else's fault.

Puh-lease...I'm just not of a mind or heart to say more than "I'm sorry things didn't work out for you" to such business owners/investors. The reason is that such things as those above are exactly what distinguishes successful businesses/business owners and managers from unsuccessful ones. That's the nature of opting to go into business.

Unlike restaurant owners/investors who, before starting it, clearly had some meaningful extent of material resources to invest into their business and had options for what to do with their lives, low wage workers often don't have such or as many options. So if there's any group for whom I have a greater degree of sympathy, it's low wage workers.

FWIW, there is one line of argument that I could conceivably support with regard to the assertion that minimum wage increases have net negative impacts or have at best a neutral impact. I have yet to see anyone present one of those lines, and none of them have appeared in the popular press that I've seen over the past decade or more. I'm certainly not going to open the door to any of them because, quite frankly, I don't know whether I'd arrive at one or the other of the two conclusions I noted, for I'd need to do the research to find out how I'd conclude. Frankly, I lack the will to do the research if I don't have to. Call me lazy, if you want, but I'm not willing to grind anyone's ideological "axe."

Sooo. Being forced to do something, against ones will, is somehow their own fault? Whether or not they did do dilligence before entering a market is, IMO, irrelevant. They are being forced to pay a wage that their business cannot support. How is it their fault? They entered a market based on the realities fo the time. I guess, by your logic, their only realistic means of remedying the situation is to leave that market, and take the jobs with them. I guess those who work for them would be better off that way then (at least they wouldn't be exploited anymore).

It isn't, but the topic being discussed in the post to which you referred has to do with one's going into business and encountering unanticipated events and the fact is that nobody is forced to go into business.

Blue:
That is actually very relevant, for whether one did their due diligence is a pretty good indicator of one's likelihood of being caught "in the lurch" when things like mandated wage hikes happen. Whether one did a good job of doing one's due diligence goes directly to whether one made the right decision by choosing to enter the given line of business in the first place rather than doing something else.

Your remarks above suggest you have an assumption that business owners had only one choice: go into business. They did not have only that choice; not one of them was so limited. Yet you're ignoring the fact that having choices, some of them now find themselves faced with choices they don't like or that will topple them out of business. Well that's business.

Red:
And why can't their business support it? Why are they in that line of business if they don't cotton to that the regulatory environment associated with it and the potentialities that may result from changes in the regulations?

That you're asking me how their being in business and being unprepared or unable to handle changes in the business/market environment when they occur is their fault, perhaps being an employee instead of being an employer is your best choice as sure as it is for those folks who find themselves unable/unprepared to handle the changes after having entered the market as an employer.

It's not that I'm totally unwilling to discuss the principles of business management, business development and planning, financial hedging, market analysis, strategy development, economics in general, etc. I am to a point, and indeed I apply those principles daily as a management consultant. It's just that (1) this is hardly the place for me do so, (2) that's what any number of schools of business do via a collection of courses, not just one short or long narrative, and (3) the SBA, loan officers, financial advisors, small business consultants, and a host of other professionals provide, to greater and lesser extents, that sort of information for free on the Internet.

 

[depotoo]

That chart is a joke, and nothing more. Those in poverty in the US have internet, food stamps to fill their bellies, 2 meals a day supplied by schools, and summer programs, refrigerators, tv, cell phones, clothes on their back, healthcare, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, free prescriptions. And charities that will help supply other needs Federal guidelines for WIC assistance alone for this yearks a family of 4 can make up to $45,000 a year and receive benefits from it! They can own a home, a lot, own a vehicle up to a certain value, have cash of up to $2250 in a checking account, have pension income which is not included in the guidelines. Do you know what the median wage is? $53,000. So, to say those making $45 grand a year that then can qualify for anywhere from $6-$10 grand in welfare benefits, is not in true poverty.

The social problems caused by poverty wages are another bill that the taxpayer picks up, to the benefit of the entrepreneur. In the UK we also have something called Zero hours contracts which are the equivalent of dockers queueing up at the gate to see if they have work that day.
The upshot of supporting the likes of Burger King et al is a generation that cannot even pay into a pension. Who will support them when they are old ?

 

[320 Years of History]

The purpose of an economic system is not to allow avaricious individuals free reign to play King of the Hill. The purpose is to support the institutions of marriage and child-rearing. When an economy consistently forces more and more people to live in poverty, to raise their children in poverty, that economy has failed, no matter what its GDP.

While marriage, presumably monogamous marriage, is an institution, one created and promulgated by Western cultures, child "having" and rearing are not. The later is not; it's a natural process that would/must exist regardless of what one's culture thinks about how one should do it.

 

[jwoodie]

The social problems caused by poverty wages are another bill that the taxpayer picks up, to the benefit of the entrepreneur. In the UK we also have something called Zero hours contracts which are the equivalent of dockers queueing up at the gate to see if they have work that day.
The upshot of supporting the likes of Burger King et al is a generation that cannot even pay into a pension. Who will support them when they are old ?

You obviously know nothing about free enterprise, and are a millstone around neck of the UK economy. Please stay there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

The need for fast food workers to depend on that job for a living is a failure of the education system.

California just raised its minimum wage from $9 to $10 per hour and restaurants are already raising menu prices in response to this increase. The same people who argued a month ago that it would have no effect on prices now acknowledge this result as if it was expected all along, while continuing to push for a $15 per hour "living" wage on the basis of "fairness." Don't they understand this will require yet another hidden tax on consumers?.

What is wrong with these people? They are not stupid, but they consistently deny the reality of cause and effect until after their schemes have been implemented. Only then do they accept the consequences as if they had been inevitable from the beginning.

Is this due to deceit, willful ignorance or something else? Do they find the real world so abhorrent that they must live in an alternate reality of wishful thinking? Is reasoned debate possible with these people?

