Does AOC know $15 minimum wage in states like Mississippi will put people out of work?

[OnePercenter]

Uhm you do know 30% companies fail in the first two years right?

No, he really doesn't. We had this discussion before, and he trotted out all these lists of businesses which didn't go under as proof that businesses don't really fail.

The issue is: Name one company that went "out of business" because they paid their employees to much money.

You manage to conveniently bypass my previous post, and you're asking the same stupid-ass question. So..
Not out of business, but certainly a fallout. Do you not keep up with these things?
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages

Either their system management plan needs cleaned, or someone is putting to many wants of investors above the good of the company. I think it's the first.

Sure, and that changes anything how?

The issue is: Name one company that went "out of business" because they paid their employees to much money.

 

[OnePercenter]

It’s a make up to reward the unskilled and thats a liberal emotive thing.

More then 1/2 of American Workers are unskilled.

Let's see you not screw up an order at Denny's , give a haircut, do housekeeping,.......

Barbers are licensed. Try again.

 

[OnePercenter]

AOC talks about about wanting to be like Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, only Britain has a minimum wage. Universal income? Finland experimented and they just ended the program because it wasn’t sustainable.

It seems she doesn’t know how those countries operate.

Heck I found out just the other day, Finland has blasphemy laws against religion.

So do we. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."

 

[OnePercenter]

equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis is a simple market based solution that can solve simple poverty in our republic on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

And here's the translation into English:

You want to be paid simply for existing.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of economics.

they want to be taken seriously simply for existing instead of having a "hard work ethic and learning to how fish valid arguments instead of Only red herrings".

That's what you really mean though, isn't it?

He keeps spouting nonsense, offers nothing to back up his nonsense then blames others for not being able to respond to his nonsense. The guy is clueless as one can get.

He is the same kid who went on and on in another thread he didn't know that Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton took a plea bargain, they were not guilty or innocent.


He keeps insisting Rush is a felon.


He is a fake and stupid.

When did Clinton take a plea bargain?

 

[Thinker101]

No, he really doesn't. We had this discussion before, and he trotted out all these lists of businesses which didn't go under as proof that businesses don't really fail.

The issue is: Name one company that went "out of business" because they paid their employees to much money.

You manage to conveniently bypass my previous post, and you're asking the same stupid-ass question. So..
Not out of business, but certainly a fallout. Do you not keep up with these things?
Something "Unexpected" Happened After Starbucks Raised Minimum Wages

Either their system management plan needs cleaned, or someone is putting to many wants of investors above the good of the company. I think it's the first.

Sure, and that changes anything how?

The issue is: Name one company that went "out of business" because they paid their employees to much money.

I see, so you really aren't that bright.

 

[rightwinger]

McDonalds survived doubling the price of ground beef
But can’t survive a minimum wage increase

Yes, by passing on costs to consumers.

Which if the consumers refuse to pay the higher price, then no.... they can't survive.

Doubling the cost of beef? When did this happen?

2010

Um.... no.

View attachment 264475

The price of beef, has increased barely $1 per lbs, over a period of decades. It's been slowly going up year over year, since the mid-90s.


It most certainly did not double in one year, from 2009, to 2010.
Ridiculous.

Now you might ask the question how can McDonald's handle the cost of beef going up, but not a minimum wage going up?

The answer is simple.... higher prices.

View attachment 264477

All costs are passed onto the consumer. All of them. There is no cost, whether it is the cost of payroll, or the cost of beef, that is not passed onto consumers.

Further, the cost of beef, is actually not a major cost to the store. It just isn't. It may seem like it should be, since they are primarily a burger joint, but in reality the full cost of a single big mac, in terms of food costs, is only 80¢. So out of that $4.80 for a big mac, only 80¢ is the food. That means the cost of the beef used, is less than 80¢ because that 80¢ includes the buns, the cheese, the onions, the sauce, and whatever else that is on it.

So what is the other $4? All profit? No, because if it was all profit, McDonald's would be raking in Trillions instead of Billions.

Of course you have store overhead, and you have to pay for the paper supplies, like the wrapper you put the burger in, and the bag, and so on.

But the single biggest expense, is exactly as the person before pointed out.... payroll. If you increase the price of beef, even by 100%.... we're still talking pennies per burger.

But if you increase payroll by 100%, we're talking $600,000.

Additionally, you seem to be equating a slow increase over 20 years, with a minimum wage increase over 2 years. Not at all comparable.

The price of a Big Mac has increased $1 in the ten years since min wage has increased

How many Big Macs does an employee sell in an hour?

