US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

That is four straight posts with no economic arguments. Nice.

Who cares. You're a hack and a charlatan.

Well, me poor ignorant con troll, those who simply post con talking points really could care less. But those who have actual working minds like their proof from impartial sources. Not food services employees, and not retired IT management. That you could care less is completely normal for those who have no knowledge, no dignity, no respect, and no integrity. Like you, they just do not get it.

Man, you just have a hard time making cogent points let alone putting forth solid economics. I suggest you stop trying to be an expert or a mindless purveyor of sorts and start actually trying to understand real economic concepts and systems.

Especially if he's going to pretend to be something that he OBVIOUSLY isn't!

 

[Oldstyle]

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Now you're letting "reality" get in the way of the liberal agenda, Gatsby! People with zero jobs skills cost businesses big bucks to train. They literally are a drain on the business until they learn those skills. Liberals think a $15 an hour minimum wage will help poor people when in reality it will make things far worse because it means at that amount of money you're only going to hire those who already HAVE the skills needed to do the job. You'll be eliminating many of the entry level jobs that are the first step for the young to be a part of the work force.

So, the con troll who has no backing for his statements makes an economic projection. But, being a food services worker kind of eliminates anyone believing what he has to say. Poor clown.

Who is a dish washer? But I met dish washers working their way through college who were quite intelligent unlike Rshermr.

But isn't it funny how this guy uses such a blue collar job as derogatory term even as he is trying to argue for doubling their wages. Does that begin to make sense? Nay. It shows how the left uses the lower class as cogs for votes. He wants the Dems to appear heroic giving these raises; and then when people can't find jobs he will invariably blame "cons".

Funny thing is that Oldstyle has proudly corrected me saying that in fact he is not a dishwasher, so I have honored that. Truth is, if you can believe anything he says, OS is a food services worker. So, there is no dishonor in that at all, me poor ignorant con. Truth is, however, that there is no reason to expect that a food services worker should be believed in economic matters. Same for me. I have a degree in economics, but I am not an economist. I do not study the subject all day long. Get it. So, I see no reason anyone should believe my statements in the realm of economics. And certainly you should not believe a food services worker.
Why do I mention it? Even you should understand. Making unsubstantiated claims by either of us is treating anyone reading the posts unfairly. So, I always use impartial sources to prove my points. Problem is, Oldstyle seldom if ever uses impartial sources. There, me con troll, is the problem as I see it. Prove your statements or shut up.

Well, whether you study econ regularly or not (or are practiced in it), you still suck at it, tbh (and that's pretty apparent). But suddenly, you say you're not so talented in the field, yet you were trying to play the credential card some odd posts ago. Honestly, you're as nutty as squirrel sh**.

As to your "impartial sources," they're not impartial. Every entity has agendas. And in fact, many of the entities you cite have huge agendas. I would trust independent economists over most the stuff you post.

Rshermr plays this little game...he presents himself as someone who is supposedly educated...yet then he'll blame his lack of writing skills on his secretary not proofing his correspondence or his lack of knowledge of economics on how long it's been since he got his degree. It's basically him declaring himself educated and then making excuse after excuse for why he can't back up that claim with intelligent posts.

 

[Rshermr]

Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy. You know how much I respect your opinion. Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one. Will be no problem to prove you wrong. Glad you are proud of yourself. Now, if you could just cut down on the lies. The people who worked for me were all college grads. IT professionals. And no problem to prove it. Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well. I could work with you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book.

So, no discussion of the subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics. Just a bunch of personal attacks. Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion. But then, who knows how far it went. I just quit counting.
So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy. [/QUOTE]



At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie! I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that? I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics? The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.[/QUOTE]
So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!
1. As you well know, my name is not Georgie. I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling. Sorry you have none.
2. I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy. That is your interpretation. I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways. Over a 4o year period. Nothing more. Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?

3. Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting. Not my claim. that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.

I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

1. No, you are not sorry. And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack. You have always loved making the personal attacks. But then, you prove yourself to be what you are. An attack dog. With about that much ability to argue any point. Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created. So, no me poor food services employee. Your criticism is just plain empty.

2. And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny. You are truly delusional.

3. All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources. I know that is hard for you to understand. But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support. Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that?

1, Ah, another personal attack. How surprising.

2. Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3. Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that. Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.


The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

1. And another personal attack.

2. what a surprise. Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.


I just gave you a challenge
1. So you are looking for education?

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.


to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time.

