What would happen to the economy if minimum wages are raised?

[Rshermr]

So, the oil companies, in my opinion, have monopoly power which they utilize to make their profits very high.

That word monopoly, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Really. I am certain of what monopoly, and monopoly power mean. Perhaps you are confused again.

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

View attachment 95410

As I stated. Here is Gallup's latest. Aces. You loose.

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High
But here is another. Five aces? AND THE ABOVE IS A LINK.
Need more. These are 2016 charts, and the text is in the link also. Supports exactly what I said. But there are many more, but all say the same.

By the way, me boy, lying by chart is tacky. You have a chart with a single green line, undated, with no explanation and no link to the text. Very, very tacky. And it is, by the way, obviously very meaningless.
Maybe honesty and discussion are simply too hard for you.

I seldom say this, but in this case it is obvious. YOU LOOSE. Try again when you have valid data.

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables.

Who cares what you disagree with

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Well, you are wrong again. I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.


Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

OK. Same issue.

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore

Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists? What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously. Only con talking points suggest otherwise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

!

View attachment 95413

And most voters, at this point, have swung to the understanding that global warming is real and a large problem.

Your source showed 57% don't think it's a serious threat in their lifetime.
Looks like you have a way to go before you get to "most voters".
So, you disagree with what Gallup says. The chart says something slightly different in words from what you "mis" quoted. The chart was of serious threat to you (IE, those being polled). In other words, most think they will escape the problem. But they indicated on the other charts they believed it was a serious problem. So, the expectation of most, though certainly not cons, is that they will have concern for the human race, not just themselves. Being a con, you probably can not fathom that, but indications are that it is true. And it is true that the trend is upward,for the past year plus. And it is expected to continue,

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,
The biggest problem is obvious. If you read the Gallop article, you will understand. Er, probably not. Understand what thinking people see as obvious. People are getting more and more concerned at a rapid rate.

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables.

Who cares what you disagree with

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Well, you are wrong again. I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.


Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

OK. Same issue.

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore

Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists? What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously. Only con talking points suggest otherwise.

Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?

Which scientists predicted such a long pause in the warming?

What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.

Good for you. The people still aren't willing to waste...err...invest their own money in fixing the "problem".
That's because they don't take it as seriously as you imagine.

 

[Rshermr]

But then, added income to workers gets spent. Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring. And, the increase is phased in over time. And, there is no way that we can calculate elasticity of demand for the products of all of the companies involved. We shall see. I don't actually know, but I suspect there will be little employment change. Though some is expected. And most think that is a fair trade off for jobs paying closer to a living wage.

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.
Actually, under 29,000
Not known how many are minimum wage

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
Great, give their workers another $100 a week. Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000. The 32,000 is actually 29,000. You have no way of knowing how many are below minimum wage.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period. That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

How many more burgers do they need to sell? Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?

Increased wages are spent, increasing income.
Based on your calculations, all we know is you are a joke.
For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

Jesus, you could use a class in economics.

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit. Never suggested I do.
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise. But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing? Well I do feel sorry for you. But I won't be sobbing. That is simply your delusions kicking up again. But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together. Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself. But it was funny.

You have proven my suspicion. You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.

Almost 32,000 employees.

Actually, under 29,000

Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000
Odd, eh me boy. You forgot to finish the sentence. You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS. Not all team members are permanent employees.
Perhaps you do not know what Hoovers is, but they are considered one of two expert sources when you want to evaluate any company. They say the number is 29,000.

Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592

Translate that into English.
1,257,592 Million US Dollars. Again from Hoovers. For Fiscal year 2015.

Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
The management can give anyone they want more money. They must only give those now paid under the new minimum wage more money.
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?
Only those that get the increase. You have to assume those under the new minimum will go to the new minimum, over a few years, which you again ignored. But, others will not, assuming it is a financial hardship to raise their salaries.

That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

Feel free to correct my math, technically.
Your data is bullshit. Your analysis is technically like mental masterbation.

Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.

Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.
Fuck off. I do not get paid enough to help you. Best of luck finding some one that does. You have no idea of what you need to get to an accurate result.

I do not teach economics, dipshit.

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.
Well, me boy, again, considering the source, that makes me pretty damn good.


Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

So, let me understand what you are saying. You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.
2. You do not need to know the number of actual employees.
3. You do not need to know the number of under the new mw employees.
4. You do not need to know how many meals each such employee serves, on average.
5. You do not need to know the number of meals each employee could serve if his wage were higher.
y
You obviously never have, in your life, been involved in due diligence. You would have been laughable.
Nor did you have any idea of the elasticity of product demand. The exercise that you are attempting would take a full day, minimum, and maybe much more to come up with a valid result. I am no expert on the process, but I have been involved in the process both as a company we were looking at to buy, and as a company I worked for that was looking at being purchased. What you are doing is
You are trying to find a result that you want to obtain, But go ahead. It is fun, and funny, to watch your endeavors.

You are totally incompetent and not to be taken seriously.

You are either ignorant as hell, or you are simply trying to come up with a result you like. But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information. But have a good time. I am sure you can find some cons weak minded enough to believe your drivel.

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

So, you disagree with what Gallup says.

I disagree with combining "Worry a great deal" and "Worry a fair amount".
Breaking them out is more useful.
Who cares what you disagree with. Gallup chose to add a second catagory. And, since they have a large number of professionals looking at the issue, my money is on them. What it is not on, as any rational person would know, is useing data over 2 years old instead of current data. We were, me boy, talking about 2016, which makes your chart of little value.
Funny thing is, if you put in the term gloval climate change poll, you would have found both. But there would be more of the 2016 polls, only one or so for 2014. Yet you picked the 2014 poll which better fitted your liking, with a lower percentage of those polled that thought CS was an issue. What a coincidence. Dipshit.

Sorry, you global climate change deniers are.... what is the technical word? Oh yeah, you are SCREWED,

Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.
OK. Same issue. you can simply substitute warming, same issue for you. Different in that gw includes fewer variables. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Who cares what you disagree with

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Well, you are wrong again. I care about what Gallup says, and know that you are, technically, full of shit.


Global climate change deniers? We were discussing global warming.

OK. Same issue.

Same issue? LOL!
That's why people don't take the fearmongering seriously anymore

Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists? What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously. Only con talking points suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Fearmongering? Is that what con trolls call the prediction of scientists?

Which scientists predicted such a long pause in the warming?
As a con troll, I am not at all surprised you asked that question. But it has been answered by scientists already, and you missed the memo apparently. You must just be too deep in the bat shit crazy con talking points.
The answer is, it is not something they were surprised at. And there has been no pause. You are simply taking a con talking point and trying to push it. Really, me boy, listening to Lamar Smith makes you look really stupid. But the question is important, so lets see what FactCheck.org found when they looked into Lamar's charges, which you are now using in your ignorant question:

"Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’

• By Vanessa Schipani
• Posted on March 30, 2016

Rep. Lamar Smith at a recent hearing claimed a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change “confirms the halt in global warming.” It doesn’t. In fact, the authors of the paper write, “We do not believe that warming has ceased.”
Red, bold, and underlines added by me to help you find the truth for once, me boy.

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and longtime climate change skeptic, used the Nature study as ammunition against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an ongoing battle over the validity of a paper that NOAA researchers published in the journal Science last June.

While the Nature study, published online in late February, claims there was a “slowdown” in the rate of global warming in the early 21st century, the Science paper argues there was not. But the studies compared different time periods. Both studies agree that there was no complete halt in global warming and the long-term warming trend remains unabated.

