As predicted - Study shows Seattle $15 min wage result is less hours and 5000 less jobs

[NightFox]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

When you impose an 8 hour day and outlaw child labor you also **** with the 'free market'.

 

[NightFox]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand, which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply. When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more? Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

LOL, what qty does the supply curve indicate at a price of zero? or did you figure that labor is somehow immune from the law of supply?

 

[The Derp]

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

First of all, who says you have to increase prices? Seattle raised their MW in April 2015 and researchers at the University of Washington found that retail prices didn't rise one year into the MW hike. So right away, you start your argument off on a faulty premise. One that has been disproved by actual data from just last year. So you can say all this shit, but it's really just obfuscation of the fact that raising wages leads to increased spending, which leads to increased demand, which leads to more labor, which leads to higher wages. Wash, rinse, repeat. That's what they saw in Seattle. It's what they saw in 13 states in 2014. Conservatives said at the time that raising the MW would kill jobs. They were wrong. So since they were wrong then, why would they be right now?

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

In other words, if there is increased demand, businesses have to hire labor to fill that supply. Again, it's what happened in 13 states in 2014, and in Seattle in 2015.

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise.

It matters a great deal! If your Sales revenues are increasing because suddenly everyone is spending more, then what does that do? It generates wealth, generates demand, which leads to more hiring and higher wages as the labor market starts to favor workers instead of employers.

The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

And labor productivity is already high and has been for close to 37 years, yet wages have not risen commensurately for most workers. Higher wages come from a labor market that favors workers. You get a labor market that favors workers by increasing aggregate demand in the consumer market. And how do you increase aggregate demand in the consumer market? PAY PEOPLE MORE MONEY THAT THEY CAN SPEND.

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

And if both demand and supply are reduced, what happens? Stagflation. So you are arguing that tax cuts cause stagflation. Furthermore, the premise that low taxes generate economic activity is also disproved, most notably by the failure of trickle-down in Kansas (but also the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts).

 

[NightFox]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

When you impose an 8 hour day and outlaw child labor you also **** with the 'free market'.

Uh-huh, unfortunately you have no idea how it "***** with the free market" or how it differs from the economic effect of binding price floors.

Any other attempts at deflection you'd like to try out?

 

[NYcarbineer]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand, which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply. When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more? Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

Sales revenue will decrease. The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs. Which means people either buy less of the product or none of it. This is just basic economics.

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

LOL, what qty does the supply curve indicate at a price of zero? or did you figure that labor is somehow immune from the law of supply?

What were slaves paid per hour?

 

[NYcarbineer]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

When you impose an 8 hour day and outlaw child labor you also **** with the 'free market'.

Uh-huh, unfortunately you have no idea how it "***** with the free market" or how it differs from the economic effect of binding price floors.

Any other attempts at deflection you'd like to try out?

Are you denying that imposing the 8 hour day conflicts with the market?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seattle has an unemployment rate of about 3.1%

Atlanta, on the other hand, for example, where the minimum wage is 7.25, has an unemployment rate of about 4.7%

 

[NYcarbineer]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

When you impose an 8 hour day and outlaw child labor you also **** with the 'free market'.

Uh-huh, unfortunately you have no idea how it "***** with the free market" or how it differs from the economic effect of binding price floors.

Any other attempts at deflection you'd like to try out?

Shouldn't employers be allowed to set the hours their employees work and when, if ever, overtime pay should apply?

 

[P@triot]

Uhhh, no, because if people have more to spend, then they are going to spend more.

They don't have more to spend, snowflake. The study (by radical left-wing Cal, Berkley) just found that the minimum wage worker is now coming home with $125 per month less in Seattle. Sorry snowflake...those are the facts.

Only one of us can be right.

Yeah...and it's me. The University of Cal just proved it (not that they really needed to as this is just basic economics). Thanks for playing snowflake. You may run along now.

 

[P@triot]

So ideally, people working for free would be the best scenario for business...

