If you were a business owner faced with $10.10 minimum wage would you..

[healthmyths]

I wouldn't care, because with profit margins after all expenses, it could still be covered.


Like my work. We made $3 million in pure profits last year after all expenses and bills were paid. They could pay lots lots lots more before going negative.

GREAT! Fantastic!
Then YOU pay the increase! Why should others who are STRUGGLING to make money and aren't the profit mongers YOU obviously are pay MORE to your people!

BUT that's YOUR decision to pay what the market will bear. NOT a government one size fits all solution!

I'm proud you made a profit.. but greatly disappointed in your social consciousness that you make these great profits on the backs of the poor!

 

[Ame®icano]

It has a snowball effect. If you have to pay the janitor 10.10, then you now have to increase other employees pay...since the secretary was making 10/hr, now you have to bump up her pay to 13. Now the IT assistant who was making 13, will now expect a pay increase as well. And so on and so on up the line. It's not just bringing up the bottom...all boats have to rise as a consequence. You're looking at cutting at least 1/3, and saddling the remaining employees to pick up the slack. So congrats on the pay increase, and hope it doesn't lower morale that it cost some of your peers their job.

I would add something to this...

People that were making minimum wage of $7.25 and got their pay increased to $10.10 will not have their situation improved much, if any. Even if they do, it will not last for long, since they are still at the bottom of the ladder.

Example.

Poverty line for family of 4 is $23,850. If someone is making minimum wage of $7.25 and work 2000 hrs a year (50 wks/40 hrs), total income is $14,500 a year, well below poverty level. With increase in pay to $10.10, with working the same number of hours, the new total income is $20,200, still below poverty line.

That family will still receive government assistance such as food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, but since difference between two MW incomes is $5,700, that's about how much government will have to pay less in assistance and get more in SS and Medicare taxes.

Increase in MW will not help those people much, will increase their risk of losing jobs and only side that benefit is government itself. There is an old saying, dog doesn't bark to warn the village...

So, let me understand your logic. You believe that the extra $5700 will not help those making MW????
I am sure you see some logic there that I am missing. And did you think others making under and over minimum wage will not also see an increase in their earnings??? Always have in previous mw increases. You may want to check history.
And check history to see how employment levels changed as a result of mw increases. You will find that there were few meaningful decreases in the ue rate. And you will find that those changes were transitory. Over a fairly short period, the ue rate went along as normal at higher wage rates. As it will again, in this case.

Over the past several decades, the incomes of the wealthy have increased at an amazing rate. By hundreds of percent. The incomes of the minimum wage worker has increased very little. So, think about it. Where could that increase in mw come from??? By the way, the mw in real terms, which is the only rational way to look at it, has decreased substantially since the late 1960's. Not so with corporate profits or the earnings of the wealthy. Which proves that income redistribution does exist. From the poor through middle class to the wealthy.

Replying to your question in bold.

Exactly. Right now, they got that $5700 from government in various assistance programs. If worker makes more with increase in his pay, government will assist them less to make up to poverty line. For worker, there is pretty much no increase in total he receive from employer and government. Difference is that government saves money they give thru programs and get some extra into social security and Medicare.

 

[Bombur]

In your scenario it makes sense to fire the janitor even without the min wage change.

Even with the Roomba or whatever that is you still need someone to do everything else the janitor does. Depending on the scenario it may make sense to buy the Roomba thing and keep the janitor on to do even more work. It may make sense to hire an outside contractor to do the clean-up. There are a lot of different scenarios that may make sense for a business.

 

[midcan5]

Ah gee dare special...

"If rampant salary inflation were explained purely in economic terms, there is the grave risk (from the beneficiaries perspective) that it could be falsified using economic evidence, namely that these rewards don't translate into performance, as it is well-understood that they don't. It needs, therefore, a substrate which suggests that these people are not ordinary, culturally or anthropologically, and can therefore not be measured using the yardsticks familiar to the rest of us."

potlatch: the philosophical anthropology of the 1%

 

[OnePercenter]

So lets put this into prospective.