At the March 16 House hearing, Smith also continued to criticize the Science paper. He said the paper was “prematurely published,” but the editor-in-chief of Science told us Smith’s claim is “baseless and without merit.” Smith also said that the NOAA researchers used “controversial methods” in their study, but the authors of the Nature paper cited by Smith said this wasn’t the case. In fact, they cite the Science paper as having “high scientific value.”

Overall, each study asked different scientific questions, the answers to which can both remain valid and correct, according to the Nature authors themselves.

Smith vs. NOAA
This is not the first time Smith, a Republican from Texas, has made false statements about climate science and the so-called “Karl study,” named after Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information and the Science paper’s lead author.

e’ve written before, Smith claimed in October 2015 that “climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades” and that NOAA scientists “altered the data” to get the results they presented in the Science study.

Motivated to quell what he considers the NOAA and Obama administration’s “extreme climate change agenda,” Smith used the House science committee’s subpoena power on Oct. 13 to obtain internal communications at NOAA regarding the Karl study. NOAA has provided the committee with some documents and emails, though Smith continues to request more information.

In the battle’s latest episode, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified before the House science committee on March 16 on NOAA’s 2017 budget. Again, Smith brought up the Karl study, claiming it was “prematurely published” and used “controversial new methods,” among other things.

During the hearing, Sullivan countered by stating that the final timing of any publication is “at the discretion of the publication itself.” She also said Science “scrubbed this paper with extra diligence” due to the “interest in this matter.”

According to Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief at Science, Smith is wrong and Sullivan is right. In fact, McNutt told us by email, “Any suggestion that the review of this paper was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit.”

McNutt added that “knowing that this report’s results disputed the existence of a 21st century global warming slowdown described in previous studies, Science took extra care to assure even more rigorous review and evaluation than normal.”

When asked to provide evidence that NOAA had prematurely published the Karl study, a committee aide for Smith pointed us to a Nov. 23, 2015, Washington Post article. In that article, Thomas Peterson, an author of the Science study and retired NOAA climate scientist, describes “internal tensions” between NOAA scientists and engineers over delays related to the programs used to process the climate data. But in the same piece, Peterson is quoted as stating that the research was not rushed. “Indeed just the opposite is true,” he told the Post.

Smith made a few new claims during the March 16 budget hearing as well. He said, “A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming. According to one of the study’s lead authors, it ‘essentially refutes’ NOAA’s study.” Smith also repeatedly asked Sullivan to side with either the Science or the Nature study’s findings because he claimed both can’t be “correct” or “valid.”

First off, the two papers’ disagreement was on whether the rate of warming has slowed in the first 15 years of the 21st century, not whether warming has halted, as Smith claimed.

Second, John Fyfe, lead author of the Nature paper, told us in an email that Smith took his comment during an interview with the website Climate Central out of context. “It would be incorrect to interpret [the ‘essentially refutes’] quote as indicating that Fyfe et al. refuted the Karl et al. study in its entirety.” He said, “As we said in our Commentary we view the Karl et al. study as being of ‘high scientific value.’ ”

Third, according to McNutt and the Nature authors, both papers could, in fact, remain valid and correct. For example, Gerald Meehl, an author on the Nature paper and climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, pointed us to a segment of an article with Environment & Energy Publishing, which states “both comparisons are valid … and provide answers to different questions.”

In the following section we’ll explain the similarities and differences between the two papers’ methods and results and why both can remain valid.

Science vs. Nature
Both the Science and the Nature papers begin by mentioning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s description of a surface warming slowdown between 1998 and 2012 in its Fifth Assessment Report. Both papers also note that researchers use “hiatus” to describe this slowdown in the scientific literature — a point Smith’s committee aide made to us. But technically the rate of global warming never completely halted during this period, as both papers state.

For this reason, the authors of the Nature paper write that it’s “unfortunate” that the 21st century warming trend has been framed as having “stalled,” “stopped,” “paused” or “entered a ‘hiatus.’ ” While “[j]ust exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate,” the authors suggest “reduced rate of warming,” “decadal fluctuation” and “temporary slowdown” as some possibilities.

Both papers diverge when it comes to the specific questions the researchers asked, and, accordingly, how they quantified the slowdown.

The authors of the Science paper compared the rate of warming during the period between 2000 and 2014 with that of 1951 to 1999, though they also investigated trends in warming dating back to 1880.

The Nature authors, alternatively, compared the warming rate of 2001 to 2014 with a shorter period — 1972 to 2001.

The rationale for using different time periods is tied, at least in part, to the ultimate aim of each study.

The Science study was designed to determine if the global warming trend for “the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.” It found there was no “slowdown” in global warming compared with this 50-year period.

The Nature study, on the other hand, strove to figure out whether the rates of global warming fluctuate every few decades, so the authors compared the first 15 years of the 21st century with a shorter time period. They reported that the rate had slowed down from 1950 to 1972, then sped up from 1972 to 2001, and then slowed again from 2001 to 2014. “A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’, not a ‘stop,’ ” the study concluded.

Meehl told us by email that it was mainly the Karl study’s “interpretation of different trend lengths [discussed above] that we took issue with.”

However, Meehl said he did not find the Karl study’s methods to be “controversial.” The adjustments the NOAA scientists made to their data, which Smith has criticized, “were fairly minor,” added Meehl, and involved calibrating different sets of data to each other.

For example, data on sea surface temperatures alone can come from buoys, ship engine-intake systems and buckets dropped off the side of a ship. As the Science study states, “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data,” so adjustments need to be made to calibrate them to each other.

The same inconsistencies occur when data are collected from different land stations. In fact, the Nature paper describes the Karl study’s identification and correction of these data “errors and inhomogeneities” as “of high scientific value.”

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and an author on the Naturepaper, wrote Smith an open letter on March 3, which directly addressed the chairman’s false claims.

In his letter, which was posted on Facebook, Mann wrote: “Please don’t misrepresent our recent Nature Climate Change commentary. Our study does NOT support the notion of a ‘pause’ in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.”

In sum, based on their different questions and correspondingly different time period comparisons, the Science and Nature studies came to different, though equally valid, conclusions about the warming rate in the early 21st century. Regardless, neither paper supported a halt in global warming, as Smith claimed."
Smith Still Wrong About Warming ‘Halt’

So, in short, your question was answered by scientists who stated there was no pause, and that the climate change continued and continues. Maybe, however, your con talking points would be better for you. They say what you want to hear, rather than the complex truth. Which is beyond you.


What I proved, using 2016 polling, is that people are taking the word of scientists more and more seriously.

Good for you. The people still aren't willing to waste...err...invest their own money in fixing the "problem".
That's because they don't take it as seriously as you imagine.
That would be you not willing to look at the polls, nor at what the pollsters are saying. They will, me boy. They will. That climate change boat you are in is in fact an iceberg and it is melting.
You may not have noticed, but your associates are leaving like rats off a sinking ship,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But then, added income to workers gets spent.

And that's money that can't be spent by the business.
Jesus, you could use a class in economics. Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks. Other burger joints are seldom your customers.
Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Burger joints may well not. Poor multiplier, but the worker has a high multiplier. Particularly true when the business saves, and does not spend.

Which increases aggregate demand which would cause hiring.

Which reduces aggregate demand which would harm hiring.
No way, me boy. Again, about that class in economics. Increased wages are spent, increasing income.

