Minimum Wage Increase: They Never Talks About the SALES

[NYcarbineer]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?

If a Macdonald's has, say, 6 people on a shift, they need 6 people on a shift. THEY figured that out. If they claim that a raise in the minimum wage will force them to go to 5 people on a shift,

well, why aren't they at 5 people now? Why are they carrying the 6th employee that supposedly they can do without?

 

[protectionist]

First increase profit margins, then we can discuss increasing the minimum wage.

Cart before the horse. Increasing MW increase profit margins for most businesses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How? A business pays $500,000 more, because the minimum wage jumps.
How are their increased sales FAR MORE than $500,000?

Work thru the steps, Prof.

Your answer is right in your quote >> "That depends on the particular business" And do you know what "in general" means ?

Great. What particular business can offset $500,000 in extra payroll costs with an extra $500,000 in sales? In general?

Wouldn't matter if you got exempted would it ? But first you'd have to show your INCREASED SALES would be significantly insufficient. If you have any substance to show that, let's hear it.

Wouldn't matter if you got exempted would it ? But first you'd have to show your INCREASED SALES would be significantly insufficient.

Every company can show increased sales are insufficient to cover their increased cost.
So every single business can be exempt.

 

[BluesLegend]

First increase profit margins, then we can discuss increasing the minimum wage.

Cart before the horse. Increasing MW increase profit margins for most businesses.

I see you flunked...well school.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?

If a Macdonald's has, say, 6 people on a shift, they need 6 people on a shift. THEY figured that out. If they claim that a raise in the minimum wage will force them to go to 5 people on a shift,

well, why aren't they at 5 people now? Why are they carrying the 6th employee that supposedly they can do without?

If keeping 6 on shift makes them unprofitable, they'll try to automate or they'll simply shut down.
Now they have 0 people per shift.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?


He (and Banderas too) said prices would be raised (or fees created) to compensate for the wage losses, and these losses would just be "passed on" to the customers. More FALSE! scare talk. Businesses CANNOT raise prices because they are already fixed at a market price, related to maximization of sales/income. Any change in price (up or down) results in reduction of SALES and income.
Where is the chart that shows employers the precise price level they need in order to get the most sales/income?

He said businesses will move away from LA. FALSE! (in most cases). Does Gamm think that closing down a business and moving to another location can be done scott (no pun intended) free ?

Did anyone say moving was free?

Depending on the business, moving costs can vary from just barely economical, to completely UNeconomical, and the latter is much more often the case. Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pack then all up and move miles away.

Imagine a machine shop with over 100 large production machines, having to pay higher wages than the business could support. Imagine that business running at a loss, just because some politicians, who couldn't pass an Econ 101 class, created a stupid law.

1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.

2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.

3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.

Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.

The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.

And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?

Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.

They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?

If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.

Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.

machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.

You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.

Wow, you really were a bad teacher.

Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.

Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?

1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.

2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.

3. You flunked.

4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?

PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.

And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ?

What right do I have to set wages at my own firm? LOL!
Were you teaching Marxist economics?

Do you want the right to beat your employees if that will get more work out of them?

 

[protectionist]

1. The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at various prices. That price than brings them the most sales is the "MARKET PRICE". This is the price you see on the shelves for all products. Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.

2. Scott Gamm seemed to think it was. So do many others who casually advise employers to "simply" move away from the jurisdiction with the raised minimum wage.

3. Looks like maybe YOU are who couldn't pass an Economics 101 course (which I used to teach at 4 colleges of the City University of New York). If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you. No, I couldn't imagine a machine shop running at a loss because of a raise in the MW. That''s because, as I said in the OP (where I actually used a machine shop as an example), machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to. So for them the MW raise has no effect. And i have worked in machine shops myself as a mechanical inspector, so I do know a few things about them.

Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses. Try reading the OP over again. Maybe this time, a little slower.

The "chart" is in their books. It is the dollar amounts of sales that comes from selling at vazrious prices.

And they know if they raise the price $1, they lose?
And if they drop the price $1, they lose?

Rather than do the trial and error approach, many employers just use the copycat method and just go with what competitors are charging.

They know their competitors are charging the optimum price?

If you had said there, what you're saying here, I probably would have flunked you.

