Minimum wage increases, jobs decrease

[danielpalos]

What we need more then the minimum wage is some sort of law to limit the percentage that they can take of this profit and instead aim the resources back to the workers.

So instead of killing jobs,you just want to make sure you kill all interest in starting a business to begin with.

We don't need a law to do what Matthew has proposed. We just need to increase taxes.

That is what the conservative sheeple don't understand. Businesses never did pay taxes on the money they put back in to their businesses. They only pay taxes when they take money out. When we cut taxes we increase the value of the money coming out while at the same time discounting the value of the money going in. It is why the WACC increases as marginal tax rates decline. It is what all the accounting rules say. And quite honestly, it is exactly what the facts on the ground are screaming.

Regardless of all the wailing about the corporate tax rate, the effective corporate tax rate is dismal. Today, corporations don't even pay half of the percentage of total taxes they did during the hayday of manufacturing Happy Days 50's. And the income tax rate at the top--well it's about half of what it was too.

Come on. It is one thing to screw over employees, scrap the training programs, and gut the investment department if you get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. Quite another when you get to keep all but twenty. And it is one thing to borrow money for a capital investment when you have to pay fifty percent on the dollar back, quite another when you have to pay eighty--the interest rate becomes almost unimportant at the higher marginal tax rates. When marginal tax rates are low, the banks have to damn near give the money away. Look around.

It cannot be real times of War sufficient to cede our sovereign and Individual Liberty, without real times of War, Tax rates.

 

[danielpalos]

• Small Business at a Glance
  • The average annual revenue of a small business is $3.6 million.
  • The average annual revenue of a small business with a website is $5.03 million.

bullshit

A small business with less than 10 employees does not have a revenue of 3.6 million and that figure does not take expenses into account

Once again we have the problem of calling businesses with 500 employees "small"
Using that arbitrary 500 employee mark we can call 99% of the 6 million businesse sin this country "small"

Over 80% of small business have 10 or fewer employees

Small Business Annual Sales - How much money do they make?

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

 

[danielpalos]

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Another "Participation Trophy". Ahhh gooooood.

Only if they can double wages and increase efficiency.

Not sure if they can or not, I am not privy to their Profit and Loss Statements or other financials. I know when I owned businesses labor was a very large expense. My businesses paid over minimum wage, because my businesses required a skill level, not like many gas stations and fast food restaurants.

But I do like the Participation Trophy idea you thought up. Set up the qualifications for such a trophy, that will surely give all small business owners something to attain. LOL!

Good capitalists can make like Henry Ford!

That is one opinion, but I wouldn't make that over generalization since every business is different and has its own set of circumstances.

Good Capitalists get capital results and do not make, social excuses.

 

[usmbguest5318]

bullshit

A small business with less than 10 employees does not have a revenue of 3.6 million and that figure does not take expenses into account

Once again we have the problem of calling businesses with 500 employees "small"
Using that arbitrary 500 employee mark we can call 99% of the 6 million businesse sin this country "small"

Over 80% of small business have 10 or fewer employees

Small Business Annual Sales - How much money do they make?

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

 

[danielpalos]

bullshit

A small business with less than 10 employees does not have a revenue of 3.6 million and that figure does not take expenses into account

Once again we have the problem of calling businesses with 500 employees "small"
Using that arbitrary 500 employee mark we can call 99% of the 6 million businesse sin this country "small"

Over 80% of small business have 10 or fewer employees

Small Business Annual Sales - How much money do they make?

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

 

[SharpArrowhead]

Imagine when automation becomes mainstream...

 

[usmbguest5318]

bullshit

A small business with less than 10 employees does not have a revenue of 3.6 million and that figure does not take expenses into account

Once again we have the problem of calling businesses with 500 employees "small"
Using that arbitrary 500 employee mark we can call 99% of the 6 million businesse sin this country "small"

Over 80% of small business have 10 or fewer employees

Small Business Annual Sales - How much money do they make?

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

 

[Papageorgio]

Another "Participation Trophy". Ahhh gooooood.