Lets say you are in the burger business. You sell more burgers if customers have more bucks.

Great. Let's look at Red Robin.
Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000
Labor costs $309,966,000
Income before income taxes $48,968,000

About 5.1% profit margin.

Red Robin - Investors - News Release

Almost 32,000 employees.
Actually, under 29,000
Not known how many are minimum wage

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Then, workers at minimum wage tend to spend all of their income each month.
Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592
Great, give their workers another $100 a week. Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.
$100 X 32000 X 40 weeks = $128,000,000. The 32,000 is actually 29,000. You have no way of knowing how many are below minimum wage.
Now they're losing about $79,000,000 over that 40 week period. That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

How many more burgers do they need to sell? Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.
How many more will they sell because "customers have more bucks"?

Increased wages are spent, increasing income.
Based on your calculations, all we know is you are a joke.
For sure. Will Red Robin spend more or less?

Jesus, you could use a class in economics.

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit. Never suggested I do.
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise. But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing? Well I do feel sorry for you. But I won't be sobbing. That is simply your delusions kicking up again. But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together. Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself. But it was funny.

You have proven my suspicion. You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.

Almost 32,000 employees.

Actually, under 29,000

Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000
Odd, eh me boy. You forgot to finish the sentence. You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS. Not all team members are permanent employees.
Perhaps you do not know what Hoovers is, but they are considered one of two expert sources when you want to evaluate any company. They say the number is 29,000.

Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592

Translate that into English.
1,257,592 Million US Dollars. Again from Hoovers. For Fiscal year 2015.

Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
The management can give anyone they want more money. They must only give those now paid under the new minimum wage more money.
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?
Only those that get the increase. You have to assume those under the new minimum will go to the new minimum, over a few years, which you again ignored. But, others will not, assuming it is a financial hardship to raise their salaries.

That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

Feel free to correct my math, technically.
Your data is bullshit. Your analysis is technically like mental masterbation.

Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.

Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.
Fuck off. I do not get paid enough to help you. Best of luck finding some one that does. You have no idea of what you need to get to an accurate result.

I do not teach economics, dipshit.

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.
Well, me boy, again, considering the source, that makes me pretty damn good.


Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

So, let me understand what you are saying. You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.
2. You do not need to know the number of actual employees.
3. You do not need to know the number of under the new mw employees.
4. You do not need to know how many meals each such employee serves, on average.
5. You do not need to know the number of meals each employee could serve if his wage were higher.
y
You obviously never have, in your life, been involved in due diligence. You would have been laughable.
Nor did you have any idea of the elasticity of product demand. The exercise that you are attempting would take a full day, minimum, and maybe much more to come up with a valid result. I am no expert on the process, but I have been involved in the process both as a company we were looking at to buy, and as a company I worked for that was looking at being purchased. What you are doing is
You are trying to find a result that you want to obtain, But go ahead. It is fun, and funny, to watch your endeavors.

You are totally incompetent and not to be taken seriously.

You are either ignorant as hell, or you are simply trying to come up with a result you like. But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information. But have a good time. I am sure you can find some cons weak minded enough to believe your drivel.

You forgot to finish the sentence. You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS. Not all team members are permanent employees.

You don't want to give temporary employees higher wages?

1,257,592 Million US Dollars. Again from Hoovers. For Fiscal year 2015.

You should check your math. And reread mine.

Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000

Your data is bullshit.

Which I took from the Red Robin website. DERP!

So, let me understand what you are saying. You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.

If their profit margin is about 5% and you increase their labor expenses by $128,000,000 over 40 weeks, I guess you could sell another $2.56 billion worth of food. Neat trick considering they only sold $957 million over the 40 week reported period. LOL!

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?

I do not get paid enough to help you.

You're worth every penny, because your error filled posts don't help anyone.
They are amusing though.

But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information.

Tell me again how a higher minimum wage will benefit Red Robin. DERP!

 

[Rshermr]

Too bad you're so stupid, it would be amusing to sit in your class.
I do not teach economics, dipshit. Never suggested I do.
What you do not understand, due to crass stupidity, is this is not a valid exercise. But you could well get laughed out of any management, finance, or economics class.
How long before I have you sobbing? Well I do feel sorry for you. But I won't be sobbing. That is simply your delusions kicking up again. But it may take a while before I stop laughing at this ignorant exercise you put together. Sad but kinda funny.
Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.
No idea of the number of employees under minimum wage.
No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.
No idea how many of the employees are US employees
Etc.
You just made a complete ass of yourself. But it was funny.

You have proven my suspicion. You are totally incompitent and not to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Almost 32,000 employees.

Actually, under 29,000

Red Robin’s core values and unbridled atmosphere is at the heart of the company’s energizing culture and its nearly 32,000 Team Members across North America.

Red Robin - Investors - Company Profile

Actually, Red Robin says nearly 32,000
Odd, eh me boy. You forgot to finish the sentence. You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS. Not all team members are permanent employees.
Perhaps you do not know what Hoovers is, but they are considered one of two expert sources when you want to evaluate any company. They say the number is 29,000.

Sales, per hoovers, in 2015, were $1,257.592

Translate that into English.
1,257,592 Million US Dollars. Again from Hoovers. For Fiscal year 2015.

Since you do not know their current wage, you do not know what you have to pay to reach the new minimum wage.

We can only give their minimum wage workers more money?
The management can give anyone they want more money. They must only give those now paid under the new minimum wage more money.
Doesn't the multiplier work for all their employees?
Only those that get the increase. You have to assume those under the new minimum will go to the new minimum, over a few years, which you again ignored. But, others will not, assuming it is a financial hardship to raise their salaries.

That would be, technically, bullshit. You have no idea.

Feel free to correct my math, technically.
Your data is bullshit. Your analysis is technically like mental masterbation.

Again, you have no idea. Your data is bullshit.

Let's hear your numbers. Because mine was from the company itself.
Fuck off. I do not get paid enough to help you. Best of luck finding some one that does. You have no idea of what you need to get to an accurate result.

I do not teach economics, dipshit.

I'm glad, because you'd be really bad at it.
Well, me boy, again, considering the source, that makes me pretty damn good.


Revenue wrong.
Employment wrong.

Tell Red Robin, I took their numbers. Links provided.

No idea of costs of product.
No idea of sales price of product.

I'd ask you why that matters when we're taking about wages, but you'd just say something stupid.

So, let me understand what you are saying. You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.
2. You do not need to know the number of actual employees.
3. You do not need to know the number of under the new mw employees.
4. You do not need to know how many meals each such employee serves, on average.
5. You do not need to know the number of meals each employee could serve if his wage were higher.
You obviously never have, in your life, been involved in due diligence. You would have been laughable.
Nor did you have any idea of the elasticity of product demand. The exercise that you are attempting would take a full day, minimum, and maybe much more to come up with a valid result. I am no expert on the process, but I have been involved in the process both as a company we were looking at to buy, and as a company I worked for that was looking at being purchased. What you are doing is
You are trying to find a result that you want to obtain, But go ahead. It is fun, and funny, to watch your endeavors.

You are totally incompetent and not to be taken seriously.

You are either ignorant as hell, or you are simply trying to come up with a result you like. But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information. But have a good time. I am sure you can find some cons weak minded enough to believe your drivel.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


You forgot to finish the sentence. You said 32,000, they stated 32,000 TEAM MEMBERS. Not all team members are permanent employees.

You don't want to give temporary employees higher wages?