1. In my business type, it would have had NO impact. Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all. In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business. Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall.

2l Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4. In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5. the impact on GNP is measureable, but small. And that impact is beneficial. In other words, GNP increases.


or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers

1. So, that is a silly question. Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2. To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3. So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4. Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?

And another personal attack. No, me boy, ignored nothing. And it has been my pleasure to address your questions. I whined about nothing, me lying con troll. I never whine. But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue. This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.

 

[Rshermr]

Now you're letting "reality" get in the way of the liberal agenda, Gatsby! People with zero jobs skills cost businesses big bucks to train. They literally are a drain on the business until they learn those skills. Liberals think a $15 an hour minimum wage will help poor people when in reality it will make things far worse because it means at that amount of money you're only going to hire those who already HAVE the skills needed to do the job. You'll be eliminating many of the entry level jobs that are the first step for the young to be a part of the work force.

So, the con troll who has no backing for his statements makes an economic projection. But, being a food services worker kind of eliminates anyone believing what he has to say. Poor clown.

Who is a dish washer? But I met dish washers working their way through college who were quite intelligent unlike Rshermr.

But isn't it funny how this guy uses such a blue collar job as derogatory term even as he is trying to argue for doubling their wages. Does that begin to make sense? Nay. It shows how the left uses the lower class as cogs for votes. He wants the Dems to appear heroic giving these raises; and then when people can't find jobs he will invariably blame "cons".

Funny thing is that Oldstyle has proudly corrected me saying that in fact he is not a dishwasher, so I have honored that. Truth is, if you can believe anything he says, OS is a food services worker. So, there is no dishonor in that at all, me poor ignorant con. Truth is, however, that there is no reason to expect that a food services worker should be believed in economic matters. Same for me. I have a degree in economics, but I am not an economist. I do not study the subject all day long. Get it. So, I see no reason anyone should believe my statements in the realm of economics. And certainly you should not believe a food services worker.
Why do I mention it? Even you should understand. Making unsubstantiated claims by either of us is treating anyone reading the posts unfairly. So, I always use impartial sources to prove my points. Problem is, Oldstyle seldom if ever uses impartial sources. There, me con troll, is the problem as I see it. Prove your statements or shut up.

Well, whether you study econ regularly or not (or are practiced in it), you still suck at it, tbh (and that's pretty apparent). But suddenly, you say you're not so talented in the field, yet you were trying to play the credential card some odd posts ago. Honestly, you're as nutty as squirrel sh**.

As to your "impartial sources," they're not impartial. Every entity has agendas. And in fact, many of the entities you cite have huge agendas. I would trust independent economists over most the stuff you post.

Rshermr plays this little game...he presents himself as someone who is supposedly educated...yet then he'll blame his lack of writing skills on his secretary not proofing his correspondence or his lack of knowledge of economics on how long it's been since he got his degree. It's basically him declaring himself educated and then making excuse after excuse for why he can't back up that claim with intelligent posts.

And more personal attacks. I do not make excuses, me boy. And again, your posting personal attacks simply proves what and whom you are.

 

[Rshermr]

$15 an hour will surely rectify that. After all, $30K on top of all the other costs for entry level work is sure to make employers hire.

Now you're letting "reality" get in the way of the liberal agenda, Gatsby! People with zero jobs skills cost businesses big bucks to train. They literally are a drain on the business until they learn those skills. Liberals think a $15 an hour minimum wage will help poor people when in reality it will make things far worse because it means at that amount of money you're only going to hire those who already HAVE the skills needed to do the job. You'll be eliminating many of the entry level jobs that are the first step for the young to be a part of the work force.

So, the con troll who has no backing for his statements makes an economic projection. But, being a food services worker kind of eliminates anyone believing what he has to say. Poor clown.

Who is a dish washer? But I met dish washers working their way through college who were quite intelligent unlike Rshermr.

But isn't it funny how this guy uses such a blue collar job as derogatory term even as he is trying to argue for doubling their wages. Does that begin to make sense? Nay. It shows how the left uses the lower class as cogs for votes. He wants the Dems to appear heroic giving these raises; and then when people can't find jobs he will invariably blame "cons".