Only if they can double wages and increase efficiency.

Not sure if they can or not, I am not privy to their Profit and Loss Statements or other financials. I know when I owned businesses labor was a very large expense. My businesses paid over minimum wage, because my businesses required a skill level, not like many gas stations and fast food restaurants.

But I do like the Participation Trophy idea you thought up. Set up the qualifications for such a trophy, that will surely give all small business owners something to attain. LOL!

Good capitalists can make like Henry Ford!

That is one opinion, but I wouldn't make that over generalization since every business is different and has its own set of circumstances.

Good Capitalists get capital results and do not make, social excuses.

If you claim so, it seems to work in your narrow view of the world, the rest of us deal with the real world.

 

[danielpalos]

bullshit

A small business with less than 10 employees does not have a revenue of 3.6 million and that figure does not take expenses into account

Once again we have the problem of calling businesses with 500 employees "small"
Using that arbitrary 500 employee mark we can call 99% of the 6 million businesse sin this country "small"

Over 80% of small business have 10 or fewer employees

Small Business Annual Sales - How much money do they make?

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

maybe not in right wing fantasy, but our social welfare system does improve our standard of living. it is a self-evident truth.

 

[danielpalos]

Only if they can double wages and increase efficiency.

Not sure if they can or not, I am not privy to their Profit and Loss Statements or other financials. I know when I owned businesses labor was a very large expense. My businesses paid over minimum wage, because my businesses required a skill level, not like many gas stations and fast food restaurants.

But I do like the Participation Trophy idea you thought up. Set up the qualifications for such a trophy, that will surely give all small business owners something to attain. LOL!

Good capitalists can make like Henry Ford!

That is one opinion, but I wouldn't make that over generalization since every business is different and has its own set of circumstances.

Good Capitalists get capital results and do not make, social excuses.

If you claim so, it seems to work in your narrow view of the world, the rest of us deal with the real world.

sounds like nothing but social excuses.

 

[usmbguest5318]

good capitalists can double minimum wages and become more efficient; and, their labor force may be more able to afford the products they make.

Should there be a Henry Ford Cup for the private sector?

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

maybe not in right wing fantasy, but our social welfare system does improve our standard of living. it is a self-evident truth.

I don't have a problem with accepting that our social welfare system improves impoverished people's standard of living. What I'm saying is that the standard of living called poverty is below what is the nation's standard of living.

There are some self evident truths, and some of them even manifest themselves to even the biggest dullards among us. The thing you've pontificated as such, though it's plausibly true, is not self evident. It only seems self evident because there isn't any place that uses a different model; thus you've not had the chance to see it work any other way. Unfortunately, social well being doesn't work quite the same as star gazing.

 

[Winston]

Give us a figure. What do you consider a low net profit margin?

Anything under 15%

wow! I would love to earn 15% profit day in and day out....!

The corporations I worked for were content with 5%....Walmart is content with 4%... and had been running in the 3.7% range

I am presuming smaller businesses, with lower gross sales is why 15% is not as high as it seems to me...???

WallMart is clearly a volume business.

Other, smaller niches have something that creates discontinuity and allows for a higher profit margin. Those don't tend to be large volume entities.

It's not clear to me whether you are referring to the disaggregation of the industry demand curve or whether you just stumbled across a bit of jargon. My uncertainty derives from on one hand seeing the jargon and on the other seeing that statement about volume presented without context that clearly disambiguates it with regard to the fact that every firm is a volume business and the volume at which they all try to sell is that which maximizes profit.

Wrong. Public firms do not seek to maximize profits. They seek to maximize market capitalization. In other words, it is not what they make today. It is what the market THINKS they are going to make tomorrow that is important. And this reality is at the core of our economic problems. Slowly, ever so slowly, academia is beginning to awake to this critical problem.