With existing contracts the two companies that I angel invest will see $55M dollars in revenue for 2014. The lowest wage earner makes $23.50/hr with company paid benefits. Employee costs will be $26.4M.

When an employer tells you he can't afford to pay $10.10/hr.......He's lying, stupid, or has no business being in business.

In your angel investments, of those two, how many are in the hospitality business?

None. Printing, advertising, engineering, and construction.

 

[healthmyths]

So lets put this into prospective.

With existing contracts the two companies that I angel invest will see $55M dollars in revenue for 2014. The lowest wage earner makes $23.50/hr with company paid benefits. Employee costs will be $26.4M.

When an employer tells you he can't afford to pay $10.10/hr.......He's lying, stupid, or has no business being in business.

In your angel investments, of those two, how many are in the hospitality business?

None. Printing, advertising, engineering, and construction.

How many of your employees would work for minimum wage? None. Why because they can go down the street and get paid $23.50 because of their skill sets. That seems obvious!
For someone who invested you don't seem to comprehend the concept of low level entry jobs WHICH is what the minimum pays for in skill sets!

FACTS!!!
n 2011 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.

Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
From the above chart from the US Census Bureau, of the 3.8 million nearly 2 million are under 24 years old.

So why are you hell bent to favor putting more kids under 24 out of work which WILL happen as by illustration shows... these low skilled entry workers will be replaced by robots!
Then where at least will these kids getting any real life experiences in getting to work on time,following instructions, and the satisfaction of doing a good job?
You're attitude is to hell with these kids.. kids that most likely don't have any education.
And you want to abandon them??

 

[OnePercenter]

In your angel investments, of those two, how many are in the hospitality business?

None. Printing, advertising, engineering, and construction.

How many of your employees would work for minimum wage? None. Why because they can go down the street and get paid $23.50 because of their skill sets. That seems obvious!
For someone who invested you don't seem to comprehend the concept of low level entry jobs WHICH is what the minimum pays for in skill sets!

FACTS!!!
n 2011 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum.

Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
From the above chart from the US Census Bureau, of the 3.8 million nearly 2 million are under 24 years old.

So why are you hell bent to favor putting more kids under 24 out of work which WILL happen as by illustration shows... these low skilled entry workers will be replaced by robots!
Then where at least will these kids getting any real life experiences in getting to work on time,following instructions, and the satisfaction of doing a good job?
You're attitude is to hell with these kids.. kids that most likely don't have any education.
And you want to abandon them??

The minimum wage of my companies is $23.50/hr.

The concept of low level entry jobs defines an employer being a cheap ass that doesn't understand that his employees make him all of his money.

 

[OnePercenter]

A) Since the minimum wage paid is actually $10.87 (people forget employers pay equal SS/Medicare...) versus what a janitor at $7.25 ($7.80 with FICA)..as a small business owner would you pay the additional $3.06 per hour or $6,375.98 more per year.. OR

B) fire the janitor and buy the below for $7,184 and in the first year save $15,431?

HMMMM which should you do????

Keep spending $22,000 or
save $22,000 by letting the janitor go?

Janitor robot does more than clean floors Concept droid has the flexibility to be a commercial success
Janitor robot does more than clean floors | News | TechRadar
View attachment 29420

Me and my father have decided over a decade ago, shortly after Bush got elected, that it's best to keep the business small with me and my father working - the hassles of hiring were too much, downright scary filling out the tax forms.

We now know whats wrong with small business in America!

 

[OnePercenter]

Janitor robot need maintenance and servicing.

If company had one janitor, replacing him/her with one robot won't make big impact, you still have to pay someone to service and support a robot. If existing janitor learns how to do it, it will make his job easier and maybe increase his pay. If company has ten janitors, they can replace them with ten robots and still have a need for just one maybe two support persons. That's where real saving is, cause most of janitors, if not all will lose their jobs.

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

 

[healthmyths]

Janitor robot need maintenance and servicing.

