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

[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.

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!

You are making a statement of what will happen based on what you want to believe. And you seem obsessed with robots and janitorial services. Not the point, me boy. And not representative overall. Look at the history of mw increases. Gives the best indication of what will happen.
You, me boy, are pushing agenda. You want to believe that a modest increase in mw will have catastrophic results. Even though it never has in the past. Because, of course, that is what you want to believe. Nonsense, of course.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

You are amuzing. You seem to think that doing rfq's have something to do with minimum wage relationship to employment. It does not. Whether done with rfq or rfp or a simple contract let, it makes zero difference. If min. wage is increased it will take x employees to do the job in any case. New contract, continuing contract, or no contract. Costs will increase. And the cost will be born by employees loosing jobs, or by customers paying more, or by companies cutting profits by some amount.

Here is the thing, me boy, neither you or I can read the future. But we could, if we cared read about the past. You only care about your agenda, which you continue to push. It must be sad to be that ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by study. But not by believing simply what your agenda is.

 

[Truthseeker420]

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

I was in White Castle the other day and they had installed touch screen menus, but they had to hire an extra cashier to help customers figure it out and not screw up the orders.

 

[oldfart]

Then why do people refer to it as "$10.10" minimum wage and not "$10.80" if EVERYONE including you know that?

Why are you fixated on adding in employer FICA? Why not go straight to the BLS reported cost of labor?

The number is going to vary from state to state and job classification to job classification. In our payroll processing service, we add 14%--43% to cover state and federal unemployment, workers compensation coverage, and similar legally mandated costs (our fee is added onto that). The low end is clerical and the high end is underwater and over-water construction.

From the BLS as an industry group, service workers cost $16.73 per hour, of which $11.88 is wages and salaries, so it is a pretty good proxy for a $10.10 minimum wage. Legally required benefits such as I listed add $1.57 per hour, paid leave $0.90, supplemental pay $0.31, insurance $1.39, and retirement $0.68 per hour on average.

Table 1. Civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group

These are the figures a businessman will look at. Without any optional benefits or overtime, the minimum wage janitor is already at $8.59 an hour in labor cost.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

You are amuzing. You seem to think that doing rfq's have something to do with minimum wage relationship to employment. It does not. Whether done with rfq or rfp or a simple contract let, it makes zero difference. If min. wage is increased it will take x employees to do the job in any case. New contract, continuing contract, or no contract. Costs will increase. And the cost will be born by employees loosing jobs, or by customers paying more, or by companies cutting profits by some amount.

Here is the thing, me boy, neither you or I can read the future. But we could, if we cared read about the past. You only care about your agenda, which you continue to push. It must be sad to be that ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by study. But not by believing simply what your agenda is.

You say "be sad to be that ignorant"... coming from a person ..
a)used the word "loosing" jobs - it's losing loser!
b) used the word "will be born". It is "borne" ignoramous!
c) can't spell "amazing" even when there is a red dotted underline... NOW that is amazingly STUPID!
d) You have NO idea what an RFQ or RFP stands for do you?
e) Being the ignorant sot, YOU ignored the premise..i.e. if you were a business owner faced..." I was pointing out simple economics are at play, i.e. replacing minimum wage $10.80 janitor with robot whose cost is less then 1/3 the cost of paying the minimum wage it makes plain business sense.

Your comments are totally discounted as valid if you can't even spell simple words... to me you must be a high school drop out!

 

[Rshermr]

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

You are amuzing. You seem to think that doing rfq's have something to do with minimum wage relationship to employment. It does not. Whether done with rfq or rfp or a simple contract let, it makes zero difference. If min. wage is increased it will take x employees to do the job in any case. New contract, continuing contract, or no contract. Costs will increase. And the cost will be born by employees loosing jobs, or by customers paying more, or by companies cutting profits by some amount.

Here is the thing, me boy, neither you or I can read the future. But we could, if we cared read about the past. You only care about your agenda, which you continue to push. It must be sad to be that ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by study. But not by believing simply what your agenda is.