Please point me to something credible (scholarly) that corroborates your assertion and that gives falsity to the following cycle as applied to public firms:

1. Capitalize a public company
2. Conduct productive operations
3. Sell one's product/service so as to maximize profit
4. The fact of one's effectiveness at maximizing profit attracts investors' interest
5. Speculative investors contribute additional capital
6. Use new capital to grow
7. [return to step 2; "rinse and repeat"]

Once you've done that, please explain to me why you brought up what public firms do in this discussion that focuses on the impact of a minimum wage increase on small businesses, most of which are not public companies. I'm asking because I don't see the contextual relevance.

Perhaps an NFL analogy from Forbes would help.

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

And I bring up public companies because the majority of minimum wage workers work for large companies with more than one hundred employees.

Large, Profitable Companies Employ Most Minimum-Wage Earners

Most small business pay better than minimum wage, which is perhaps why, as I pointed out, the majority of them support increasing the minimum wage. It would help them on the demand side more than any increase would hurt them on the supply side.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anything under 15%

wow! I would love to earn 15% profit day in and day out....!

The corporations I worked for were content with 5%....Walmart is content with 4%... and had been running in the 3.7% range

I am presuming smaller businesses, with lower gross sales is why 15% is not as high as it seems to me...???

WallMart is clearly a volume business.

Other, smaller niches have something that creates discontinuity and allows for a higher profit margin. Those don't tend to be large volume entities.

It's not clear to me whether you are referring to the disaggregation of the industry demand curve or whether you just stumbled across a bit of jargon. My uncertainty derives from on one hand seeing the jargon and on the other seeing that statement about volume presented without context that clearly disambiguates it with regard to the fact that every firm is a volume business and the volume at which they all try to sell is that which maximizes profit.

Wrong. Public firms do not seek to maximize profits. They seek to maximize market capitalization. In other words, it is not what they make today. It is what the market THINKS they are going to make tomorrow that is important. And this reality is at the core of our economic problems. Slowly, ever so slowly, academia is beginning to awake to this critical problem.

Please point me to something credible (scholarly) that corroborates your assertion and that gives falsity to the following cycle as applied to public firms:

1. Capitalize a public company
2. Conduct productive operations
3. Sell one's product/service so as to maximize profit
4. The fact of one's effectiveness at maximizing profit attracts investors' interest
5. Speculative investors contribute additional capital
6. Use new capital to grow
7. [return to step 2; "rinse and repeat"]

Once you've done that, please explain to me why you brought up what public firms do in this discussion that focuses on the impact of a minimum wage increase on small businesses, most of which are not public companies. I'm asking because I don't see the contextual relevance.

Perhaps an NFL analogy from Forbes would help.

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

And I bring up public companies because the majority of minimum wage workers work for large companies with more than one hundred employees.

Large, Profitable Companies Employ Most Minimum-Wage Earners

Most small business pay better than minimum wage, which is perhaps why, as I pointed out, the majority of them support increasing the minimum wage. It would help them on the demand side more than any increase would hurt them on the supply side.

In some ways that last point is true.

Much like creating your own weather.

 

[Timmy]

Libs never learn. They pretend that they are going after the wealthy to help the little guy. What they are continuing to do is kill small businesses and make more jobs disappear. Some small businesses simply can't handle the increase in wages as they are barely getting by as it is. Libs are either idiots or they really do want to kill businesses. Many small business have closed their doors since Obamacare became law. All their policies hurt the middle class. Obamacare, minimum wage increases and over-regulation ensure that the little guy can't compete with the big companies.

First, they killed the middle class jobs that did pay better than minimum wage. People had a chance to move up. Those that lost their good jobs ended up with either part time jobs or minimum wage jobs. Despite a much lower standard of living for many, libs still call their policies a success. I guess that's true if your idea of success is killing capitalism.

Minimum wage jobs have always been starter jobs for teens. It's sad when these fast food jobs are the only ones some adults even qualify for since they lack education and experience. Of course, thanks to liberal policies, many are vying for these jobs because that's all they can find these days. Now, there will be much less of them because small companies can't survive the left's policies. Only in liberal minds is no job better than a lower paying one.