Conservatives will not be happy until they turn our country into a theocratic serfdom.

Progressives will not be happy until the collapse the U.S. like they did the U.S.S.R., Cuba, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Detroit, and Illinois.

You people literally caused an entire city to declare bankruptcy. It is now a third-world shit-hole. Great job, dumb ass.

 

[NightFox]

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

First of all, who says you have to increase prices?

Nobody, apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Seattle raised their MW in April 2015 and researchers at the University of Washington found that retail prices didn't rise one year into the MW hike.

Yeah so? if a non price determinate on the supply side causes an increase in the costs of production (like ya know an increased cost of a factor of production) then you experience a leftward shift of the supply curve meaning that the quantity supplied will be less at all price points along the curve and reduced economic activity at any given price versus what you had before that shift.

In other words, if there is increased demand, businesses have to hire labor to fill that supply. Again, it's what happened in 13 states in 2014, and in Seattle in 2015.

That's not what I said, go back and read it again, if you don't understand what it means I'll be happy to clarify whatever it is that you don't grasp.

It matters a great deal! If your Sales revenues are increasing because suddenly everyone is spending more, then what does that do? It generates wealth, generates demand, which leads to more hiring and higher wages as the labor market starts to favor workers instead of employers.

Here ... let me save both of us some time; this is a pretty decent explanation of the economic effect of binding price floors (which a minimum wage qualifies as ): Price Floor Impact on Market Outcome , let me know if you need clarification after you read it through.

Why do I get the feeling you're just vomiting up word salad in the hopes you can obfuscate the issue?

Probably because you don't appear to understand basic microeconomics.

Do some homework and then get back to me and we'll discuss the particulars in a way that actually produces something of value.

 

[NightFox]

not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall

But if your Sales revenue is increasing, then that would indicate increased demand,

Not necessarily, it could also indicate an increase in per unit price (revenue = qty * price), but if you increase prices the law of demand dictates that all else being equal demand will decrease, therefore in order to be able to increase prices without decreasing demand some other non price determinate (e.g. you start producing a product with new features that are in higher demand) would have to change and cause a rightward shift of the demand curve.

which would call for more labor in order to fill the supply.

Nope, more labor would only be called for if the marginal benefit of additional production exceeds the marginal cost of additional production.

When people get wage increases, do you think they don't spend more?

Doesn't matter, when you impose a binding price floor (a price above the market equilibrium price) you WILL incur dead weight loss (foregone economic surplus) which is just another way of saying you're not producing as much wealth as you would otherwise. The only way to avoid that situation for the topic under discussion (labor) is if the productivity of labor increases which provides the impetus for higher wages without increasing the price of output, because your variable cost of input (labor in this case) is spread over more units over the same fixed period of time (making each unit cheaper to produce)... up to a point (marginal diminishing returns).

Explain to me then how cutting taxes results in increased spending, yet raising wages doesn't?

It's not "increased spending" it's increased economic activity (transactions or trade), trade creates wealth on both sides of the transaction, therefore the more trade the more wealth created (economic surplus (wealth) = consumer surplus + producer surplus), lower taxes increase economic activity because taxes increase prices (for both sellers and buyers) thus both demand and supply are reduced.

When you impose an 8 hour day and outlaw child labor you also **** with the 'free market'.

Uh-huh, unfortunately you have no idea how it "***** with the free market" or how it differs from the economic effect of binding price floors.

Any other attempts at deflection you'd like to try out?

Are you denying that imposing the 8 hour day conflicts with the market?

Nope, I am however denying that you understand how to read English with a comprehension level north of the average chunk of granite.

 

[P@triot]

The business owner has to raise prices to cover the increased labor costs.