You say "be sad to be that ignorant"... coming from a person ..
a)used the word "loosing" jobs - it's losing loser!
b) used the word "will be born". It is "borne" ignoramous!
c) can't spell "amazing" even when there is a red dotted underline... NOW that is amazingly STUPID!
d) You have NO idea what an RFQ or RFP stands for do you?
e) Being the ignorant sot, YOU ignored the premise..i.e. if you were a business owner faced..." I was pointing out simple economics are at play, i.e. replacing minimum wage $10.80 janitor with robot whose cost is less then 1/3 the cost of paying the minimum wage it makes plain business sense.

Your comments are totally discounted as valid if you can't even spell simple words... to me you must be a high school drop out!

Sorry about the spelling errors. Thanks for acting as a base level secretary and correcting them. I will take a few more seconds to check next time.
You are so excited about acting as a spelling checker that you showed your inability to do that simple task. Here is the definition of born, for your education:
born adjective \ˈbȯrn\:
: brought into life by the process of birth
and of borne, which you claimed should have been used:
borne adjective \ˈbȯrn\
: carried by : spread by
By the way, ignoramous, which you used in an attempt to denigrate me, is actually spelled ignoramus. So , you are welcome.
Best of luck in further spell checking. Maybe some remedial English would be of help to you.

Yes, I do indeed know what rfq's and rfp's are. Have been involved in creating many, and responding to many. If you need some help, let me know and I will gladly educate you. For a price. I hate to see you continue as an ignoramus.

Now, I notice that you have not looked at the economic history of mw increases. And just continuing to post drivel. Good for you. Ignorance is indeed bliss, eh, me boy??

 

[Political Junky]

In 1969 a person could exist on $60. a week ... that's $1.50 an hour. Today that $1.50 would equal $9.56 or $382.40 per week.

 

[healthmyths]

You are amuzing. You seem to think that doing rfq's have something to do with minimum wage relationship to employment. It does not. Whether done with rfq or rfp or a simple contract let, it makes zero difference. If min. wage is increased it will take x employees to do the job in any case. New contract, continuing contract, or no contract. Costs will increase. And the cost will be born by employees loosing jobs, or by customers paying more, or by companies cutting profits by some amount.

Here is the thing, me boy, neither you or I can read the future. But we could, if we cared read about the past. You only care about your agenda, which you continue to push. It must be sad to be that ignorant. Ignorance can be cured by study. But not by believing simply what your agenda is.

You say "be sad to be that ignorant"... coming from a person ..
a)used the word "loosing" jobs - it's losing loser!
b) used the word "will be born". It is "borne" ignoramous!
c) can't spell "amazing" even when there is a red dotted underline... NOW that is amazingly STUPID!
d) You have NO idea what an RFQ or RFP stands for do you?
e) Being the ignorant sot, YOU ignored the premise..i.e. if you were a business owner faced..." I was pointing out simple economics are at play, i.e. replacing minimum wage $10.80 janitor with robot whose cost is less then 1/3 the cost of paying the minimum wage it makes plain business sense.

Your comments are totally discounted as valid if you can't even spell simple words... to me you must be a high school drop out!

Sorry about the spelling errors. Thanks for acting as a base level secretary and correcting them. I will take a few more seconds to check next time.
You are so excited about acting as a spelling checker that you showed your inability to do that simple task. Here is the definition of born, for your education:
born adjective \ˈbȯrn\:
: brought into life by the process of birth
and of borne, which you claimed should have been used:
borne adjective \ˈbȯrn\
: carried by : spread by

By the way, ignoramous, which you used in an attempt to denigrate me, is actually spelled ignoramus. So , you are welcome.
Best of luck in further spell checking. Maybe some remedial English would be of help to you.

Yes, I do indeed know what rfq's and rfp's are. Have been involved in creating many, and responding to many. If you need some help, let me know and I will gladly educate you. For a price. I hate to see you continue as an ignoramus.

Now, I notice that you have not looked at the economic history of mw increases. And just continuing to post drivel. Good for you. Ignorance is indeed bliss, eh, me boy??

YES the word "Born" means to give birth.
The context YOU used "born" should have been:

"borne" bôrn/Submit
1. past participle of bear.
adjective
1. carried or transported by. "waterborne bacteria"

Simple google check if YOU took the time as I DID!..
https://www.google.com/search?q=bor...j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

Yes you are right. I was wrong in the spelling of "ignoramus". That is truly embarrassing and I apologize.