Funny thing is that Oldstyle has proudly corrected me saying that in fact he is not a dishwasher, so I have honored that. Truth is, if you can believe anything he says, OS is a food services worker. So, there is no dishonor in that at all, me poor ignorant con. Truth is, however, that there is no reason to expect that a food services worker should be believed in economic matters. Same for me. I have a degree in economics, but I am not an economist. I do not study the subject all day long. Get it. So, I see no reason anyone should believe my statements in the realm of economics. And certainly you should not believe a food services worker.
Why do I mention it? Even you should understand. Making unsubstantiated claims by either of us is treating anyone reading the posts unfairly. So, I always use impartial sources to prove my points. Problem is, Oldstyle seldom if ever uses impartial sources. There, me con troll, is the problem as I see it. Prove your statements or shut up.

Well, whether you study econ regularly or not (or are practiced in it), you still suck at it, tbh (and that's pretty apparent). But suddenly, you say you're not so talented in the field, yet you were trying to play the credential card some odd posts ago. Honestly, you're as nutty as squirrel sh**.

As to your "impartial sources," they're not impartial. Every entity has agendas. And in fact, many of the entities you cite have huge agendas. I would trust independent economists over most the stuff you post.

As for you accusations, I find them funny. All you do is make accusations and personal attacks. Nothing else. Did you think that personal attacks and lies are economic arguments. does stupid hurt?

Here is your malfunction, dipshit. You think that con talking points are impartial sources. And you have no ability to think. Thanks for proving the fact.

 

[Oldstyle]

Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy. You know how much I respect your opinion. Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one. Will be no problem to prove you wrong. Glad you are proud of yourself. Now, if you could just cut down on the lies. The people who worked for me were all college grads. IT professionals. And no problem to prove it. Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well. I could work with you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book.

So, no discussion of the subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics. Just a bunch of personal attacks. Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion. But then, who knows how far it went. I just quit counting.
So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy.

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie! I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that? I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics? The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.[/QUOTE]
So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!
1. As you well know, my name is not Georgie. I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling. Sorry you have none.
2. I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy. That is your interpretation. I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways. Over a 4o year period. Nothing more. Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?

3. Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting. Not my claim. that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.

I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

1. No, you are not sorry. And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack. You have always loved making the personal attacks. But then, you prove yourself to be what you are. An attack dog. With about that much ability to argue any point. Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created. So, no me poor food services employee. Your criticism is just plain empty.

2. And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny. You are truly delusional.

3. All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources. I know that is hard for you to understand. But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support. Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that?

1, Ah, another personal attack. How surprising.

2. Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3. Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that. Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.


The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

1. And another personal attack.

2. what a surprise. Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.


I just gave you a challenge
1. So you are looking for education?

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.


to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time.

1. In my business type, it would have had NO impact. Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all. In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business. Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall.

2l Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4. In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5. the impact on GNP is measureable, but small. And that impact is beneficial. In other words, GNP increases.


or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers

1. So, that is a silly question. Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2. To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3. So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4. Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?

And another personal attack. No, me boy, ignored nothing. And it has been my pleasure to address your questions. I whined about nothing, me lying con troll. I never whine. But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue. This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.


[/QUOTE]

So your expectation is that an almost doubling of the minimum wage will simply be "absorbed" by companies because of their high profit margins? What companies would fall under that category, Georgie?

As for your claim that 90% of all minimum wage increases showed no short or long term impact on employment? How many of those increases were small in size? Would you care to show an increase of the size you advocate NOW that had no short or long term impact on employment?

 

[Rshermr]

That is four straight posts with no economic arguments. Nice.

Who cares. You're a hack and a charlatan.

Well, me poor ignorant con troll, those who simply post con talking points really could care less. But those who have actual working minds like their proof from impartial sources. Not food services employees, and not retired IT management. That you could care less is completely normal for those who have no knowledge, no dignity, no respect, and no integrity. Like you, they just do not get it.

Man, you just have a hard time making cogent points let alone putting forth solid economics. I suggest you stop trying to be an expert or a mindless purveyor of sorts and start actually trying to understand real economic concepts and systems.

Especially if he's going to pretend to be something that he OBVIOUSLY isn't!

Wow. and I was expecting an economic argument.
Jesus, Oldstyle. Do you ever stop lying. Nah. Of course not. For the past four years, nothing but lies. Lie after lie after lie. You really could care less. Which makes you a complete joke.

 

[Rshermr]

Uh, thanks for your opinion, me boy. You know how much I respect your opinion. Relative to being in charge of anything, want to put money on that one. Will be no problem to prove you wrong. Glad you are proud of yourself. Now, if you could just cut down on the lies. The people who worked for me were all college grads. IT professionals. And no problem to prove it. Got a few thousand, or does being a big time food services guy not pay that well. I could work with you at a few hundred to fit you pocket book.