1,257,592 Million US Dollars. Again from Hoovers. For Fiscal year 2015.

You should check your math. And reread mine.

Revenue, 40 weeks ending Oct 4, 2015 $956,709,000

Your data is bullshit.

Which I took from the Red Robin website. DERP!
what, me boy, is a Team Member, as compared to an employee?
How many mw employees does rr have stationed in the US?
Again, how many employees are mw.
When are you planing to incorporate the mw stair step, over the years, in your little financial model?
And then you can answer the other questions. Again, your model is a hoot. But of no value at all.

So, let me understand what you are saying. You do not need to understand cost of goods sold, or the sales price of the product, both of which are required to understand the quantity of burgers you must increase to cover any added cost.

If their profit margin is about 5% and you increase their labor expenses by $128,000,000 over 40 weeks, I guess you could sell another $2.56 billion worth of food. Neat trick considering they only sold $957 million over the 40 week reported period. LOL!
You have no idea what the number of low income employees is. None at all. This is truly beyond you.

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?
You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.
2. You still do not know how many hamburgers they will need to sell to make up any difference.
3. You still do not know how many of the employees are outside the US.
4. You have no idea of elasticity of demand.
5. You do not know how the increased mw will be implimented. It is not, as you incorrectly assumed, implimented all at once.
and on and on and on.
You also still do
You really do like mental masterbation, don't you, me boy.

But, given what you have as data, you have absolutely no chance of coming up with accurate information.

Tell me again how a higher minimum wage will benefit Red Robin. DERP!
Well, we have your numbers. DERP!
And we still have no idea of what the cost of more wages will be. At all. None. Cause, as you well know, we have no idea of how many employees will have their wages raised, how much they will be raised, or when they will be raised. In other words, we know nothing that we need to know.
According to your numbers, rr should be out of business in a month or two. But we both know better. Because we both know your numbers are bogus. But we do know, that you being a con troll and totally uninterested in truth (that is a requirement for con trolls) you simply worked the data to fit the numbers you were working for. Which is simply a more advanced way of lying.
That, me boy, is a difficult question. You may want to look at the analysis of the major study of Costco, compared to Sam's Club, for an example of why higher wages are often beneficial to companies.
And, if you ever get the numbers to work over Red Robin, let me know. Though we both know that will never, ever happen.

"Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher

• Ashley Lutz
  Mar. 6, 2013, 10:45 AM

• 
  "Big-box warehouse store Costco is often compared with Walmart's Sam's Club. Both stores are places where people go to buy in bulk and save money.
  
  But while Walmart employees are striking for higher wages and health care, Costco has some of the happiest employees in the business.
  
  Costco pays its employees an average hourly wage of $11.50 to start. After five years, they make $19.50 an hour and get an "extra check," a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months,according to Slate.
  
  While Wal-Mart's Sam's Club starts employees at $10 an hour, they make $12.50 after about five years, Slate reported.
  
  Costco workers pay a 12 percent out of pocket premium for benefits, while Wal-Mart workers pay 40 percent.
  
  This results in lower turnover and more skilled workers, Costco CEO Craig Jelinek said, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal.
  
  He told advocacy group Business for a Fair Minimum Wage that he supports a national minimum wage increase.
  
  The bill just introduced in Congress would increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from $7.25 an hour over time.
  
  “Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty,” Jelinek said in the statement.
  
  Having more knowledgeable employees results in better sales, according to David Worrell at AllBusiness.com.
  
  Costco averages $814 in sales per square foot, while Sam's Club makes just $586 per square foot.
  
  In a recent earnings announcement, Wal-Mart Stores revealed that sales at Sam's Club were down.
  
  Investing in employees creates loyalty and better customer service that trickles down to the consumer.
  
  "Look at people as an investment and hire the best you can possibly afford," Worrell said. "Stretch to your limit to keep them excited about coming to work ... then watch as they actually perform." "
  Costco Is The Perfect Example Of Why The Minimum Wage Should Be Higher

Just does not fit well with the conservative dream. Better to underpay the employees, and make them gratefull to even have a job, eh me boy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?

You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.

Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase. It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
Moron.

 

[Oldstyle]

What liberal lemmings like Rshermr don't realize is that FDR didn't enact the minimum wage to help the poor...that law was passed to help white union members who's wages were being undercut by blacks...primarily in the South. It was a law that hurt Southern blacks badly and it wasn't an accidental thing. It was done on purpose.

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.

So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise.

[/QUOTE]

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source. The problem is that you were wrong multiple times. So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree. Sorry. I have no reason to believe you. Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say. Those who lie are. I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college. Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college. Nice bunch of personal attacks. Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject. I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me. Here is a news flash, me boy. There are people out there who know way more than either of us. And they publish. You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post. Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President? You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments. The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership. Care to try again?
No need to me boy. You missed the absolutely obvious fact that the bill was a republican bill, written by republican congressmen and passed by a republican president. Which you finally had to admit. As for amendments, that would be normal. But it was never aimed at blacks. It was aimed at companies who tried to hire workers at lower than local wages. As even non history majors know. What did you get when you graduated, a comic book? Everyone knows what Davis Bacon is. It is still in effect, has been modified many, many times, and republicans hate it these days. Because it does not permit large contractors from paying below normal wages.

Now, relative to my econ degree, which you are questioning again. As you have done for years. Find a mutually impartial member, or a bank official, and I will send you a copy of my econ degree. Or, if you are actually capable, simply call the college and ask if my degree is correct and valid. If my degree is valid, you owe me $500, if I can not produce, you get $500. But, since I have no reason to trust you, our bets ($500 each) go in a mutually agreeable escrow. Really simple. Or, do as you always have before when I provide you a chance to back up your unsubstantiated insults, and run. And you will, of course, run. [/QUOTE]

When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics? My concentration was in history and business administration. What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!

You can always tell the real posers on this board. Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail. First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher. Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!

Here's a bit of advice, Georgie. Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T and people will stop abusing you on chat sites. Oh and the "me boy" stuff? That tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics.

 

[Rshermr]

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

[/QUOTE]

That would be because you want to believe that. Your numbers are totally screwed.
How many workers will need to have their wages increased to reach the new mw?
What will be the new minimum wage?
What is the current wage that they will need to raise from, on average?
You think that'll happen
Listen carefully. I do not need to "think" anything. I know the following:
1. You do not know any answer to the above questions,
2. You do not know several other variables.
3. You really want to believe that the $20 additonal sales concept that you have worked out with bad numbers, because A. You are a con troll and B. You do not have a problem with lying (sorry, because of A, B is redundant.)
You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.

Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase.
It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
So, because doing the amount of business they do with the number of people they employ you think there is a set percent of revenue to cover expenses for any new expense. Moron. That is nonsense. The theory of a challenged mind. The challenge, me boy, being to prove the revenue to cover expenses is impossible. Moron. Which is why your numbers are garbage and your little financial model is simply a joke.

And finally, o prove you are a congenital idiot, you believe that it makes no difference how many get an increase in pay. Because you do not think the numbers change. So, if you only have 1 who needs a $5 increase, you think that you will need to raise revenues $100 to cover his $5 raise. Moron.
Because, moron, you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.
You see, moron, if you are correct, every time they raised wages or hired new employees they would have gone out of business. And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt and probably out of business. Got it, moron.
I wonder, since your financial model is obviously golden, why costco keeps raising their pay rate and being more profitable.
Ah, but as a thinking person, I read the costco model, and I studied other companies who dis something similar and I learned why. You, on the other hand, being a con troll, simply read the con talking points and believe you know the answer. Moron, And I keep driving by the costco building and it is still there. You should stop by and tell them they need to close shop, Moron.