Now you are getting into more complicated territory. When you stated the price of beef doubled, we could look at the price of a single burger, and determine how much effect the price of beef had on a single burger.

But when you talk about the minimum wage, things get drastically more complicated, and it isn't as simple as how many burgers does an employee sell.

I actually was working at a fast food joint in the 90s, when the minimum wage increased. I know that many things change, in order to offset that cost.

For example, the first thing they did was lay off all the part-time employees. We had three part time employees, and they were all laid off. So how did the store function, without those employees? We, the full time employees, were expected to do our normal duties, while we cover the jobs no longer done by part-time employees.

So that's one way to offset the minimum wage cost, which will not drive up the cost of a burger.

Another way was to reduce portion sizes. I discovered this almost by accident. So the fry station had these metal, non-adjustable fry cup holders. One day I was asked to refill the fry station with cups. But when I put the newly purchased cups into the holders, they fell straight through. The cups were physically smaller. So the large cup, was smaller than the old large cup. Medium smaller than the original medium, and so on.

They had reduced the portion sizes of the fries and the drink. This is yet another way to compensate for the increase in the minimum, without driving up prices on anything, burgers or otherwise.

And also they do sometimes also reduce the size of the beef patty as well, but usually they bring it back up to the same size later.

I remember when at Wendy's we had the Single, Double and Triple. And working the grill, I could tell that they had reduced the size of the patties. Then they came out with the "Dave's Classic" and "Dave's Classic Double". Which magically were the exact same patties as before, with a new "Dave's Classic" price. And of course they quickly stopped selling the original Single and Double.

It was a clever way of raising the price, with few people noticing.

But again, here's the bottom line.... Every single cost, is passed onto the consumers. If you demand a higher minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that YOU pay a higher price for everything. Which is exactly what happens.



Now they do eventually increase prices.

Applies to every cost increase due to the price of supplies, taxes, insurance, property values or demands for more profits from stockholders

No reason to freeze wages for a decade

 

[rightwinger]

AOC talks about about wanting to be like Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, only Britain has a minimum wage. Universal income? Finland experimented and they just ended the program because it wasn’t sustainable.

It seems she doesn’t know how those countries operate.

Heck I found out just the other day, Finland has blasphemy laws against religion.

So do we. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . ."

You are free to speak out against religion

 

[OnePercenter]

How much do you pay someone that makes you all of your money? It's a very easy question.

You pay them what the market says they are worth.

What if the market is fixed?

Do you have real life examples of fixed rates?

I wrote "market is fixed."

Do you have any examples of the market being fixed?

Sure. You have two businesses, one a retail, and one a service business. Each has completely different business plans and income streams, but pay employees the same. How can that be except to pay so low that both owners can skim off the top.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, by passing on costs to consumers.

Which if the consumers refuse to pay the higher price, then no.... they can't survive.

Doubling the cost of beef? When did this happen?

2010

Um.... no.

View attachment 264475

The price of beef, has increased barely $1 per lbs, over a period of decades. It's been slowly going up year over year, since the mid-90s.


It most certainly did not double in one year, from 2009, to 2010.
Ridiculous.

Now you might ask the question how can McDonald's handle the cost of beef going up, but not a minimum wage going up?

The answer is simple.... higher prices.

View attachment 264477

All costs are passed onto the consumer. All of them. There is no cost, whether it is the cost of payroll, or the cost of beef, that is not passed onto consumers.

Further, the cost of beef, is actually not a major cost to the store. It just isn't. It may seem like it should be, since they are primarily a burger joint, but in reality the full cost of a single big mac, in terms of food costs, is only 80¢. So out of that $4.80 for a big mac, only 80¢ is the food. That means the cost of the beef used, is less than 80¢ because that 80¢ includes the buns, the cheese, the onions, the sauce, and whatever else that is on it.

So what is the other $4? All profit? No, because if it was all profit, McDonald's would be raking in Trillions instead of Billions.

Of course you have store overhead, and you have to pay for the paper supplies, like the wrapper you put the burger in, and the bag, and so on.

But the single biggest expense, is exactly as the person before pointed out.... payroll. If you increase the price of beef, even by 100%.... we're still talking pennies per burger.

But if you increase payroll by 100%, we're talking $600,000.

Additionally, you seem to be equating a slow increase over 20 years, with a minimum wage increase over 2 years. Not at all comparable.

The price of a Big Mac has increased $1 in the ten years since min wage has increased

How many Big Macs does an employee sell in an hour?