First of IDIOT where are are sources for your dumb statement regarding "economic history of mw increases"???
I source you don't . At least I provide points to dispute if you can but YOU don't! YOU guess. Where are your sources??

"The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs

"In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.

But a study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that a higher minimum wage can actually increase the proportion of families living at or near the poverty line, as the resulting reduction in work hours (or a loss of employment altogether) leads to less take-home pay rather than more.


And of course most people don't consider the other benefits accruing to minimum wage earners!!!

Congress has put in place a significant income supplement in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A single parent with two children receives an additional $5,200 in income from this credit, bumping their effective hourly wage from $7.25 to $9.76. Some states have added to the federal EITC, boosting the wage even further.

The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs - Forbes

Finally why is there no concern on YOUR supposedly worldly wise knowledge for the fundamentals of entry level jobs which are what almost all the minimum wage earners are doing?
Keep raising the minimum keeps the people that need the job training that obviously idiots like you THINK schools are suppose to do... but they aren't!
Simple things.. like how you dress. How you count. How you take instructions!
All of these simple low skilled people for the most part never have been taught and that is why they are at the minimum wage low skill entry level positions.. but they are learning.

But idiots like you thinking that you are being "compassionate".. all you are doing is putting people out of work!

Again.. my illustration... why pay another $5,000 because of raising to $10.80 when you can buy a robot! Save nearly $15,000 a year and let the janitor go!

Jobs lost because idiots like YOU don't have one ounce of business or common sense!

And again.. I apologize for misspelling "ignoramus" and I'll continue to call you that until YOU provide YOUR sources for YOUR premises!

 

[Noomi]

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

If I owned a business in Australia, I would be paying that person at least $14 an hour to work, no matter what their role was.

 

[Rshermr]

What you do not want to understand is that there are many levels of minimum wage level increases that can be made, and that have been made. From 1978 until now, the mw increases have been between 20 cents and 75 cents per raise. That was over a period of 31 years. Which, of course, did not keep pace with inflation. And every time the mw was raised, the con tools were out saying that jobs were going to be reduced. During Reagan's eight years, there were NO mw increases. Workers real earnings decreased substantially.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

In real terms, the minimum wage has decreased since 1967. Substantially. In that same period, gdp per capita has increased. Substantially. The net is that since 1967 real gdp per capita has more than doubled, while real minimum wages have decreased. Someone is making a lot more, but those earning minimum wage have lost. Those making the big increases are in the upper wage earnings.

By the way, gdp per capita has increased as minimum wage increases have occurred. Since the statistics were kept in the 1930's.



The rest is just garbage, me boy. Raising minimum wage can decrease employment, or not. Largely depends on the amount of the raise. In some locales, mw has been increased to $15 per hour. That concerns me. It will be interesting to watch. But even that does not bring them even in terms of earnings increases with the wealthy.

 

[Rshermr]

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

If I owned a business in Australia, I would be paying that person at least $14 an hour to work, no matter what their role was.

Yes, but Healthmyths has a robot fetish.

 

[healthmyths]

What you do not want to understand is that there are many levels of minimum wage level increases that can be made, and that have been made. From 1978 until now, the mw increases have been between 20 cents and 75 cents per raise. That was over a period of 31 years. Which, of course, did not keep pace with inflation. And every time the mw was raised, the con tools were out saying that jobs were going to be reduced. During Reagan's eight years, there were NO mw increases. Workers real earnings decreased substantially.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

In real terms, the minimum wage has decreased since 1967. Substantially. In that same period, gdp per capita has increased. Substantially. The net is that since 1967 real gdp per capita has more than doubled, while real minimum wages have decreased. Someone is making a lot more, but those earning minimum wage have lost. Those making the big increases are in the upper wage earnings.

By the way, gdp per capita has increased as minimum wage increases have occurred. Since the statistics were kept in the 1930's.

View attachment 29556

The rest is just garbage, me boy. Raising minimum wage can decrease employment, or not. Largely depends on the amount of the raise. In some locales, mw has been increased to $15 per hour. That concerns me. It will be interesting to watch. But even that does not bring them even in terms of earnings increases with the wealthy.

Do YOU know how many people under 24 that make minimum wage are at risk of losing their jobs?