 

[Rshermr]

In other words, because you're a moron, for every dollar your "beneficial" wage hike costs, they'd have to sell another $20 to recover that cost.

You think that'll happen?

You still do not know enough to make that projection. But if it makes you happy, believe your crazy numbers.
1. You still do not know how many employees will get a increase in pay.

[/QUOTE]
Ummm...it doesn't matter how many get an increase. It could be 1, it could be 29000, it could be 32000, but with a 5% profit margin, every dollar in increased wage cost will take $20 in increased sales to recoup that higher expense.
Moron.
Watch out, me boy. Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron.
Jesus, it must be nice to be brain dead. You seem to believe your model is correct, moron.
In the costco model, and many others, they hire a new employee and he more than covers his cost. In your small mind, that never happens. It is impossible. They hire a new person, they only increase their expenses, revenue does not increase because their employees are not productive. Which, as a con, allows you to believe that they will be driven out of business. Moron.
And in your little "model" you think that any cost at any revenue level is subject to the 5% cost to revenue rule. Because you like that idea. Though you have no way to prove it is true. Moron.

Tired of the moron bit. You started it, I thought it was juvenile, but thought I would show you why. Get it yet? Tired of it yet? Or do you want to just keep it going?.

 

[Rshermr]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.

So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise.

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source. The problem is that you were wrong multiple times. So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree. Sorry. I have no reason to believe you. Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say. Those who lie are. I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college. Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college. Nice bunch of personal attacks. Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject. I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me. Here is a news flash, me boy. There are people out there who know way more than either of us. And they publish. You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post. Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President? You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments. The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership. Care to try again?


[/QUOTE]

When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics? My concentration was in history and business administration. What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!
Jesus, me boy. Maybe a tape recorder would help you out. You just said you know more about economics than I do. Then you made a vague claim about my teaching college at the college level, trying to suggest I was in charge of an college econ class. A lie and an insult in a single paragraph. And I have a degree in economics, and 50 years of study of the subject. You have two fucking classes. But you make a stupid claim like that simply to hurl insults. If you want to challenge what I say, challenge away and we can argue the point, but your insults are stupid and childish.
No you don't. know more than I about economics, in my opinion. You are simply ....Whats the word. Yeah, that's it. Your simply fucked up in the brain. What was that about the Davis bacon law? Where is a single comment you got both history, and economics wrong. You showed no understanding, me con troll. You simply have the ability to post con talking points. And to believe them, apparently.


You can always tell the real posers on this board. Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail. First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher. Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!
The real poser on the board is the guy claiming he know more about something than someone else but can not produce. You are an economic lightweight, you simply post dogma, and when it is proven you have lied, or your posts are wrong, you just keep on posting garbage that you can not back up. Saying you are smart, dipshit, does not make you smart. Saying you know something does not prove you know something. You, like anyone, need to prove your statements. That you do not, that you can not provide a link, proves to everyone that you are a joke, simply out to through insults and lies at anyone who disagrees with you.
Here is the deal, me boy. You call me a liar, but refuse to put up. I have a couple degrees in my far off history. Economics and an MBA. You have a degree in history, though you can not prove it. And I, like others, believe you. But you are out to sling mud. So, put up the $500 if you want to prove me wrong. You will end up losing $500, but that is the problem with throwing mud.
You can make a wager pay, or you can be stupid like you are. Simple enough. But as I said, you would run and you are. You have no integrity, os. You lie all the time. But if your bet is in escrow and my money is in escrow, and the proof or lack of proof is simple, then it pays. And probably has thousands of times in the past to others who have made bets to show their belief in their statements. Your problem, me poor ignorant con troll, is that you do not believe anyone is honest, and you made a claim you have no way to prove. And lastly, you are a COWARD. People with honor may make incorrect statements, but they have the integrity to prove their statement, or to see it was wrong and pay up, or to apologize. I knew you would do none of those things. You simply make unsubstantiated attacks with charges you can not prove, Because you have no ability to make arguments relative to a thread, and so you simply start with your accusations and lies. And then you run away. Saying you think I would not pay up. Your correct in that, I would, if I could not prove my degree. But I can. And will. And you will simply run like the coward you are.


Here's a bit of advice, Georgie. Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T
and people will stop abusing you on chat sites. As you know, me boy, I never, ever lie. You make charges, I offer you a chance to prove your attack on me, and you run away like a sniveling coward. And here is the thing. No one challenges what I say, except YOU. And you, me boy, are a coward. With no integrity. Here is the deal. I could say you have no history degree. I would not do so, but I could. And I could simply ask your name on your degree, it's date, and the college. Student number if you had one. And you know what, I could find out. I already gave that info to you, and you tried saying you called there about another issue you were arguing. Turns out you did not call, you were lying. But you could. Call administration. I have done so in the past when I hired new employees, and it was never a problem. Or you could take the bet and find out. But what we all understand about you, Oldstyle, is you prefer to simply keep on making attacks and lying. Because you can not make rational arguments relative to the subject being discussed in any thread. Because, again, you are simply a sniveling coward and a liar.
Oh and the "me boy" stuff? That tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics. Right, me boy, lets see if we can find your enlightened post on economics. Oh, yeah. You said the Davis Bacon was an FDR law. But it was a law passed before FDR took office. I said it was signed into law by Hoover. Who was correct on that, me boy. Must have been you, cause you are very smart on economics. But, oddly enough, it was a simple economic history event. Your expertise, history and economics Remember, it was your statement that the Davis Bacon act of 1931 was an FDR law meant to hurt blacks. But you you had your history wrong, since the law was passed a couple years before FDR took office. Both your economic knowledge, and your knowledge of history, failed you, me boy. And that required me to prove your error. You were off by over 2 years, and a whole new political administration. And, you did not seem to know that the law was not aimed at blacks at all, but at contractors who underpaid. You said it was FDR who caused blacks to loose jobs, but in fact it was employers who did not hire blacks. Not FDR. There was nothing in the law aimed at blacks, but it did not protect them either. It took years before laws protected blacks.

Your attempt at attacking FDR was ignorant and you provided no proof. You did, however, in that part of your post and others, prove you needed to provide proof, and links, to try and prove your charges. But you would not do so. Instead expecting those that read your post and it's multiple attacks to find the truth. Tacky. Very tacky.

But then you have proved what I said you would prove. You are a lying coward. You simply like to make attacks and lying charges. You know you can not prove them, because they are wrong. But you do know this. I never ever lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

That is a statement made by a number of bat shit crazy conservative right wing web sources. Never seen that in a reputable source. Including text books, and other publications. You have a source?

You really are an ignorant person, Georgie. Judging from your posts here...I honestly don't think you've READ a lot of text books in your lifetime!
That would be your opinion, me boy. And you know how much i value your opinion.

Let me explain a little American history to you...

Truthfully, you should say let me quote a bit of stuff I cut and pasted from a bat shit crazy con web site. For obvious reasons, you have no source. And you have cut an pasted a large amount of nonsense. Simply adds to your reputation for lying.