California Raised Minimum Wage On Jan. 1, This Happens RIGHT AFTER...

Oh no! Now there are no min wage jobs left! It will be impossible to find a minimum wage job!

 

[danielpalos]

Maybe....

And I agree with you.

Somehow, the left does not understand that legistlating that kind of thing only creates and entitlement class.

why do you say that?

besides, moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Well, wait a minute. Whether it is or isn't is the very heart of the politics of the matter. The economics of the matter are quite simple: the floor is either above the equilibrium price of the thing demanded, in this case, a given genre of labor and the floor is effective, or it's not and the floor is ineffective.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

maybe not in right wing fantasy, but our social welfare system does improve our standard of living. it is a self-evident truth.

I don't have a problem with accepting that our social welfare system improves impoverished people's standard of living. What I'm saying is that the standard of living called poverty is below what is the nation's standard of living.

There are some self evident truths, and some of them even manifest themselves to even the biggest dullards among us. The thing you've pontificated as such, though it's plausibly true, is not self evident. It only seems self evident because there isn't any place that uses a different model; thus you've not had the chance to see it work any other way. Unfortunately, social well being doesn't work quite the same as star gazing.

It is about equal protection of the law.

 

[initforme]

Minimum wage jobs are for minimum people. They are offered by businesses best left to go under.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps an NFL analogy from Forbes would help.

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value

Bad analogy. Do you understand why? Here's the opening paragraph, which combined with the Drucker quote that precedes it, is all anyone deeply familiar with management and accounting theory and econ needs to read in order to know what Steve was going to say.

“Imagine an NFL coach,” writes Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, in his important new book, Fixing the Game, “holding a press conference on Wednesday to announce that he predicts a win by 9 points on Sunday, and that bettors should recognize that the current spread of 6 points is too low. Or picture the team’s quarterback standing up in the postgame press conference and apologizing for having only won by 3 points when the final betting spread was 9 points in his team’s favor. While it’s laughable to imagine coaches or quarterbacks doing so, CEOs are expected to do both of these things.​

I glanced over the next few paragraphs to see if the writer would start discussing exactly what I thought he would based on the inferences one might reasonably make from the paragraph above. And don't you know, that's exactly what the author did.

Now, I want you to put your hand under your jaw so you catch it when it drops, because it's about to. I knew what Steve was going to say; moreover, I agree with him. Indeed, everyone who's fortunes don't depend on stock price agrees with him. His core message is one I've been communicating successfully to my clients for decades, literally. Look back at the flow I showed you. It reflects exactly the same principle Steve puts forth in his editorial.

Surely now you are thinking, "Well then WTH? What's bad about the analogy?" The answer has a few dimensions:

1. You've applied a public company concern to small, privately held companies.that have no need to be concerned with meeting The Street's expectation. Owners and investors in such companies reap returns based on "real market," to use Steve's term, returns, not on "expectations market returns.
2. Because #1 is the case, small company CEOs/Managers/Owners manage to maximize profitability, not market cap/stock price. Their capitalization derives from (1) owner direct investment, (2) undistributed earnings, and (3) contribution interests (loans or other cash/asset contributions from parties who receive interest for the use of their contribution that does not entitle them to an ownership stake).
3. Yes, public companies can take a beating for not hitting or besting expectations; however, if their underlying operations are sound and profitable, the company can endure. Sales of issued stock at however low a price on an exchange isn't going to alter that.
   
   What the depressed stock price will do is make it difficult to raise new capital via issues (sales) of new stock, but the stock that's trading hands in the marketplace doesn't bring fresh infusions of cash into the company. Now if the company wants to raise money or purchase another company, stock that carries a low per share price or that is volatile is stock that's hard to use for those purposes. Indeed, lenders often enough stipulate as a condition of the loan that the company maintain a given share price/market cap and failure to meet them can automatically trigger a loan default, which then requires renegotiating the loan, which the company may or may not be able to do, etc., etc. So that's where the "hell" comes from re: declining stock prices. Obviously, companies that have borrowed heavily and have such covenants have to at least fulfill the terms of their loans.
   