 

[rightwinger]

I'd fire him and go with this

 

[Rshermr]

What you do not want to understand is that there are many levels of minimum wage level increases that can be made, and that have been made. From 1978 until now, the mw increases have been between 20 cents and 75 cents per raise. That was over a period of 31 years. Which, of course, did not keep pace with inflation. And every time the mw was raised, the con tools were out saying that jobs were going to be reduced. During Reagan's eight years, there were NO mw increases. Workers real earnings decreased substantially.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

In real terms, the minimum wage has decreased since 1967. Substantially. In that same period, gdp per capita has increased. Substantially. The net is that since 1967 real gdp per capita has more than doubled, while real minimum wages have decreased. Someone is making a lot more, but those earning minimum wage have lost. Those making the big increases are in the upper wage earnings.

By the way, gdp per capita has increased as minimum wage increases have occurred. Since the statistics were kept in the 1930's.



View attachment 29556

The rest is just garbage, me boy. Raising minimum wage can decrease employment, or not. Largely depends on the amount of the raise. In some locales, mw has been increased to $15 per hour. That concerns me. It will be interesting to watch. But even that does not bring them even in terms of earnings increases with the wealthy.

Do YOU know how many people under 24 that make minimum wage are at risk of losing their jobs?

No. And neither do you. History would say few to none. I have provided links to prove that. If you have some proof, provide a link. Your opinion, or mine, is going to tell us NOTHING. A little proof would be helpful. I showed you mine. Where is yours.

By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. What matters is not risk, but outcome. Which we will know one day. Usually about 3 to 6 months after the mw increase. History says the net loss will approach ZERO.

 

[healthmyths]

What you do not want to understand is that there are many levels of minimum wage level increases that can be made, and that have been made. From 1978 until now, the mw increases have been between 20 cents and 75 cents per raise. That was over a period of 31 years. Which, of course, did not keep pace with inflation. And every time the mw was raised, the con tools were out saying that jobs were going to be reduced. During Reagan's eight years, there were NO mw increases. Workers real earnings decreased substantially.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

In real terms, the minimum wage has decreased since 1967. Substantially. In that same period, gdp per capita has increased. Substantially. The net is that since 1967 real gdp per capita has more than doubled, while real minimum wages have decreased. Someone is making a lot more, but those earning minimum wage have lost. Those making the big increases are in the upper wage earnings.

By the way, gdp per capita has increased as minimum wage increases have occurred. Since the statistics were kept in the 1930's.



View attachment 29556

The rest is just garbage, me boy. Raising minimum wage can decrease employment, or not. Largely depends on the amount of the raise. In some locales, mw has been increased to $15 per hour. That concerns me. It will be interesting to watch. But even that does not bring them even in terms of earnings increases with the wealthy.

Do YOU know how many people under 24 that make minimum wage are at risk of losing their jobs?

No. And neither do you. History would say few to none. I have provided links to prove that. If you have some proof, provide a link. Your opinion, or mine, is going to tell us NOTHING. A little proof would be helpful. I showed you mine. Where is yours.

By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. What matters is not risk, but outcome. Which we will know one day. Usually about 3 to 6 months after the mw increase. History says the net loss will approach ZERO.

You wrote: "By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. "

WRONG!!!

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

My point is clear. Employers will have to fork over $5,000 more a year for an unskilled, entry level worker age under 24... so who really loses??

But people like you low information sort... you FEEL rather then think and that's the problem... you felt there were more but you didn't research and find out!
SO how many people will be affected by raising minimum wage ??? ALL of us!
A) cost of services/goods will increase to cover rising employee costs BECAUSE all employees will then want pay raises .."if the janitor is making as much as I a manager.." I want pay raise!"
That conversation will be taking place after raising the minimum wage!
B) Some of those 3.8 million will BE REPLACED by robots!!!
Look at this restaurant of the future that is NOW!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Do YOU know how many people under 24 that make minimum wage are at risk of losing their jobs?

No. And neither do you. History would say few to none. I have provided links to prove that. If you have some proof, provide a link. Your opinion, or mine, is going to tell us NOTHING. A little proof would be helpful. I showed you mine. Where is yours.

By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. What matters is not risk, but outcome. Which we will know one day. Usually about 3 to 6 months after the mw increase. History says the net loss will approach ZERO.

You wrote: "By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. "

WRONG!!!