You say this as if it's conventional wisdom. Well, I'm all about shattering conventional wisdom. And to that point, I submit the below from the University of Washington:

From April 21st, 2016, one year into Seattle's MW hike:

After A Year, Seattle’s New Minimum Wage Hasn’t Raised Retail Prices
Business owners did a bunch of handwringing about how damaging to the economy the wage increase would be. But so far, they’re wrong.
...
In a new report, researchers from the University of Washington presented data that showed “little or no evidence” of price increases in most sectors. Before the minimum wage law took effect, most retailers said they would have to charge more–and most low-wage workers were worried that they would have to spend more for necessities. So far, that hasn’t happened.
​

So you start your argument off from a faulty premise. And because you do that, it undermines everything you say from there on out.

Snowflake...this is basic economics (something which - sadly - is too complex for your simple mind). Business owners do not eat cost (if they did, they would go out of business). So one of three things occur when cost is forced upon them:

1. They raise their prices to offset the costs

2. They cut back on the item causing the increase (in this case - labor hours)

3. They eliminate the item causing the increase (in this case - labor).

The study proved that the hours were cut back. The low income workers were hurt by the idiotic policies you support and now bring home $125 less per month thanks to people like you. Game over, snowflake.

 

[P@triot]

Shouldn't employers be allowed to set the hours their employees work and when, if ever, overtime pay should apply?

Yep! Just like employers should be allowed to set their own compensation rates and the perspective employee can either accept that rate or reject it. Either way, the free market will flawlessly balance itself out.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives will not be happy until they turn our country into a theocratic serfdom.

Like I said....progressives will not be happy until they collapse the entire United States.

GB Prediction Come True: Illinois Insolvent Due to Pensions

 

[Timmy]

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Yeah...and the idiotic "living wage" that you support just lowered their monthly income by $125.

Seattles unemployment rate is 2.9%.

 

[P@triot]

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Yeah...and the idiotic "living wage" that you support just lowered their monthly income by $125.

Seattles unemployment rate is 2.9%.

Yeah...and the minimum wage workers take home pay is -9% from where it was before the idiotic left-wing minimum wage. Let me know if you'd like to keep playing your juvenile game. I can do this all day.

You continue to harm the poorest among us and revel in doing so.

 

[ColonelAngus]

And yet, there are still min wage jobs in the want adds ! Why? Cause they are always available !!!

No. No they are not "always" available, snowflake. Just ask the former employees in California who were pushed out of their jobs due to the extremely idiotic labor laws you support. Walmart in Oakland was shut down after the $15 an hour was passed after the city had fought really hard to bring Walmart there. After that, a restaurant in California became the first to go live with automation for the same reason.

All of this people lost their minimum wage jobs thanks to people like you.

Are they stupid, or is there a hidden agenda to expand the welfare rolls?

You are the idiot ! It does the opposite.

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Er..umm.. and if you impose a binding price floor (aka minimum wage) EVERYBODY is subsidizing them forever because of the economic dead weight loss, in other words all participants in the affected markets get poorer because of the foregone wealth creation (lost economic surplus), not to mention the fact that if you artificially increase the price of labor the demand for labor will fall so you're basically pricing the least qualified sellers out of the labor market which of course FORCES THEM ONTO STATE WELFARE ROLLS.

You really want to help workers? figure out a way(s) to make them more productive which is what drives higher wages without the need to increase the price of outputs.

They have no formal education in economics, nor the common sense to understand economics.

 

[Timmy]

Right now , min wage workers quality for welfare . So the state is subsidizing these companies workforce . If they are paid a living wage , they no longer qualify for welfare .

Yeah...and the idiotic "living wage" that you support just lowered their monthly income by $125.

Seattles unemployment rate is 2.9%.

Yeah...and the minimum wage workers take home pay is -9% from where it was before the idiotic left-wing minimum wage. Let me know if you'd like to keep playing your juvenile game. I can do this all day.

You continue to harm the poorest among us and revel in doing so.

Bullshit.

In real life they can get another min wage job , wh more hours because they are plenty available . And once one of these people get a raise , they aren't min wage worKers anymore are they ?