   The stock market is, after all, little but gambling. The better the odds of one not losing money -- and those odds are given by a stock's historic performance -- for a lot of investors, the easier it is to buy. Of course, there are "sophisticated" investors who thrive on volatile stocks and day trading and the like, and that's great, but it's not what most investors are doing, and certainly not most large institutional investors.
4. A large portion of the problem Steve describes accrues from CEO's receiving often receiving the lion's share of their compensation via stock and stock options. To a public company, stock is, for all intents and purposes, just a piece of paper, so in the trade-off between paying a CEO (and other employees) tens to hundreds of millions in cash compensation, any company would sooner pay in stock/options. The employees take their compensation from the market, not from the company. With "C" Level folks, over time they can end up being majority or controlling shareholders, at which point, when they manage the stock price, what they are doing is managing their compensation. There again, however, this isn't a concern if a company's stock isn't traded.
5. Steve refers to FAS 142. Let's get one thing that is factually inaccurate, though not material to the discussion -- his or this one -- out of the way: the impairment of intangible assets, namely goodwill, does not result in a writedown of real assets. The impairment writedown is against the one intangible asset called goodwill.
   
   Now that writedown reduces net income, thus EPS, but it has no EBITDA impact. (Let me know if the implications of that aren't apparent to you. I can easily enough post some links.)
   
   Let's go back to the writedown of goodwill. First one must understand what accounting goodwill is. Goodwill the sum paid in excess of underlying net asset value to purchase a company (or share of it). If you've ever found yourself in a "bidding war" for a new house and paid more than the market price, you sort of have some sense of goodwill. (The over-list sum you paid is not actually goodwill, but for now, and for simplicity, you can think of it that way.)
   
   Now let's say instead that you (the CEO of a public company) purchase a company and pay more for it than the net asset value, you'll have purchased goodwill right along with everything else. If the company you buy does well, all is well. If it starts losing its appeal to customers, however, you made a poor decision in buying it. Your poor decision will result in your having to book an impairment to the goodwill you booked when you bought the company. Current and potential investors will see that writedown and they'll know you decision making is awry in some way. That doesn't bode well for the company as long as you're running it, unless there's a offsetting and legit reason why people should think otherwise.
6. As Steve rightly notes, public companies do manage to Street/lender expectations, but they also manage to real market earnings. The circumstance of managing a public company isn't binary in that they can only manage to one or the other objective. Yes, public CEOs and CFOs do the expectations thing, which is quite literally gaming the market and the company; it's pure gambling and gamesmanship. COO's manage real expectations and do everything they can to profit maximize, and the more effective they are, the more leeway the provide for the CFO and CEO.
7. Public CEOs and CFOs drive the expectations the Street/lenders have for stock price. They know that stock price predictability and performance is what allows them to earn tons and maintain the company's access to borrowed cash.

Now here's why yours is a bad analogy. All the stuff I mentioned about managing to expectations, and that Steve mentioned applies to public not private companies. So what's bad about the analogy is that you used Steve's in relation to a discussion that focuses on companies that aren't public. Sure, the overall thread does not make a distinction between public and private companies. The line of discussion into which you inserted yourself -- and it's okay that you did, that's not a problem -- is about small companies and the impact of the minimum wage increase on them.

I bring up public companies because the majority of minimum wage workers work for large companies with more than one hundred employees.

(See the last paragraph just above)

Most small business pay better than minimum wage, which is perhaps why, as I pointed out, the majority of them support increasing the minimum wage. It would help them on the demand side more than any increase would hurt them on the supply side.

You should probably explain what you think you mean more clearly. From where I'm sitting, I know that direct materials and direct labor are the two primary inputs to COGs/COGS, and both are variable costs. As such an increase in one, while holding the other constant, will have the same impact as will increasing the other and holding the former constant, provided the increase is the same.