Based on the idiocy of your OP, I'd have dropped your class.

machine shops are one of those kinds of businesses where the workers are highly skilled and are already making well above what the minimum wage would be raised to.

You used an example where wages wouldn't change, to show it would be expensive to move.....for no reason.

Wow, you really were a bad teacher.

Also, did you miss the fundamental point of the entire OP. >> SALES increase. MW raises generally mean INCREASED SALES for all businesses.

Maybe you can explain how a $500,000 increase in wage costs is offset by a $500,000 increase in sales?

1. That's correct. It can be shown graphically with a bell-shaped curve with income on the Y axis and prices (increasing) on the X axis) On the left side of the graph, prices go up as does income. When the price reaches a certain point (the market price), sales/income is maximized. If the price goes higher (moving further rightward on the X axis) You now have the right side of the bell with income dropping. After this point (ie, above this price), sales are reduced as is income. From here on the higher the price, the lower the sales. Think of how maay sales you might have if you sold basketballs for a Million $ apiece.

2. No, they're just to lazy to do the experimenting.

3. You flunked.

4.. Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business. I already answered that. This scenario is the exception, and far from the rule. so do you expect the overwhelming majority of businesses to conform to what's good for YOU, in your exceptional business when it is bad for them in their typical businesses. Do I have to repeat ? You could have a hardship exemption IF you could show you really have that, ......and that is a big IF.
As it is big businesses like yours who want wages kept low because that;s what good for YOU, are fucking up all the other businesses (without very large #s of MW workers) who would gain from a higher MW. and fucking up rhte whole economy to boot.
And what right do you have to dictate terms ? Should you have any more right to have it your way than say a car sales dealership who pays only commissions$$ on sales, and to whom a MW increase is 100% gain ? And if you think you have that right, on what basis ?

PS - as an Obama opponent (as I firmly am too), did it ever occur to you that positions on the MW like you are taking, just for your own individual benefit, are fucking up the chances of whoever the Republican candidate will be in 2016 ? Raising the MW is a highly popular issue. To oppose it, is the kind of thing that hands Democrats a victory, on a silver platter. They win with your help.

3. You flunked.

Being flunked because you showed the teacher was an idiot, isn't the worst thing.

Since you're talking about half a million$, you must be talking about a very large business.

If we're talking a $3 an hour hike, it only takes 83 workers, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to eat up an extra $500,000. Even ignoring the extra payroll taxes.

Great. Now count the number of people living in the community around you, and figure out your INCREASED SALES. Don't know the answer ? Then you're only dealing with half of the scenario, and you don't have a definitive conclusion. That combined with Post # 32 is the bottom line here. Get it ? And you still didn't answer my question in Post # 30 ("dictate terms")

Great. Now count the number of people living in the community around you, and figure out your INCREASED SALES.

I'm going to get some increased sales from other firms higher wage expenses?
So that means some firms will have a sales increase less than their increased wage expenses.
Your OP is still silly.

No it doesn't mean that at all. In fact most other firms will have GREATER INCREASED SALES than their labor cost increases. This in turn, allows them to hire more workers, increasing disposable income in the community, and increasing your sales even more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What right do I have to set wages at my own firm? LOL!
Were you teaching Marxist economics?

Well, currently the overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the Minimum Wage nationwide. This includes most Conservatives (55% to 45%). Maybe that knocks a hole in your Marxism card, you think ?

Yes, the amount of economic illiteracy is staggering, even among the supposed teachers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?

If a Macdonald's has, say, 6 people on a shift, they need 6 people on a shift. THEY figured that out. If they claim that a raise in the minimum wage will force them to go to 5 people on a shift,

well, why aren't they at 5 people now? Why are they carrying the 6th employee that supposedly they can do without?

If keeping 6 on shift makes them unprofitable, they'll try to automate or they'll simply shut down.
Now they have 0 people per shift.

So what? Someone else in the food business, doing a better job of managing it and thus being able to pay the better wages, will get a chunk of the closed down place's former customers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What right do I have to set wages at my own firm? LOL!
Were you teaching Marxist economics?

Well, currently the overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the Minimum Wage nationwide. This includes most Conservatives (55% to 45%). Maybe that knocks a hole in your Marxism card, you think ?

Yes, the amount of economic illiteracy is staggering, even among the supposed teachers.