If company had one janitor, replacing him/her with one robot won't make big impact, you still have to pay someone to service and support a robot. If existing janitor learns how to do it, it will make his job easier and maybe increase his pay. If company has ten janitors, they can replace them with ten robots and still have a need for just one maybe two support persons. That's where real saving is, cause most of janitors, if not all will lose their jobs.

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Rshermr]

Janitor robot need maintenance and servicing.

If company had one janitor, replacing him/her with one robot won't make big impact, you still have to pay someone to service and support a robot. If existing janitor learns how to do it, it will make his job easier and maybe increase his pay. If company has ten janitors, they can replace them with ten robots and still have a need for just one maybe two support persons. That's where real saving is, cause most of janitors, if not all will lose their jobs.

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

WOW. That was profound. Minimum wage applies to the company needing the janitorial work, and the company providing that work as a service. Either way, the wages of those doing the work increases. So no, me boy, the existing minimum wage janitorial employees do not go, though they may change employers.
Go read, get some understanding, and then try to say something that is rational. And no, me boy, people do not forget that employers pay benefits like FICA. It is a really, really simple concept. It is the ignorant or stupid that believe that it is hard for folks to understand a concept like fica payments. STUPID PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THEY KNOW THINGS OTHERS DO NOT KNOW.

 

[HenryBHough]

So no, me boy, the existing minimum wage janitorial employees do not go, though they may change employers.

Interesting conjecture there!

Those laid off employees might well change employers and even go to work for the robotized janitorial company provided:

The RoboJan company isn't already fully staffed
The unemployed former janitors have the right skills to repair or maintain robots.

Else?

Search for one of the ever-dwindling number of minimum wage jobs (yes, the new minimum). Good luck with that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

WOW. That was profound. Minimum wage applies to the company needing the janitorial work, and the company providing that work as a service. Either way, the wages of those doing the work increases. So no, me boy, the existing minimum wage janitorial employees do not go, though they may change employers.
Go read, get some understanding, and then try to say something that is rational. And no, me boy, people do not forget that employers pay benefits like FICA. It is a really, really simple concept. It is the ignorant or stupid that believe that it is hard for folks to understand a concept like fica payments. STUPID PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THEY KNOW THINGS OTHERS DO NOT KNOW.

Do you have no real world experience? The wages of those doing the work increases. There just aren't as many of them.

How many jobs did self service gas pumps eliminate?

 

[Rshermr]

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

WOW. That was profound. Minimum wage applies to the company needing the janitorial work, and the company providing that work as a service. Either way, the wages of those doing the work increases. So no, me boy, the existing minimum wage janitorial employees do not go, though they may change employers.
Go read, get some understanding, and then try to say something that is rational. And no, me boy, people do not forget that employers pay benefits like FICA. It is a really, really simple concept. It is the ignorant or stupid that believe that it is hard for folks to understand a concept like fica payments. STUPID PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THEY KNOW THINGS OTHERS DO NOT KNOW.

Do you have no real world experience? The wages of those doing the work increases. There just aren't as many of them.

How many jobs did self service gas pumps eliminate?

Take a look at the history of mw increases. Seldom does it occur that there are major or long term increases in unemployment as a result of mw increases. Sometimes just the opposite. But in general, it is nearly always true that over the longer run, usually months, the ue rate is about the same to lower.
Why lower?? significant increases in spending, which is stimulus. Just basic economics. Better productivity of employees. Read the Costco story.

I hate to drop this news flash on you, but the self service gas pumps were NOT a mw increase, they were a technological change. Maybe some remedial logic classes??

 

[OnePercenter]

Janitor robot need maintenance and servicing.

If company had one janitor, replacing him/her with one robot won't make big impact, you still have to pay someone to service and support a robot. If existing janitor learns how to do it, it will make his job easier and maybe increase his pay. If company has ten janitors, they can replace them with ten robots and still have a need for just one maybe two support persons. That's where real saving is, cause most of janitors, if not all will lose their jobs.