Now you are getting into more complicated territory. When you stated the price of beef doubled, we could look at the price of a single burger, and determine how much effect the price of beef had on a single burger.

But when you talk about the minimum wage, things get drastically more complicated, and it isn't as simple as how many burgers does an employee sell.

I actually was working at a fast food joint in the 90s, when the minimum wage increased. I know that many things change, in order to offset that cost.

For example, the first thing they did was lay off all the part-time employees. We had three part time employees, and they were all laid off. So how did the store function, without those employees? We, the full time employees, were expected to do our normal duties, while we cover the jobs no longer done by part-time employees.

So that's one way to offset the minimum wage cost, which will not drive up the cost of a burger.

Another way was to reduce portion sizes. I discovered this almost by accident. So the fry station had these metal, non-adjustable fry cup holders. One day I was asked to refill the fry station with cups. But when I put the newly purchased cups into the holders, they fell straight through. The cups were physically smaller. So the large cup, was smaller than the old large cup. Medium smaller than the original medium, and so on.

They had reduced the portion sizes of the fries and the drink. This is yet another way to compensate for the increase in the minimum, without driving up prices on anything, burgers or otherwise.

And also they do sometimes also reduce the size of the beef patty as well, but usually they bring it back up to the same size later.

I remember when at Wendy's we had the Single, Double and Triple. And working the grill, I could tell that they had reduced the size of the patties. Then they came out with the "Dave's Classic" and "Dave's Classic Double". Which magically were the exact same patties as before, with a new "Dave's Classic" price. And of course they quickly stopped selling the original Single and Double.

It was a clever way of raising the price, with few people noticing.

But again, here's the bottom line.... Every single cost, is passed onto the consumers. If you demand a higher minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that YOU pay a higher price for everything. Which is exactly what happens.



Now they do eventually increase prices.

Applies to every cost increase due to the price of supplies, taxes, insurance, property values or demands for more profits from stockholders

No reason to freeze wages for a decade

This is strange logic from you. So I assume that you understand that each store is run as a separate business.... right? You do know that?

That store... that individual store... doesn't have stock holders taking money from it. So that was a stupid comment. Stock holders demanding more profits, does not apply to any store anywhere.

And McDonald's corporate does not fund a store. They don't. That store has to make a profit on its own. It has to pay its employees, on its own. It has to pay for repairs to the roof, or the parking lot, on it's own.

So when you bring up the fact that costs like supplies and insurance and property taxes go up, or insurance costs, or anything else.... that is true.

So you are admitting that costs do, over time, go up.... but if those costs go up.... where do you think that store has money to pay employees more wages?

They don't. The money has to come from higher prices to consumers.

Now if you live in a place, where people have low wages, like Mississippi, do you think people in a poor state like that, are going to pay high prices like they would in New York?

No. Of course not. That is ridiculous.

So what happens? They close. And people in a poor state with few employment opportunities, end up with even fewer available jobs.

The poor get poorer. The rich are still going to get richer. McDonald's isn't going to suffer, because all their stores in poor areas closed. Investors are going to invest wisely. They'll just open a store somewhere that they can make money. Meanwhile the unemployed in Mississippi stay poor and impoverished.

 

[OnePercenter]

AOC talks about about wanting to be like Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, only Britain has a minimum wage. Universal income? Finland experimented and they just ended the program because it wasn’t sustainable.

It seems she doesn’t know how those countries operate.

Since when is opening dialog a bad thing?

We have minimum wage, if she wants to open a dialogue, she needs to contact her socialist nations and ask why they don’t have minimum wage.

She needs to talk to Finland and ask why it failed on such a small scale.

We don't have a higher minimum wage because employers like to skim.

If that was the case how come they paying higher then minimum wage in red States and cutting hours in high minimum wage states?

You stupid

Who is "they?"

 

[OnePercenter]

Yeah they ain't gonna pay those illegals fifteen an hour when they can pay them less than eight now them capitalist must live in big mansions and fly jet planes.
Keeping wages low and cost of living high is how the robber barons make their living.

How about we just offer them a trip all expenses paid, back to their home country? They are here illegally! Then they can worry about the minimum wage in their shithole!

You mean jail employers (like tRump) that hire illegals?

This is just another example why you are either mentally challenged or too stupid to breathe on your own. Trump never hired an illegal. If he did, prove it! People who work for him may have done so, but if your gardener gets a DUI, we don't throw your ass in jail, do we?

Here ya go!

Making President Trump’s Bed: A Housekeeper Without Papers

 

[OnePercenter]

Whether the minimum wage is $7 dollars or $15 dollars won't make any difference in if or when a company introduces a robot or computer to take over someone's job.