Since the real value of the minimum wage has been falling for 45 years, I'd say you're the economic illiterate.

 

[protectionist]

If a Macdonald's has, say, 6 people on a shift, they need 6 people on a shift. THEY figured that out. If they claim that a raise in the minimum wage will force them to go to 5 people on a shift,

well, why aren't they at 5 people now? Why are they carrying the 6th employee that supposedly they can do without?

HA HA. I've been asking that question for 50 years. I haven't gotten a good answer yet. I've also been asking this question>> If they could raise their price now, to bring in more income, why are they still at their current price now ? Didn't they want more income last month too ? Or the month before that ?

 

[Two Thumbs]

major corps are looking forward to the forced increase. They know most small biz will go under and make it vastly harder for competition to rise.


just think of all the products that have the priced printed on them. The retailer can sell for that or less, no more.

 

[protectionist]

If keeping 6 on shift makes them unprofitable, they'll try to automate or they'll simply shut down.
Now they have 0 people per shift.

I got a better idea. How about if they just stay closer to the cash register, so they can hear the sweet sound of it ringing so much more often. Remember the jist of the OP ?

To everyone in this thread: See what I mean about how they ignore the part about INCREASED SALES? (as if it didn't exist)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No it doesn't mean that at all. In fact most other firms will have GREATER INCREASED SALES than their labor cost increases. This in turn, allows them to hire more workers, increasing disposable income in the community, and increasing your sales even more.

In 2012, 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.0 percent of all wage and salary workers. 1 Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.0 million had wages below the federal minimum.2 Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.

Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2012

Let's just look at the 1.6 million at exactly the minimum.
Pretend they all work 2000 hours a year.
We hike their wages from $7.25 to $9.25 an hour.
That's a wage increase of $6.4 billion a year.

What will the increased sales be from this hike?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He said it would cause jobs to be lost. FALSE! Employers function with a number of employees that bring them the most income/profit. They CANNOT reduce staff. Any more or less employees results in SALES and income reduction. Layoffs result in losses, not gains.

Where is the chart that shows employers the precise number of employees they should hire in order to get the most income/profit?

If a Macdonald's has, say, 6 people on a shift, they need 6 people on a shift. THEY figured that out. If they claim that a raise in the minimum wage will force them to go to 5 people on a shift,

well, why aren't they at 5 people now? Why are they carrying the 6th employee that supposedly they can do without?

If keeping 6 on shift makes them unprofitable, they'll try to automate or they'll simply shut down.
Now they have 0 people per shift.

So what? Someone else in the food business, doing a better job of managing it and thus being able to pay the better wages, will get a chunk of the closed down place's former customers.

Yes, and total employment will still be lower.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, the amount of economic illiteracy is staggering, even among the supposed teachers.

You haven't caught up with the rest of the Conservative crowd. Some are a bit slower than others Maybe if you ran a business, and had to listen to prospective customers say "I can't afford it" 10 times a day, for 12 years, like we did, you'd be a bit quicker to catch on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the amount of economic illiteracy is staggering, even among the supposed teachers.

You haven't caught up with the rest of the Conservative crowd. Some are a bit slower than others Maybe if you ran a business, and had to listen to prospective customers say "I can't afford it" 10 times a day, for 12 years, like we did, you'd be a bit quicker to catch on.

If the rest of the conservative crowd has a bad idea, or can't do the math, I'm still going to point out their error.

 

[protectionist]

Let's just look at the 1.6 million at exactly the minimum.
Pretend they all work 2000 hours a year.
We hike their wages from $7.25 to $9.25 an hour.
That's a wage increase of $6.4 billion a year.

What will the increased sales be from this hike?

Considerably more than the increased wages.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, and total employment will still be lower.

No it won't because because the business you cited will NOT shut down. It will thrive on its increased income/profits. ANd if the biggee boys can't handle it, so they get exemptions IF they need them (or partial exemptions)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, and total employment will still be lower.

No it won't because because the business you cited will NOT shut down. It will thrive on its increased income/profits. ANd if the biggee boys can't handle it, so they get exemptions IF they need them (or partial exemptions)

No it won't because because the business you cited will NOT shut down.

Increased wages won't cause any business to shut down?
Did you read that in a book?