Blacks were not allowed to join labor unions back in the 20's and 30's. Those were overwhelmingly white. And this had what to do with FDR, dipshit. If a black man wanted to get a job in the construction industry they could only get work by hiring on with "union free" contractors and working for lower wages. Work they did however...before the New Deal 20% of the skilled craftsmen and construction workers in the North were black. FDR's New Deal gave us the Davis & Bacon Act Prior to FDR dipshit. and the Fair Labor Act. The combination of those two basically excluded blacks from construction jobs during that time period. Sorry, that is totally untrue. Unions excluded blacks, not law. As an example...some 22,000 men were hired to build the Hoover dam...25 of them were black. The National Recovery Act was referred to as the "Negro Removal Act" by black newspapers of the time because it excluded blacks. It did not exclude blacks. The law, also know as No Roosevelt Act, was a republican organ meant to regulate wages. But Unions did regulate blacks unfairly. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed it did not apply to any labor involved in agriculture or household service...meaning the vast majority of blacks working in the South didn't get diddly from the FLSA!
The flsa did not apply to farm labor. It was not aimed at blacks.

I'm guessing you had no clue how much of a racist FDR actually was...did you? Yup. Not known as a racist to or about blacks, but was indeed racist against Japanese. Did you happen to know that when he established the Warm Springs facility to treat polio victims that it was only open to whites? What's amusing is that Progressives like you constantly harp on the "racism" you see behind every conservative...yet some of the most racist legislation ever passed in this country was passed by a Progressive icon!. So you would believe, but you are 1. A con troll, 2. A liar, 3. Your drivel has no link to a source.e. 4. Because you are lying. The most racist, to black presidents, is usually named as a group of Republicans, from Wilson, to Hoover, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhauer, Washington, Lincoln, and Truman.
10 Presidents More Racist Than Barack Obama - THE U4E
So, not many dems on that list, me boy. As you know, most anti blacks are republicans.

You are unaware, apparently, that blacks in general liked fdr and few became republicans. Their problems were not with the government, but with labor unions and employers, both of whom either fired or did not hire blacks. The fair labor act had no issues with blacks. The Davis and bacon act was passed by Republicans in the Hoover administration in 1931, nearly three years prior to FDR taking office.. I thought a guy teaching me history would have noticed.

Here is the thing, me boy. You do not provide a link. This is all your patter, at this point. I suspect you do not want to show a link because you are ashamed of it. Another of your bat shit crazy con web sites you spend your time in. Caught again, me boy. Liar that you are.

Truth (look it up) is I have read a lot about labor economics over the years. Never saw a case where FDR regulations were attacked the way you have done. In fact, most blacks left the republican party and became democrats as a result of FDR's Policies. Here. I do not hide my sources, you may notice:

"During the Great Depression, the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Act attempted to raise disastrously low commodity prices by authorizing the federal government to pay farmers to raise fewer crops. These crop reduction subsidies enabled landlords to dispossess so many African-American tenants and share-croppers that the bill was often referred to sardonically as the “Negro Removal Act.” Despite such unintended consequences and other exclusions from New Deal programs, large numbers of African Americans left the Republican party during the 1930s to support President Franklin D. Roosevelt, largely because many African Americans benefited from New Deal job programs and relief measures. This photograph depicts black sharecroppers forced off of farms by landlords eager to receive federal crop reduction subsidies as they gathered along Highway 60 in New Madrid County, Missouri, in January 1939."
Evicted.

So, looks like you got a source that is full of nonsense, aimed at FDR. As everyone is aware, like you, oldstyle, con publications attack FDR continually. All economic students knew that 50 years ago. They knew it because if they had to do research, they had to avoid the bullshit put out by the many con sources. But then, I know you like the bullshit sources. You always try to throw one in. Always with no link. Because, of course, you are a liar, completely without principles or integrity.

Nice job of posting a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, me boy. Like always, any way you can push the conservative flag. Truth be damned.

You're now claiming that the National Recovery Act of 1933 was a "republican organ"? Interesting concept, Georgie. In 1933 Democrats controlled the Senate 59 - 36...they controlled the House 313 - 117 and FDR was sitting in the Oval Office. How exactly could the GOP have passed anything? Your incredible ignorance of American history is breathtaking in it's scope.

So you assume that the NRA was put together and went through congress in three months, eh. You really are simple minded. Truth was the bill was worked on for over half a year. And you are making a big deal that I said it was a republican organ. Should you research it, you would fin that is true. But it was not aimed at blacks, as anyone familiar with it knows. That it hurt blacks to some degree is true. But congress, republican and democrat, need to share the credit for that. Only simpletons like you place blame for such bills on one party.
But what is really funny is that you provided credit for the Davis Bacon act to FDR, though it was passed over two years before FDR took office. I missed the NRA's date by three months, and you are having kittens. You missed the Davis Bacon date by over 2 years, but I seem to have missed your apology. And, me boy, it is you that said you were providing history lessons to me, a mere economics guy. Below I provide the date and president who signed Davis Bacon into law. As a History guy, you should have some idea who Hoover was. Are you sure you have a history degree?

Where is that source, dipshit. I spent too much time, almost a half hour, looking at your drivel. It has no source. Did you think there was some reason to believe anything you said?
You posted a litany of untrue statements. Five different bills, with this particular one passed by an Alabama senator. But of all the claims you made, you are correct here. It was passed three months after FDR took office. So, you believe he hated blacks and spent his first three months putting together a bill that hurt them. Got it. Now, about that link to your "source".
Without a source to back up your claims, which are mostly provably lies, there is no reason to spend time.proving it wrong.

So you start by telling me you are going to teach me some history. Sounds good. You say you have a degree in the subject. Though you have spent your years as a food services worker. It was funny, however, that:
1. You have no source for your post, only a bunch of charges. No one who is responsible ever posts a bunch of charges without being willing to provide the source. Unless the charges are untrue, and you do not want anyone to see what source you are using. Eh, Oldstyle. I keep asking for a link, you keep hiding your source. Then, you want people to believe you???
2. When I do basic research on the charges, most can not be found, those that can be do not show anything like the charges you have made.
3. You actually call FDR a racist. But can not back the statement up with impartial research, or any research that I can find. All independent sources seem to see him as a racist only toward the japanese. Only you call him a well known racist, again without a source.
4. To prove that what you posted is drivel, you blame the Davis Bacon Act on FDR. But the problem is, the Davis Bacon act was put into effect in 1931. Any person with a degree in history should understand that FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933, So, your charges relative to FDR passing the act are
embarrassingly wrong. Though I am sure you will not admit your obvious error. Tacky.
"The Davis–Bacon act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931."
Davis–Bacon Act - Wikipedia
A simple look at wikipedia would have corrected your historical blunder, and you would have found it was passed primarily by Bacon, a congressman who was well known to be a republican racist.

You have proven you are dishonest. Again. What a surprise.

What's amusing is that you think someone has to have a "source" to know things! Sorry you think it is amusing to demand a source. The problem is that you were wrong multiple times. So, these musings you posted are the thoughts of a dish washer with a long ago history degree. Sorry. I have no reason to believe you. Responsible people are not afraid to prove what they say. Those who lie are. I know about New Deal policies because I studied the subject in college. Unlike your pretend degree in economics I actually have a history degree and I actually learned things in college. Nice bunch of personal attacks. Having had two classes in econ does not make you an expert on the subject. I have a degree in economics, and though I may be a few light years ahead of you, I do not disrespect people by posting untrue things and expecting them to believe me. Here is a news flash, me boy. There are people out there who know way more than either of us. And they publish. You need to back up what you say useing those sources, or simply admit you are posting what you choose to post. Things like quite a few of the New Deal's programs were deliberately harmful to blacks because they protected union jobs at a time when black membership in unions was almost non-existent. Prove it, me boy. As for your point about the Davis-Bacon Act being passed prior to FDR becoming President? You are correct in that but you missed the fact that the Davis-Bacon Act was amended both in 1933 and in 1935 and none of the things that were harmful to blacks in the original legislation were changed in subsequent amendments. The changes that an FDR led government put in further strengthened unions...which as I've already pointed out almost totally excluded blacks from membership. Care to try again?