With the unemployment rate at 3.6%, the robots are not helping any at this point. Massive labor shortages all over the place!

So your fiendishly clever plan is to put companies out of business and their employees out of work?

Name one company that went "out of business" because they paid their employees to much money.

The list is endless, you moron! If you pay your employees a set salary and you are not bringing in the revenue to pay them, what happens, dumbass?

If the list is endless, then name one company.

Why do companies go out to business, dumbass? It is because they could not make a profit. Why couldn't they make a profit? They were obviously paying their employees too much for the job they were performing. My God man, you are dumber than a pile of rocks!

Uber doesn't make a profit. Three of the five companies that I own don't make a profit. Can you answer why?

 

[danielpalos]

i am referring to legal adult participation in the market for labor; younger persons could get emancipated if they want, find it necessary or expedient.

the equivalent to one dollar an hour less than minimum wage to actually provide labor input to the economy.

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

Be honest, you're not talking about labor force, you're talking about paying those who won't work.

the honest part is that actually working may not be the best option if unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is available. we should not have any homeless problem; those persons should participating in our economy.

IOW, you want to take money OUT of the economy, use some of it to feed the government bureaucracy, then put a little of it back INTO the economy and hope it doesn't just disappear into the pocket of the nearest pot dealer?

You might as well try to fill a swimming pool by dipping water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. You really need to learn about opportunity cost, because that money has to come from someone who no longer has it to do something he wants.

If someone is working, they deserve to be paid what their work is worth. If they can work but won't, why should they be compensated?

what are you talking about? compensation for simply being unemployed is market friendly.

 

[danielpalos]

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

Translation to English: You want to be paid when you DECIDE not to work, not just when you're unemployed through no fault of your own.

there is no "fault" under the doctrine of employment at will.

If I'm laid off, I can get unemployment compensation. The employer pays into it and it's there to be used. That's completely different from what you're talking about, which is paying someone for nothing more than existing.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. it is termed and styled, unemployment compensation.

 

[rightwinger]

2010

Um.... no.

View attachment 264475

The price of beef, has increased barely $1 per lbs, over a period of decades. It's been slowly going up year over year, since the mid-90s.


It most certainly did not double in one year, from 2009, to 2010.
Ridiculous.

Now you might ask the question how can McDonald's handle the cost of beef going up, but not a minimum wage going up?

The answer is simple.... higher prices.

View attachment 264477

All costs are passed onto the consumer. All of them. There is no cost, whether it is the cost of payroll, or the cost of beef, that is not passed onto consumers.

Further, the cost of beef, is actually not a major cost to the store. It just isn't. It may seem like it should be, since they are primarily a burger joint, but in reality the full cost of a single big mac, in terms of food costs, is only 80¢. So out of that $4.80 for a big mac, only 80¢ is the food. That means the cost of the beef used, is less than 80¢ because that 80¢ includes the buns, the cheese, the onions, the sauce, and whatever else that is on it.

So what is the other $4? All profit? No, because if it was all profit, McDonald's would be raking in Trillions instead of Billions.

Of course you have store overhead, and you have to pay for the paper supplies, like the wrapper you put the burger in, and the bag, and so on.

But the single biggest expense, is exactly as the person before pointed out.... payroll. If you increase the price of beef, even by 100%.... we're still talking pennies per burger.

But if you increase payroll by 100%, we're talking $600,000.

Additionally, you seem to be equating a slow increase over 20 years, with a minimum wage increase over 2 years. Not at all comparable.

The price of a Big Mac has increased $1 in the ten years since min wage has increased

How many Big Macs does an employee sell in an hour?

Now you are getting into more complicated territory. When you stated the price of beef doubled, we could look at the price of a single burger, and determine how much effect the price of beef had on a single burger.

But when you talk about the minimum wage, things get drastically more complicated, and it isn't as simple as how many burgers does an employee sell.

I actually was working at a fast food joint in the 90s, when the minimum wage increased. I know that many things change, in order to offset that cost.

For example, the first thing they did was lay off all the part-time employees. We had three part time employees, and they were all laid off. So how did the store function, without those employees? We, the full time employees, were expected to do our normal duties, while we cover the jobs no longer done by part-time employees.

So that's one way to offset the minimum wage cost, which will not drive up the cost of a burger.

Another way was to reduce portion sizes. I discovered this almost by accident. So the fry station had these metal, non-adjustable fry cup holders. One day I was asked to refill the fry station with cups. But when I put the newly purchased cups into the holders, they fell straight through. The cups were physically smaller. So the large cup, was smaller than the old large cup. Medium smaller than the original medium, and so on.