So, no discussion of the subject of the thread, and no discussion of economics. Just a bunch of personal attacks. Your record in the past month is 25 straight without economic discussion. But then, who knows how far it went. I just quit counting.
So, Five Straight posts with no discussion of economics, just personal attacks, me boy.

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie! I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that? I just gave you a challenge to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics? The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

So, oldstyle starts his posts with lies, personal attacks, and juvinile name calling:

At this point I don't think anyone with any common sense who's listened to your posts here is buying that you're some hot shot business man with scores of college graduates that worked for you, Georgie!
1. As you well know, my name is not Georgie. I could return fire and call you some tv personality, but I have enough class not to resort to immature name calling. Sorry you have none.
2. I did not suggest I was a hot shot anything, me boy. That is your interpretation. I was a corporate employee who worked hard and moved up the ranks a ways. Over a 4o year period. Nothing more. Are you simply unhappy with your economic position?

3. Uh, where you got the idea that I had scores of college graduates working for me is interesting. Not my claim. that would be you trying another avenue at a personal attack.

I mean, I'm sorry but you have eighth grade grammar and spelling skills...display almost zero knowledge of the subject you profess to have a four year degree in...and whenever you post something that isn't a cut an paste of someone else...you come across as a bit of a dunce.

1. No, you are not sorry. And you are simply posting another mindless angry attack. You have always loved making the personal attacks. But then, you prove yourself to be what you are. An attack dog. With about that much ability to argue any point. Funny that my grammar was plenty good for CEO's and others at major corporations, and good enough to get passed the professors for my Masters documents that I created. So, no me poor food services employee. Your criticism is just plain empty.

2. And your delusion that you can or have ever won any economic argument with me is funny. You are truly delusional.

3. All I ever paste is expert opinion, from rational and impartial sources. I know that is hard for you to understand. But that is because you have the delusional belief that anyone can or should believe anything a food services employee and con troll posts without expert support. Especially since all you ever post is bat shit crazy con talking points.

As for a discussion of economics? When do you EVER do that?

1, Ah, another personal attack. How surprising.

2. Often, when not responding to drivel like this, me boy.

3. Look around and discover that there are a number of threads where I am doing exactly that. Though with con trolls like you making nothing but personal attacks, it is a challenge.


The truth is...you can't hang in a discussion about economics.

1. And another personal attack.

2. what a surprise. Oldstyle just made a post with a bit of economic content, wrapped in 90% personal attacks, name calling, and lies. Normal for Oldstyle.


I just gave you a challenge
1. So you are looking for education?

2. Sorry I missed your "challenge".

3.Truth is it is no challenge at all.


to explain what would happen to the basic salary structure of other workers if entry level employees get paid $15 an hour

History of Minimum Wage increases show that it is completely dependent on factors such as what type of business you are talking about, what the economic situation is, how the wage increase is rolled out over time.

1. In my business type, it would have had NO impact. Everyone made something more than minimum wage, so no affect at all. In other cases, history shows that few changes would occur to the average business. Even in the case of a hamburger stand, past shows some small initial loss of jobs, but longer term, say a couple years down the road, simply higher pay overall.

2l Of all the Minimum Wage Increases, about 90% showed no short term impact or long term impact on employment.

3. The long term has shown, historically, continued increases in pay and no impact on employment.

4. In the short and long term pay increases mostly at low pay rates, but overall increases are noticeable in nearly all cases.

5. the impact on GNP is measureable, but small. And that impact is beneficial. In other words, GNP increases.


or why those additional labor costs won't end up being passed along to consumers

1. So, that is a silly question. Of course any business who is in business to make a profit will indeed pass thouse costs it can on to customers.

2. To the extent that a company has a high profit margin, more of the wage increase will be absorbed.

3. So, depends on company type and profits and state of that companies economy.

4. Depends greatly on the elasticity of demand for that companies products.

and you ignored that challenge while you whined about people not discussing economics?

And another personal attack. No, me boy, ignored nothing. And it has been my pleasure to address your questions. I whined about nothing, me lying con troll. I never whine. But then, the fact that you so seldom get even close to an economic question is an issue. This is, should you care to notice, an economics thread.