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

Why would you use the lowest bid? Wouldn't you use a company that is capable of doing the job?

 

[healthmyths]

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

Why would you use the lowest bid? Wouldn't you use a company that is capable of doing the job?

Evidently YOU've never been in the business of evaluating proposals.
Generally speaking there are for professionals like me that use other analytics in awarding a bid, but in trying to keep people who like you have never been involved in awarding bids, I was keeping it simple. I guess it stumped you thought THAT was the ONLY factor.
There may have been lower bids but the lowest bid that met the RFQ specifications would be the ultimate winner.

But even then you missed the point!
Once the contract winner starts, the minimum wage janitor would be let go.
The sub-contracting would most likely not occurred if the minimum wage increase had not occurred and the low skilled janitor would still have a job.

 

[OnePercenter]

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

Why would you use the lowest bid? Wouldn't you use a company that is capable of doing the job?

Evidently YOU've never been in the business of evaluating proposals.
Generally speaking there are for professionals like me that use other analytics in awarding a bid, but in trying to keep people who like you have never been involved in awarding bids, I was keeping it simple. I guess it stumped you thought THAT was the ONLY factor.
There may have been lower bids but the lowest bid that met the RFQ specifications would be the ultimate winner.

But even then you missed the point!
Once the contract winner starts, the minimum wage janitor would be let go.
The sub-contracting would most likely not occurred if the minimum wage increase had not occurred and the low skilled janitor would still have a job.

Sure I do Son. Many times over my career.

Is the company capable of doing the job for the price you want to pay?

There you have it!

 

[SayMyName]

Faced with that, I would stop being an absentee owner and start enjoying what a true businessman does, and that is work his business. Then, you are more selective in who you hire and can measure your own sweat against the costs and return the savings to the customer once again.

 

[healthmyths]

Janitorial services should be contracted out.

To a janitorial service with the lowest bid which again would be those using minimal human supervision/repair and robots.
All because the employer is confronted with a cost /benefit analysis... What is the cost at $10.80 (people keep forgetting EMPLOYERS pay FICA also) versus janitorial service using robots.
And if janitorial service still lowest bid without robots, existing minimum wage janitor employees let go.

All a cost/benefit analysis.

WOW. That was profound. Minimum wage applies to the company needing the janitorial work, and the company providing that work as a service. Either way, the wages of those doing the work increases. So no, me boy, the existing minimum wage janitorial employees do not go, though they may change employers.
Go read, get some understanding, and then try to say something that is rational. And no, me boy, people do not forget that employers pay benefits like FICA. It is a really, really simple concept. It is the ignorant or stupid that believe that it is hard for folks to understand a concept like fica payments. STUPID PEOPLE ALWAYS THINK THEY KNOW THINGS OTHERS DO NOT KNOW.

Then why do people refer to it as "$10.10" minimum wage and not "$10.80" if EVERYONE including you know that?
And again... WHY would the existing janitorial STAY?
Now they could be "hired" by the janitorial contractor that won the low bid but that is NOT the original premise of the thread.

And also again.. the new contractor may not require as many human employees i.e. going robotic which is why they won the bid!

 

[healthmyths]

Why would you use the lowest bid? Wouldn't you use a company that is capable of doing the job?

Evidently YOU've never been in the business of evaluating proposals.
Generally speaking there are for professionals like me that use other analytics in awarding a bid, but in trying to keep people who like you have never been involved in awarding bids, I was keeping it simple. I guess it stumped you thought THAT was the ONLY factor.
There may have been lower bids but the lowest bid that met the RFQ specifications would be the ultimate winner.

But even then you missed the point!
Once the contract winner starts, the minimum wage janitor would be let go.
The sub-contracting would most likely not occurred if the minimum wage increase had not occurred and the low skilled janitor would still have a job.

Sure I do Son. Many times over my career.

Is the company capable of doing the job for the price you want to pay?

There you have it!

Then if you have done many RFQ analysis, you would not have made the comment i.e. assuming other factors weren't considered.