• DM: 10 --> 15
  DL: 5 --> 5
  20 -->20
  
  Do the same thing but hold DM constant and increase DL by 5 and COGs is still $20. There's no demand side difference. $20 is $20 to the customer.

 

[usmbguest5318]

WTF are you talkin' about? Poverty is, by definition, below the standard of living.

• The American Dream, Quantified at Last -- This article takes the "making more than your parents"/GDP approach
  
• HOW DO WE MEASURE “standard of living" -- General discussion of alternative approaches
  
• Richard Nixon on the American Standard of Living
  
• Jobs and living standards

Poverty does not define or fix, as you put it, the standard of living; it defines what is insufficient to count as being up to a given standard of living.

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

maybe not in right wing fantasy, but our social welfare system does improve our standard of living. it is a self-evident truth.

I don't have a problem with accepting that our social welfare system improves impoverished people's standard of living. What I'm saying is that the standard of living called poverty is below what is the nation's standard of living.

There are some self evident truths, and some of them even manifest themselves to even the biggest dullards among us. The thing you've pontificated as such, though it's plausibly true, is not self evident. It only seems self evident because there isn't any place that uses a different model; thus you've not had the chance to see it work any other way. Unfortunately, social well being doesn't work quite the same as star gazing.

It is about equal protection of the law.

Oh, screw it....You keep tossing out your "cliched buzz phrases" - first it was "standard of living in our republic" and "rising tides," then it was "social welfare system," most recently it's "equal protection of the law" - and not once have you actually expounded upon your thoughts so that it's clear what the hell you think you mean. So, I'm done; I'm done trying to encourage you to write something that's clear, precise, contextually relevant, etc. so that we can have an actual substantive discussion. Don't bother replying again because I don't any longer care enough to continue this line of conversation with you. I'm okay with that, and hopefully you can be too.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not sure if they can or not, I am not privy to their Profit and Loss Statements or other financials. I know when I owned businesses labor was a very large expense. My businesses paid over minimum wage, because my businesses required a skill level, not like many gas stations and fast food restaurants.

But I do like the Participation Trophy idea you thought up. Set up the qualifications for such a trophy, that will surely give all small business owners something to attain. LOL!

Good capitalists can make like Henry Ford!

That is one opinion, but I wouldn't make that over generalization since every business is different and has its own set of circumstances.

Good Capitalists get capital results and do not make, social excuses.

If you claim so, it seems to work in your narrow view of the world, the rest of us deal with the real world.

sounds like nothing but social excuses.

No excuse, like I said the real world doesn't operate the way you claim. I have been there and done it.

 

[Papageorgio]

reading comprehension issues as well; you must be on the right.

the point is, our poverty guidelines already fix a Standard of living in our Republic. Simply ensuring that "tide rises, can ensure all boats lift".

Poverty Guidelines

The point is that poverty does not do that.

maybe not in right wing fantasy, but our social welfare system does improve our standard of living. it is a self-evident truth.

I don't have a problem with accepting that our social welfare system improves impoverished people's standard of living. What I'm saying is that the standard of living called poverty is below what is the nation's standard of living.

There are some self evident truths, and some of them even manifest themselves to even the biggest dullards among us. The thing you've pontificated as such, though it's plausibly true, is not self evident. It only seems self evident because there isn't any place that uses a different model; thus you've not had the chance to see it work any other way. Unfortunately, social well being doesn't work quite the same as star gazing.

It is about equal protection of the law.

Oh, screw it....You keep tossing out your "cliched buzz phrases" - first it was "standard of living in our republic" and "rising tides, then it was "social welfare system," most recently it's "equal protection of the law" - and not once have you actually expounded upon your thoughts that it's clear what the hell you think you mean. So, I'm done; I'm done trying to encourage you to write something that clear, precise, contextually relevant, etc. so that we can have an actual substantive discussion. Don't bother replying again because I don't any longer care care enough to continue this line of conversation with you. I'm okay with that, and hopefully you can be too.

He loves cliches, it seems to work for him.