[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

So your expectation is that an almost doubling of the minimum wage will simply be "absorbed" by companies because of their high profit margins? Since I did not say that, NO. n. It is really not nice to lie all the time. What companies would fall under that category, Georgie? Some companies, but not all, would be able to absorb the costs. The company that I worked for, and others in my career of over 45 years, for instance, would have no problem at all do ing so. The other several thousand companies in my business type, would likewise have no problem.
I am sure others would not. History shows that much of the cost is passed on to consumers. As I stated. Really, it is not nice to lie, Oldstyle. Shows you for what you are.

As for your claim that 90% of all minimum wage increases showed no short or long term impact on employment? How many of those increases were small in size? Most were. Some were not. But the analysis of economists tends to look at the real increase, taking into account the change in the price index over the years. Something you studiously ignore. So, for instance, if you look at the minimum wage of 1968 and compared it to today, $15 is not far off. Would you care to show an increase of the size you advocate NOW that had no short or long term impact on employment?
Please hold your fire until you look at the Pew information.

This is Pew. They are widely considered honest and impartial. You will notice as usual I do not post talking points. Read and learn.

"5 facts about the minimum wage

11968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “one would expect America…to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour.”

2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.)

3wenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation’s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project.

4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS’s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of “near-minimum” U.S. workers – those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education

5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysisalso found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as “tip credits” bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)"
5 facts about the minimum wage

So, the minimum wage should be about $12 today. Since it is being increased over time, and will not get to $15 for a while, it may be that $15 will be close to what it should be. But, as hard as it is to raise the Minimum, it will certainly be at or below what it should be before the next increase based on the economic history we have to look at today.

 

[Oldstyle]

Show me where a doubling of the minimum wage took place and didn't affect employment! Show me the increases that you deem more than small!

What industry is it that can absorb a doubling of it's wages without raising prices?

You couldn't possibly be more vague...could you?

As for the fast food industry? The single biggest employer of "near minimum wage workers" is also one of the industries that works with the smallest profit margins. For you to sit here and state that raising labor costs...the single largest expense of the fast food industry by far...wouldn't affect the small profit margins they do business under is laughable! The reason you're seeing "self serve" kiosks at fast food restaurants in ever increasing numbers is that the industry is getting ready to lay off human resources in favor of machines so that they CAN stay in business!

 

[Rshermr]

That is four straight posts with no economic arguments. Nice.

Who cares. You're a hack and a charlatan.

Well, me poor ignorant con troll, those who simply post con talking points really could care less. But those who have actual working minds like their proof from impartial sources. Not food services employees, and not retired IT management. That you could care less is completely normal for those who have no knowledge, no dignity, no respect, and no integrity. Like you, they just do not get it.

Man, you just have a hard time making cogent points let alone putting forth solid economics. I suggest you stop trying to be an expert or a mindless purveyor of sorts and start actually trying to understand real economic concepts and systems.

Especially if he's going to pretend to be something that he OBVIOUSLY isn't!

And, me boy, as you know, I never ever pretend. If I did I would pretend to be something important. But I will never do so. Because, as with you, doing so requires that you have no integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're pretending to know something about the economic effects of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!

Show me an example of a large raise of the minimum wage...like the one that you're advocating!

 

[Rshermr]

Show me where a doubling of the minimum wage took place and didn't affect employment! Show me the increases that you deem more than small!

[/QUOTE]
1938, by $4.15 in current dollars. From 0. So, technically, an infinite increase. Employment got better,
1968 until now, the minimum wage has decreased.
What industry is it that can absorb a doubling of it's wages without raising prices?
None. But what is true, me boy, is that raising the minimum wage only affects those below the new minimum wage. Not all employees. So, saying an industry is a bit sweeping. For instance, in the it industry, I can think of none that would not be able to absorb such an increase. And, in many industries, some business will have no problem, others would. Again, depends.
You couldn't possibly be more vague...could you?Yes. I could be like you. Vague is what you are, me boy.

As for the fast food industry? The single biggest employer of "near minimum wage workers" is also one of the industries that works with the smallest profit margins. For you to sit here and state that raising labor costs...the single largest expense of the fast food industry by far...wouldn't affect the small profit margins they do business under is laughable! Which, me boy, is why I did not say it. You are lying again. The reason you're seeing "self serve" kiosks at fast food restaurants in ever increasing numbers is that the industry is getting ready to lay off human resources in favor of machines so that they CAN stay in business Funny. I notice you have no link to prove your laughable contention. Because, me boy, you are blaming the minimum wage for kiosks, assuming that greater profits are not of interest to the owners. Fact is, the kiosks are there to increase profits and satisfy customer wants. Period. And jobs are just one of the issues. Kiosks are going to happen, whether the minimum wage increases or not.
Read:

"Automation arrives at restaurants (but don’t blame rising minimum wages)
The elimination of jobs because of automation will happen anyway. Gartner says software and robots will replace one third of all workersby 2025, and that includes many high-skilled jobs, too.