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

My point is clear. Employers will have to fork over $5,000 more a year for an unskilled, entry level worker age under 24... so who really loses??

But people like you low information sort... you FEEL rather then think and that's the problem... you felt there were more but you didn't research and find out!
SO how many people will be affected by raising minimum wage ??? ALL of us!
A) cost of services/goods will increase to cover rising employee costs BECAUSE all employees will then want pay raises .."if the janitor is making as much as I a manager.." I want pay raise!"
That conversation will be taking place after raising the minimum wage!
B) Some of those 3.8 million will BE REPLACED by robots!!!
Look at this restaurant of the future that is NOW!!!


View attachment 29564

Here is another quote from this low information source, me boy:
"A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.

Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in minimum wages don’t affect employment at all. Other things being equal, they can obviously have an impact. Faced with a rise in their wage bills, some employers may choose to employ fewer workers. But this happens much less often than some elementary textbooks (and many neoclassical economists) would suggest. When the minimum wage goes up, many firms that employ low-wage workers simply pass on the higher costs to the customers in higher prices. (Since many of their competitors face an identical rise in costs, they don’t necessarily lose any business.) Other firms work their employees harder or give them more training, to increase their productivity. Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect is generally a small one, and it is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.

As is—or as should be—well known, there are also a number of studies that show minimum-wage laws having no effect at all on employment, and even some studies showing a small positive effect. Since Berkeley’s David Card and Princeton’s Alan Krueger (who is now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) carried out their famous survey of New Jersey fast-food restaurants, two decades ago, and a found a slight increase in employment following a rise in the minimum wage, an enormous amount of effort has been put into discrediting their results, which many orthodox economists saw as a violation of fundamental economic laws. (If the price goes up, the quantity demanded must fall!) But this effort has largely failed. For whatever reason, minimum-wage laws just don’t seem to affect employment very much."
The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker
The fact that GDP per capita has never been affected by mw increases as shown in on of my prior posts should also tell you something, assuming you have brain activity.

Sorry, me boy. You loose.

 

[robh74696]

Originally posted by healthmyths

Look at this restaurant of the future that is NOW!!!

And look how crowded they are. A robot waiter is useless if no one can afford to go eat there because they lost their job to robotics.

 

[healthmyths]

No. And neither do you. History would say few to none. I have provided links to prove that. If you have some proof, provide a link. Your opinion, or mine, is going to tell us NOTHING. A little proof would be helpful. I showed you mine. Where is yours.

By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. What matters is not risk, but outcome. Which we will know one day. Usually about 3 to 6 months after the mw increase. History says the net loss will approach ZERO.

You wrote: "By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. "

WRONG!!!

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

My point is clear. Employers will have to fork over $5,000 more a year for an unskilled, entry level worker age under 24... so who really loses??

But people like you low information sort... you FEEL rather then think and that's the problem... you felt there were more but you didn't research and find out!
SO how many people will be affected by raising minimum wage ??? ALL of us!
A) cost of services/goods will increase to cover rising employee costs BECAUSE all employees will then want pay raises .."if the janitor is making as much as I a manager.." I want pay raise!"
That conversation will be taking place after raising the minimum wage!
B) Some of those 3.8 million will BE REPLACED by robots!!!
Look at this restaurant of the future that is NOW!!!


View attachment 29564

Here is another quote from this low information source, me boy:
"A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.

Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in minimum wages don’t affect employment at all. Other things being equal, they can obviously have an impact. Faced with a rise in their wage bills, some employers may choose to employ fewer workers. But this happens much less often than some elementary textbooks (and many neoclassical economists) would suggest. When the minimum wage goes up, many firms that employ low-wage workers simply pass on the higher costs to the customers in higher prices. (Since many of their competitors face an identical rise in costs, they don’t necessarily lose any business.) Other firms work their employees harder or give them more training, to increase their productivity. Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect is generally a small one, and it is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.

As is—or as should be—well known, there are also a number of studies that show minimum-wage laws having no effect at all on employment, and even some studies showing a small positive effect. Since Berkeley’s David Card and Princeton’s Alan Krueger (who is now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) carried out their famous survey of New Jersey fast-food restaurants, two decades ago, and a found a slight increase in employment following a rise in the minimum wage, an enormous amount of effort has been put into discrediting their results, which many orthodox economists saw as a violation of fundamental economic laws. (If the price goes up, the quantity demanded must fall!) But this effort has largely failed. For whatever reason, minimum-wage laws just don’t seem to affect employment very much."
The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker
The fact that GDP per capita has never been affected by mw increases as shown in on of my prior posts should also tell you something, assuming you have brain activity.