They had reduced the portion sizes of the fries and the drink. This is yet another way to compensate for the increase in the minimum, without driving up prices on anything, burgers or otherwise.

And also they do sometimes also reduce the size of the beef patty as well, but usually they bring it back up to the same size later.

I remember when at Wendy's we had the Single, Double and Triple. And working the grill, I could tell that they had reduced the size of the patties. Then they came out with the "Dave's Classic" and "Dave's Classic Double". Which magically were the exact same patties as before, with a new "Dave's Classic" price. And of course they quickly stopped selling the original Single and Double.

It was a clever way of raising the price, with few people noticing.

But again, here's the bottom line.... Every single cost, is passed onto the consumers. If you demand a higher minimum wage, you are in effect demanding that YOU pay a higher price for everything. Which is exactly what happens.



Now they do eventually increase prices.

Applies to every cost increase due to the price of supplies, taxes, insurance, property values or demands for more profits from stockholders

No reason to freeze wages for a decade

This is strange logic from you. So I assume that you understand that each store is run as a separate business.... right? You do know that?

That store... that individual store... doesn't have stock holders taking money from it. So that was a stupid comment. Stock holders demanding more profits, does not apply to any store anywhere.

And McDonald's corporate does not fund a store. They don't. That store has to make a profit on its own. It has to pay its employees, on its own. It has to pay for repairs to the roof, or the parking lot, on it's own.

So when you bring up the fact that costs like supplies and insurance and property taxes go up, or insurance costs, or anything else.... that is true.

So you are admitting that costs do, over time, go up.... but if those costs go up.... where do you think that store has money to pay employees more wages?

They don't. The money has to come from higher prices to consumers.

Now if you live in a place, where people have low wages, like Mississippi, do you think people in a poor state like that, are going to pay high prices like they would in New York?

No. Of course not. That is ridiculous.

So what happens? They close. And people in a poor state with few employment opportunities, end up with even fewer available jobs.

The poor get poorer. The rich are still going to get richer. McDonald's isn't going to suffer, because all their stores in poor areas closed. Investors are going to invest wisely. They'll just open a store somewhere that they can make money. Meanwhile the unemployed in Mississippi stay poor and impoverished.

The key is....shit happens for any business

Cost of business rises. Only the cost of minimum wage labor remains frozen

 

[protectionist]

[QUOTE="bear513, post: 22521281, member: 3

Wait you vote for high tax democrats in state and local and then ***** about the high cost of living?
/QUOTE]
I voted for Trump. I'm a Republican

 

[protectionist]

So the rental payment is to benefit you alone and not the owner?

The point is the INCREASE is too large - 65%

 

[protectionist]

Only in commie land. Go try one

I prefer USA, with Republican government

 

[hadit]

So if a single woman has two kids and doesn’t work she gets $14 an hour and she gets no help for the children anymore?

in that case, welfare may be more appropriate.

we are focusing on the ready reserve labor force.

Be honest, you're not talking about labor force, you're talking about paying those who won't work.

the honest part is that actually working may not be the best option if unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is available. we should not have any homeless problem; those persons should participating in our economy.

IOW, you want to take money OUT of the economy, use some of it to feed the government bureaucracy, then put a little of it back INTO the economy and hope it doesn't just disappear into the pocket of the nearest pot dealer?

You might as well try to fill a swimming pool by dipping water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end. You really need to learn about opportunity cost, because that money has to come from someone who no longer has it to do something he wants.

If someone is working, they deserve to be paid what their work is worth. If they can work but won't, why should they be compensated?

what are you talking about? compensation for simply being unemployed is market friendly.

How? I've already outlined how you're taking money out of the economy and putting some of it back in, and you've completely failed to deal with the opportunity cost. That money you took out is no longer there to be used. Deal with it.

 

[hadit]

How does that solve your poverty that you claim will be solved?

anyone who is simply unemployed should be able to apply for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States. We should have no homeless problem due to a simply lack of income due to unemployment in our at-will employment States.

Translation to English: You want to be paid when you DECIDE not to work, not just when you're unemployed through no fault of your own.

there is no "fault" under the doctrine of employment at will.

If I'm laid off, I can get unemployment compensation. The employer pays into it and it's there to be used. That's completely different from what you're talking about, which is paying someone for nothing more than existing.

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. it is termed and styled, unemployment compensation.

No, what you want certainly is not unemployment compensation. It is welfare.