When did I ever claim to be an "expert" in the field of economics? My concentration was in history and business administration. What's pathetic is that I know more about economics with the two classes I took...100 level Macro and Micro Economics...than you do and you claim to have taught the subject at the college level!
Jesus, me boy. Maybe a tape recorder would help you out. You just said you know more about economics than I do. Then you made a vague claim about my teaching college at the college level, trying to suggest I was in charge of an college econ class. A lie and an insult in a single paragraph. And I have a degree in economics, and 50 years of study of the subject. You have two fucking classes. But you make a stupid claim like that simply to hurl insults. If you want to challenge what I say, challenge away and we can argue the point, but your insults are stupid and childish.
No you don't. know more than I about economics, in my opinion. You are simply ....Whats the word. Yeah, that's it. Your simply fucked up in the brain. What was that about the Davis bacon law? Where is a single comment you got both history, and economics wrong. You showed no understanding, me con troll. You simply have the ability to post con talking points. And to believe them, apparently.


You can always tell the real posers on this board. Whenever they get exposed they do two things almost without fail. First they insult whoever exposed them...accusing them of things like being a lowly dishwasher. Second...they invariably want to make a big wager on their telling the truth...like anyone has EVER paid off on a chat site bet in the entire history of the internet!
The real poser on the board is the guy claiming he know more about something than someone else but can not produce. You are an economic lightweight, you simply post dogma, and when it is proven you have lied, or your posts are wrong, you just keep on posting garbage that you can not back up. Saying you are smart, dipshit, does not make you smart. Saying you know something does not prove you know something. You, like anyone, need to prove your statements. That you do not, that you can not provide a link, proves to everyone that you are a joke, simply out to through insults and lies at anyone who disagrees with you.
Here is the deal, me boy. You call me a liar, but refuse to put up. I have a couple degrees in my far off history. Economics and an MBA. You have a degree in history, though you can not prove it. And I, like others, believe you. But you are out to sling mud. So, put up the $500 if you want to prove me wrong. You will end up losing $500, but that is the problem with throwing mud.
You can make a wager pay, or you can be stupid like you are. Simple enough. But as I said, you would run and you are. You have no integrity, os. You lie all the time. But if your bet is in escrow and my money is in escrow, and the proof or lack of proof is simple, then it pays. And probably has thousands of times in the past to others who have made bets to show their belief in their statements. Your problem, me poor ignorant con troll, is that you do not believe anyone is honest, and you made a claim you have no way to prove. And lastly, you are a COWARD. People with honor may make incorrect statements, but they have the integrity to prove their statement, or to see it was wrong and pay up, or to apologize. I knew you would do none of those things. You simply make unsubstantiated attacks with charges you can not prove, Because you have no ability to make arguments relative to a thread, and so you simply start with your accusations and lies. And then you run away. Saying you think I would not pay up. Your correct in that, I would, if I could not prove my degree. But I can. And will. And you will simply run like the coward you are.


Here's a bit of advice, Georgie. Stop pretending to be something that you obviously AREN'T
and people will stop abusing you on chat sites. As you know, me boy, I never, ever lie. You make charges, I offer you a chance to prove your attack on me, and you run away like a sniveling coward. And here is the thing. No one challenges what I say, except YOU. And you, me boy, are a coward. With no integrity. Here is the deal. I could say you have no history degree. I would not do so, but I could. And I could simply ask your name on your degree, it's date, and the college. Student number if you had one. And you know what, I could find out. I already gave that info to you, and you tried saying you called there about another issue you were arguing. Turns out you did not call, you were lying. But you could. Call administration. I have done so in the past when I hired new employees, and it was never a problem. Or you could take the bet and find out. But what we all understand about you, Oldstyle, is you prefer to simply keep on making attacks and lying. Because you can not make rational arguments relative to the subject being discussed in any thread. Because, again, you are simply a sniveling coward and a liar.
Oh and the "me boy" stuff? That tired phrase makes you sound even more stupid than your posts on economics. Right, me boy, lets see if we can find your enlightened post on economics. Oh, yeah. You said the Davis Bacon was an FDR law. But it was a law passed before FDR took office. I said it was signed into law by Hoover. Who was correct on that, me boy. Must have been you, cause you are very smart on economics. But, oddly enough, it was a simple economic history event. Your expertise, history and economics Remember, it was your statement that the Davis Bacon act of 1931 was an FDR law meant to hurt blacks. But you you had your history wrong, since the law was passed a couple years before FDR took office. Both your economic knowledge, and your knowledge of history, failed you, me boy. And that required me to prove your error. You were off by over 2 years, and a whole new political administration. And, you did not seem to know that the law was not aimed at blacks at all, but at contractors who underpaid. You said it was FDR who caused blacks to loose jobs, but in fact it was employers who did not hire blacks. Not FDR. There was nothing in the law aimed at blacks, but it did not protect them either. It took years before laws protected blacks.

Your attempt at attacking FDR was ignorant and you provided no proof. You did, however, in that part of your post and others, prove you needed to provide proof, and links, to try and prove your charges. But you would not do so. Instead expecting those that read your post and it's multiple attacks to find the truth. Tacky. Very tacky.

But then you have proved what I said you would prove. You are a lying coward. You simply like to make attacks and lying charges. You know you can not prove them, because they are wrong. But you do know this. I never ever lie.[/QUOTE]

The difference between you and I, Georgie is that when I post something related to history...I sound like someone who studied the subject in college. When you post something about economics you sound like George Costanza pretending to be an architect! I've always thought you were full of shit ever since you didn't know what I was referring to when I mentioned the "Chicago School" and asked what school of economics it was that you were basing your contention on. There is no way an economics major doesn't know that someone talking about the "Chicago School" isn't referring to a brick and mortar college in Chicago but that's what you did! You might as well have fired off a flare announcing you were a poser! Then you claimed to have taught economics at the college level while an undergrad...I guess to "prove" you weren't lying? Undergrads don't teach college courses. People that went to college know things like that. Then there was the abysmal quality of your writing and grammar. When I pointed out that you have the writing skills of an 8th grader...you claimed it was because your "secretary" always proofed your writing. You tell one lie and then have to tell another to cover the first one. You can't help yourself. You "never ever lie"? It's all you do!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be because you want to believe that. Your numbers are totally screwed.

It's simple math, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Take the increased expense, $1, divide by the profit margin, 5.1%.
$19.61

Unless you have some reason that the wage hike is going to increase the profit margin?


I do not need to "think" anything.

That's nice, because you're not very good at thinking.

You really want to believe that the $20 additonal sales concept

Yup, because...math.

that you have worked out with bad numbers

Red Robin's revenue and profit numbers were bad? LOL!

you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.

Not magic, current reality.

And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt

You want to compare a burger chain with $1.28 billion in revenue, 28,933 employees, to a discount store with 126,000 employees and $118.72 billion in revenue?
You're even dumber than I first thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron.

That's the clue that I'm talking to a moron.