Sorry, me boy. You loose.

A) NO YOU LOSE! You said.."question is unknowable"!!!

What the f..k is this?????
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

B) NO YOU LOSE AGAIN... "no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate."

"The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs

"In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.

But a study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that a higher minimum wage can actually increase the proportion of families living at or near the poverty line, as the resulting reduction in work hours (or a loss of employment altogether) leads to less take-home pay rather than more.

And of course most people don't consider the other benefits accruing to minimum wage earners!!!

Congress has put in place a significant income supplement in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A single parent with two children receives an additional $5,200 in income from this credit, bumping their effective hourly wage from $7.25 to $9.76. Some states have added to the federal EITC, boosting the wage even further.

The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs - Forbes

So not only can YOU not spell " it is LOSE" NOT "LOOSE"!
But you also said it was "unknowable" AND I showed you it was!
Then you throw out there is no link between minimum wage and unemployment rate..
AND I provide you academic studies ...
So ONCE again... You LOSE on spelling... you lose on "unknowables" you lose on THERE IS an obvious link between minimum wage and unemployment!

I am 100% confident that somewhere at sometime an employer faced with an increasing minimum wage will do one or all of the following:
a) Let the least seniority worker go and increase the hours of the rest of the employees obviously paying more but NOT more then savings my letting employees go.
b) Hire robots as the original thread proposed as an alternative and in doing so save money in lower employee costs, SS/Medicare/ minimum wage.
c) Contracting with a firm that can offer same services at lower price and in doing so let the employee go.

Any one or more of the above happens. It is how good businesses operate in order to meet their margins.

But most uninformed and haters of capitalism don't comprehend this.

 

[Rshermr]

You wrote: "By the way, the answer to your question is unknowable. "

WRONG!!!

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

My point is clear. Employers will have to fork over $5,000 more a year for an unskilled, entry level worker age under 24... so who really loses??

But people like you low information sort... you FEEL rather then think and that's the problem... you felt there were more but you didn't research and find out!
SO how many people will be affected by raising minimum wage ??? ALL of us!
A) cost of services/goods will increase to cover rising employee costs BECAUSE all employees will then want pay raises .."if the janitor is making as much as I a manager.." I want pay raise!"
That conversation will be taking place after raising the minimum wage!
B) Some of those 3.8 million will BE REPLACED by robots!!!
Look at this restaurant of the future that is NOW!!!


View attachment 29564

Here is another quote from this low information source, me boy:
"A second important and (largely) undisputed finding is that there is no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate. During the nineteen sixties, when the minimum wage was raised sharply, unemployment rates were sharply lower than they were in the nineteen eighties, when the real value of the minimum wage fell dramatically. If you look across the states, some of which set a minimum wage above the federal minimum, you can’t see any sign of higher rates leading to higher unemployment. In Nevada, where the national minimum of $7.25 an hour applies, the jobless rate is 10.2 per cent. In Vermont, where the minimum wage is $8.60 an hour, the unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent. What these figures tell us is that other factors, such as the overall state of the economy and how local industries are doing, matter a lot more for employment than the level of the minimum wage does.

Now, this doesn’t mean that changes in minimum wages don’t affect employment at all. Other things being equal, they can obviously have an impact. Faced with a rise in their wage bills, some employers may choose to employ fewer workers. But this happens much less often than some elementary textbooks (and many neoclassical economists) would suggest. When the minimum wage goes up, many firms that employ low-wage workers simply pass on the higher costs to the customers in higher prices. (Since many of their competitors face an identical rise in costs, they don’t necessarily lose any business.) Other firms work their employees harder or give them more training, to increase their productivity. Even in academic studies that do show higher minimum wages having a negative impact on employment, the effect is generally a small one, and it is usually confined to teen-agers and unskilled workers.