Automation is hardly new to retail. Banks rely on ATMs, and grocery stores, including Walmart, have deployed self-service checkouts. But McDonald's hasn't changed its basic system of taking orders since its founding in the 1950s, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Technomic, a research group focused on the restaurant industry."
The move to kiosk and mobile ordering, said Tristano, is happening because it will improve order accuracy, speed up service and has the potential of reducing labor cost, which can account for about 30% of costs. But automated self-service is a convenience that's now expected, particularly among younger customers, he said.
Automation arrives at restaurants (but don’t blame rising minimum wages)

Really, me boy, con talking points are just too easy.

 

[Rshermr]

You're pretending to know something about the economic effects of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour!

No, actually, I am not. The fact is I was very concerned about an increase that great. So I did something you do not do. I read what the experts had to say. Not my expertise as much as it is the economists who study the issue. But I had a solid base of basic understanding of labor wage issues in general from many years of studying the subject, in and after college.

Show me an example of a large raise of the minimum wage...like the one that you're advocating!
Republican presidents and congressmen have blocked meaningful raises in the MW for 45 years. In real terms, the min wage was $10.34, and had decreased to $5.91 under GW Bush in 2006. It raised to only $7.25 recently. A major increase is in order, in my opinion. People need to be able to afford to live. I know cons don't care, but most of the real world does.
From 1968 till today is a long period with no real minimum wage raise in real terms. This will be bringing the minimum wage back to equal footing with the min wage of that time. Plus a couple bucks. So, concerns me but not as much now that I have seen the economists findings.

Let me know when you have an actual serious economic issue. So far, you are boring anyone who understands the issue. Which you obviously do not. Knowing talking points is different than understanding the subject.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938? Really?

 

[Oldstyle]

Since minimum wage was enacted in 1938 and was 25 cents which translates to around $4 in 2012 dollars...what you call an increase of four dollars is only because there was no established minimum wage before then! Do you think people worked for zero before that law was put into effect?

 

[Rshermr]

LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938? Really?

From 0. Yes, as I said, the first min. wage. And again in 1939, and 1945. Next.

 

[Oldstyle]

And minimum wage went from $5.15 when W. took office to $6.55 when he left.

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...you're claiming that the minimum wage was increased in 1938? Really?

From 0. Yes, as I said, the first min. wage. And again in 1939, and 1945. Next.

So there wasn't an increase in the minimum wage because a minimum wage didn't EXIST! Correct?

 

[Rshermr]

Since minimum wage was enacted in 1938 and was 25 cents which translates to around $4 in 2012 dollars...what you call an increase of four dollars is only because there was no established minimum wage before then! Do you think people worked for zero before that law was put into effect?

Mostly, before that they pretty much did not work. Are you suggesting that there was no increase from 0 to $3.98? What it meant was that they could hire people, and did, at wages as low as a nickel per day. You know, under the republican great depression of 1929 when people were truly starving. You should really get a clue. Actual study of that time would help.
Here is a free primer, me ignorant con troll:
During the height of the Great Depression, 37 percent of all nonfarm workers were without jobs. It was a time when families fell apart and people lost their homes and farms. Farmers couldn't sell their crops, so more than 750,000 farms were lost to foreclosure and many people starved. Women and children found jobs where they could, and the men, whose job it was to support their families, felt useless when they had to rely on their families to support them.

The Depression brought with it a halt to industrial production and construction. African-American women were often the first to be laid off from domestic positions and white women took their places. Women found jobs as seamstresses, maids and servants. Many people also built toys from home for a salary of around $5 per week.
What were some of the jobs available during the Great Depression?

So, $5 per week was around 3 cents per hour. You really need to get a clue.

 

[Rshermr]

And minimum wage went from $5.15 when W. took office to $6.55 when he left.

Yup. You will notice it is under the last two years, when dems got control of congress, in 2007 and 2008. but nothing before then. Nice try, me boy, but no cigar. President makes no laws. Congress does.
Were you simply looking for more education??