The need to impose a minimum wage is another failure of the free market.

Perhaps the owners could take just a little less profit ?

If your business plan involves paying slave wages then you dont deserve anything. In fact you are making it worse for legit concerns who pay more. Its a race to the bottom.

What is a slave wage? Anything you don't agree with?

 

[320 Years of History]

That chart is a joke, and nothing more. Those in poverty in the US have internet, food stamps to fill their bellies, 2 meals a day supplied by schools, and summer programs, refrigerators, tv, cell phones, clothes on their back, healthcare, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, free prescriptions. And charities that will help supply other needs Federal guidelines for WIC assistance alone for this yearks a family of 4 can make up to $45,000 a year and receive benefits from it! They can own a home, a lot, own a vehicle up to a certain value, have cash of up to $2250 in a checking account, have pension income which is not included in the guidelines. Do you know what the median wage is? $53,000. So, to say those making $45 grand a year that then can qualify for anywhere from $6-$10 grand in welfare benefits, is not in true poverty.

Say what?

Red:
That's all well and good, TODAY. What are they supposed to do when they are old and still impoverished? More importantly, and not that the minimum wage is going to provide the solution, why should there be anyone impoverished in the U.S? I think that last question points toward what the other member was getting at, but I could be mistaken.

Blue:
Well, were charitable contributions enough, I suspect we wouldn't observe poverty in the U.S. There's clearly a gap somewhere.

Green:
Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

 

[oldsoul]

Your remarks above suggest you have an assumption that business owners had only one choice: go into business. They did not have only that choice; not one of them was so limited. Yet you're ignoring the fact that having choices, some of them now find themselves faced with choices they don't like or that will topple them out of business. Well that's business.

Read the entire post and you will find that your remarks are irrelevant, as I mentioned that they not only had the choice of not going into business, they also have the choice of closing their business.

 

[oldsoul]

And why can't their business support it? Why are they in that line of business if they don't cotton to that the regulatory environment associated with it and the potentialities that may result from changes in the regulations?

Their business cannot support it, in many cases, because of market forces. Something that many supporters of "minimum wages" and "living wages" ignore. If the market forces are such that $20/hr wages would be supported and nessicary in fast food, for example, those businesses would indeed pay those wages. Market forces being what they are, $7.25-$10/hr, depending on market, are far more realistic. Artificially setting wages is a recipe for fewer enty-level jobs, and higher inflation. I for one would rather allow the market to determine what the prevailing wage is, rather than a politician in Washinton.

 

[depotoo]

You can't be serious. Truly, you can't be serious.
If a family of 4 shops smartly they could easily live on $35,000 a year, in most locales in the US, without help.
They could even wear brand names!

That chart is a joke, and nothing more. Those in poverty in the US have internet, food stamps to fill their bellies, 2 meals a day supplied by schools, and summer programs, refrigerators, tv, cell phones, clothes on their back, healthcare, subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, free prescriptions. And charities that will help supply other needs Federal guidelines for WIC assistance alone for this yearks a family of 4 can make up to $45,000 a year and receive benefits from it! They can own a home, a lot, own a vehicle up to a certain value, have cash of up to $2250 in a checking account, have pension income which is not included in the guidelines. Do you know what the median wage is? $53,000. So, to say those making $45 grand a year that then can qualify for anywhere from $6-$10 grand in welfare benefits, is not in true poverty.

Say what?

Red:
That's all well and good, TODAY. What are they supposed to do when they are old and still impoverished? More importantly, and not that the minimum wage is going to provide the solution, why should there be anyone impoverished in the U.S? I think that last question points toward what the other member was getting at, but I could be mistaken.

Blue:
Well, were charitable contributions enough, I suspect we wouldn't observe poverty in the U.S. There's clearly a gap somewhere.

Green:
Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

 

[oldsoul]

What a laugh you are! Did anyone hold a gun to these peoples heads to accept the wages these fast food places can sustain?

Perhaps you would like to run a business with a 3% profit margin?

If your business plan involves paying slave wages then you dont deserve anything. In fact you are making it worse for legit concerns who pay more. Its a race to the bottom.

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

 

[oldsoul]

The social problems caused by poverty wages are another bill that the taxpayer picks up, to the benefit of the entrepreneur. In the UK we also have something called Zero hours contracts which are the equivalent of dockers queueing up at the gate to see if they have work that day.
The upshot of supporting the likes of Burger King et al is a generation that cannot even pay into a pension. Who will support them when they are old ?

You assume they will not move on to better paying jobs. If that is the case, maybe their children will. maybe they will just have to work well into old age. Either way, why should I pay for their unwillingness to improve themselves?

 

[jwoodie]

What if a person's skills are only worth (i.e., generating revenue of) $9 per hour (e.g., equivalent automation cost) to a business? Isn't it better for that person to work and gain experience (with subsidies, if necessary) than to be unemployed?

 

[oldsoul]

Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

Get real. While a lot of people, maybe most, live in a metro area, many do not. If you are not able to live the lifestyle you want in the place you live, move. I did, it was not easy, it was not cheap, but I did it because that is what I had to do to live like I want to.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think that we are going around in circles here.
The facts show that low paying jobs tend to cost the taxpayer more than they do the employer - this in welfare and other social costs.
The child poverty stats surprised me.
I though that the UK would be bad but I didnt expect the US to be there.
There is probably a link to the horrendous levels of crime and violent crime that you suffer from.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Since the destruction of the unions and the governments wellness to enforce the anti-trust laws the super rich have taken nearly all the add profit. The workers are working hard and productivity is at record levels but aren't getting any of the benefits as the rich at the top are taking it all.

Yet, you call raising the minimum wage madness? You must be rich as hell to say that.