As is—or as should be—well known, there are also a number of studies that show minimum-wage laws having no effect at all on employment, and even some studies showing a small positive effect. Since Berkeley’s David Card and Princeton’s Alan Krueger (who is now chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) carried out their famous survey of New Jersey fast-food restaurants, two decades ago, and a found a slight increase in employment following a rise in the minimum wage, an enormous amount of effort has been put into discrediting their results, which many orthodox economists saw as a violation of fundamental economic laws. (If the price goes up, the quantity demanded must fall!) But this effort has largely failed. For whatever reason, minimum-wage laws just don’t seem to affect employment very much."
The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage : The New Yorker
The fact that GDP per capita has never been affected by mw increases as shown in on of my prior posts should also tell you something, assuming you have brain activity.

Sorry, me boy. You loose.

A) NO YOU LOSE! You said.."question is unknowable"!!!

What the f..k is this?????
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics... Tables 1 - 10; Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2011
Total, 16 years and over 73,926,000 - total at or below minimum wage 3,829,000 5.2%
16 to 24 years 14,436,000 --- total at or below minimum wage 1,896,000 2.56%
25 years and over 59,490,000 -- total at or below minimum wage 1,933,000 2.61%
So Idiot! IT IS knowable first of all!
And guess what ...dummy... Which group would have the most to lose??
2.5% of kids under 24 who had NO skills,etc....
All for 2.6% over 25 then????

B) NO YOU LOSE AGAIN... "no obvious link between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate."

"The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs

"In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase.

But a study published in the Journal of Human Resources found that a higher minimum wage can actually increase the proportion of families living at or near the poverty line, as the resulting reduction in work hours (or a loss of employment altogether) leads to less take-home pay rather than more.

And of course most people don't consider the other benefits accruing to minimum wage earners!!!

Congress has put in place a significant income supplement in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. A single parent with two children receives an additional $5,200 in income from this credit, bumping their effective hourly wage from $7.25 to $9.76. Some states have added to the federal EITC, boosting the wage even further.

The Record Is Clear: Minimum Wage Hikes Destroy Jobs - Forbes

So not only can YOU not spell " it is LOSE" NOT "LOOSE"!
But you also said it was "unknowable" AND I showed you it was!
Then you throw out there is no link between minimum wage and unemployment rate..
AND I provide you academic studies ...
So ONCE again... You LOSE on spelling... you lose on "unknowables" you lose on THERE IS an obvious link between minimum wage and unemployment!

I am 100% confident that somewhere at sometime an employer faced with an increasing minimum wage will do one or all of the following:
a) Let the least seniority worker go and increase the hours of the rest of the employees obviously paying more but NOT more then savings my letting employees go.
b) Hire robots as the original thread proposed as an alternative and in doing so save money in lower employee costs, SS/Medicare/ minimum wage.
c) Contracting with a firm that can offer same services at lower price and in doing so let the employee go.

Any one or more of the above happens. It is how good businesses operate in order to meet their margins.

But most uninformed and haters of capitalism don't comprehend this.

Me poor ignorant con tool, you are funny. You just posted an opinion piece from forbes by a bat shit crazy con tool who has never, ever said anything but bad things about mw increases. Try again, me boy. See if you can find an impartial source.
You may want to start out by explaining why mw increases have NEVER hurt unemployment for any extended period of time. And why mw increases have not hurt gdp per capita ever in our history. Or why, in some occasions mw increases have resulted in decreased unemployment.

So, we know you can find conservative tools that will say what you want them to. But the fact is, we will only know the results of a mw increase after the fact. If you believe otherwise, knock yourself out.

 

[Rshermr]

So, while every conservative pundit, writer, or politician is dead set against raising the minimum wage, and say over and over that raising it will cost jobs, the most influential study available says otherwise.

In the abstract, increasing the price floor of labor should result in wage cuts. However, that hasn't historically been the case. Historically managers will cut other expenses in order to compensate for an increase in the minimum labor cost and the increased minimum wage functions as a form of stimulus. Given the controversial nature of fluctuations in the minimum wage — billions of dollars hang in the balance for all parties involved — it's going to be a very tough fight.

Still, a November 2011 study from Barry Hirsch and Bruce Kaufman of Georgia State University and Tetyana Zelenska sheds light on how businesses respond to increases in labor costs, and the results were surprising.
Read more: A 2011 Study Exploded One Of The Biggest Fears About Raising The Minimum Wage - Business Insider