You seem to believe your model is correct

Yes, my amazing complex model which divides added expenses by profit margin.

 

[Rshermr]

"]That would be because you want to believe that. Your numbers are totally screwed.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
It's simple math, so I'm not surprised you don't get it.

Take the increased expense, $1, divide by the profit margin, 5.1%.
$19.61
Yup. That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees, makes my statement correct. Yours is simple math. And the math will not project the correct answer for the increased labor costs. Or, in short, your numbers are totally screwed.

Unless you have some reason that the wage hike is going to increase the profit margin?
Simple, me boy. You appear to be a numbers guy. But you want to believe that a profit margin developed using average current costs, and average current productivity of assets (real and human) are always subject to an overall historical average. Turns out it does not, and never has, worked that way. Put in a refrigerator, you get one profit margin. Put in a person in one area, you get another profit margin. Put in a person in another area, you get another profit margin.
So, this is simple to understand to thinking people, probably not con trolls. But the average profit margin does not apply to people. Unless, as a company, RR likes less profitability. In accounting, you can use the concept of an average profit margin to explain things on a balance sheet. But this is not an exercise in producing back looking financials, but of producing forward looking projections. You are, me boy not good at that at all, unless your "financial model" is just you trying to prove a point.
I did nor of that in college and working life than I care to remember. Problem is, I found it boring. I would rather get a root canal than spend time with a financial modeling exercise. Just like economometric modeling, it gets really boring quickly, and generally produces bad (ie, incorrect) results. I found those with open minds looking at new opportunities to be of more use, and to be much more interesting. Thinking you can apply average profit margins to specific cost components is not smart. In fact it is really stupid. Your model is not a model, just a description of averages from the past.


I do not need to "think" anything.

That's nice, because you're not very good at thinking.
Do you spend a lot of time thinking about things you have already thought about? Stupid statement.

You really want to believe that the $20 additional sales concept

Yup, because...math.
No, because it is stupid person math. The math of a con troll who, as typical, want to believe what he is told to believe. Con trolls always believe con dogma, cause it is what they want to believe. And, me boy, you have been told raising wages to a new mw is BAD, And it makes you angry (all cons like to be angry) and you want to be part of the group (non thinking con group). And you want to have the same beliefs as your group. So, you do. Makes you boring and wrong. Except you are in the group.
that you have worked out with bad numbers

Red Robin's revenue and profit numbers were bad? LOL!
Nah. You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon. We shall all watch. I know it will not, you think it will. Because you believe RR is doomed by their average cost numbers. Because that proves your point, and it proves what you want to believe. But you will be wrong. Because labor costs are unknown to you. You could get them, but you will not, because they could really mess up your model. Your numbers are bad, as in incorrect and not material to the issue. Or, in short, bad. Because, as an example, plant and equipment have the same profit margin as a new refrigeration unit as a new accountant as a new server. Yup, if I were you, I would use that average number based on historical numbers cause it proves what you want it to prove in your little con mind. To the thinking person, or to anyone who is capable and wants to do a representative model, the numbers that matter are not average over time and expense category, but marginal numbers for the cost area in question.

you think there is some magic to the 5% profit margin.

Not magic, current reality.
We are not talking current, me boy. We are discussing what will happen with the increase in wages in the future as the result of a specific cost increase. You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers. To difficult?

And since your margin never changes in your financial "model", Costco is obviously bankrupt

You want to compare a burger chain with $1.28 billion in revenue, 28,933 employees, to a discount store with 126,000 employees and $118.72 billion in revenue?
You're even dumber than I first thought.
Really, with your model and projections, you should not call people dumb.
But then we know, me boy, that your model is projecting what you want it to. and cons always prefer what they want to believe over fact. Good for you.
Costco, me con troll, is not the only company out there to experience what they have. You see, they are really smart people. Unlike the average con troll, they were quite enlightened. And the principles they found are not unique to discount chains. (they are not made up of "a discount store", dipshit). But, as a con troll, you would not like the study results of costco. It would not fit in at all well with your belief system, which is to believe what you are told. Dumb? Yeah, that would be thousands and thousands of people who like myself, have found the Costco model to be really, really interesting. But for con trolls, hell, it is not what you want to try to understand, cause it would take you away from what you WANT to believe. The 5% profit margin is your thing. 5% or die. One thing that I can not be sure of, but would be willing to bet on if there was a way, is that RR has been and probably still is studying the costco model very carefully.
Some day, when you are near a costco, go inside and take your conservative head out of your conservative ass and watch the workers there. If you can clear the shit out of your brain, you could have an epiphany.

 

[Rshermr]

Saying ummmm is a pretty sure sign you are a moron.

[/QUOTE]

That's the clue that I'm talking to a moron.
Who said ummmmmmmm? If it was you, then you are the moron. But the below response to your stupid statement below proves it in more detail

You seem to believe your model is correct

Yes, my amazing complex model which divides added expenses by profit margin.
Yes, the one that uses average costs that include the cost of buildings, refrigeration units, all food purchased, inventories of dishes and silverware, and so on. Take that total cost, and use it to find the profit margin relative to new employees. Now, to most, that would appear to be really, really stupid. To the con mind, it proves you need to never raise wages because it will increase all those costs. Now, some would say, take your labor costs for the class of employee you are going to increase costs for, then see what happens when you add such new employees to your costs, then you will have a clue of what the increased costs would be. You will find, of course, that such additions would have little effect on costs at all. If you look at the margin, which is the only thing that matters, costs will include the added wages, and very little else. Your corporate profit margin is good for creating balance sheets, but average costs are of no value in forward looking projections. Period. If it did, pretty much all companies need to seriously consider shutting down operations. And those projections and the employees making those projections would likely be among the first to go. Which is why your numbers are garbage. They simply waste peoples time and nothing more. Nothing more, because no one believes them.

 

[OldLady]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

If it only applies to 3% of workers, why is everyone freaking out about it?

 

[Rshermr]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

If it only applies to 3% of workers, why is everyone freaking out about it?

Simple. It is not for a valid reason. It is because the wealthy corporatists, in general, do not want wages raised EVER, And their con supporters believe the same, because that is what they are told to believe. So there is a huge push in the world by cons to suggest that the raise in the minimum wage will create economic armageddon. Because, for cons, that is what they have been told to believe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That the expenses you are basing that on include plant and equipment, food costs, janitorial costs, and so forth, and you are trying to project the result of added labor costs for only low paid employees

Wrong. If you gave the CEO an additional $1,000,000 you'd also have to sell about $20,000,000 more stuff to recoup the added expense.

You have your little model, proving that RR will be out of business one day soon.

Yes, if they add $128,000,000 to their labor expense in the next 40 weeks, they'll be out of business quickly.

You have not even a specific profit margin for labor costs. And certainly not one for the future. So the buildings costs are worked in to your cost numbers, but have nothing to do with the cost of labor for low income workers.

By all means, show us your "profit margin for labor costs."

 

[Skull Pilot]

It all depends on how much you raise it

A nominal raise to say 8 an hour won't have a huge effect in my state the MW is already over 9 an hour in many states it's over 8 an hour already

If the whole and ridiculous 15 an hour crowd gets their way then we'll see not only a loss of jobs but a decline in purchasing power for everyone already making 15 an hour or more

and since 97% of workers already make more than the federal MW it seems silly to raise it drastically

If it only applies to 3% of workers, why is everyone freaking out about it?

as I said it depends on how much you raise it