Minimum wage. Should it be $15?

[Jeff Matthews]

For those whose only knowledge here is political, and that's most of the posters, they fail to appreciate the economic theories at work, and just can't put the pieces together.

 

Dude, you couldn't even piece together that cost is the primary measure of EFFICIENCY of production where profit is the goal. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Mallette]

Jeff, please do the math.  I don't want to.  Given you used a higher raise than I did and came out with only a 50 cent difference from my estimate.  Let's just use your math and go with a 5.99 Big Stroke now costing 6.99. 

 

I predict it will barely cause a ripple in demand.  Certainly wouldn't alter the frequency of which I patronize these places.

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

Jeff, please do the math.  I don't want to.  Given you used a higher raise than I did and came out with only a 50 cent difference from my estimate.  Let's just use your math and go with a 5.99 Big Stroke now costing 6.99. 

 

I predict it will barely cause a ripple in demand.  Certainly wouldn't alter the frequency of which I patronize these places.

 

Dave

 

My math was correct.

 

Anyway, you should put on your business hat and think of the dynamics and social demographics out there.  You are too busy thinking everyone is like you.  There are a great many people out there among us who do not behave like you.  They do not enjoy your standard of living.  They have too many people in their families to feed.  They do not like hamburgers as much as you.  Whatever their differences, a buck in the hamburger world is, indeed, a lot of money.  Ask anyone in the business.  That's why they charge what they do.  If they could charge more, they would.  (Where have I heard that before? [Answer:  His initials are Dave Mallette.])

[prerich]

The church commune idea is particularly worthy of merit. It would clearly be better than ghetto level housing projects. Good thoughts there Mr. DrWho'sOnFirst.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Disagree with you here....You do know that the church in the US takes in more money than the NFL right? 

[Gilbert]

Your objection seems to be based on nothing more than political dogma.

 

No, just life with eyes wide open..... you forgot to answer my 2 simple questions, but not to worry, I understand your posts and that dogma thing you mentioned.

[Paducah Home Theater]

The Chinese workers aren't going to be paying for my Social Security and Medicare, right?

Why are we stuck on the idea that future generations pays for our stuff? If you want to look out for yourself, then how about you just save your own money which will pay for your own stuff? You'd come out way ahead. Otherwise, you're doing it for humanity reasons.

[Mallette]

There are a great many people out there among us who do not behave like you. They do not enjoy your standard of living. They have too many people in their families to feed. They do not like hamburgers as much as you.

 

Yes, and it's those people we are talking about. 

 

If they could charge more, they would.

 

The corollary is that if they are forced to charge more, they will, and those who want that stuff will pay it.

 

It's really just that simple.  I can recall a couple of times that fast food prices went up 20 percent or so within a few months over the past decades.  World didn't come to an end. 

 

Dave

[Jeff Matthews]

The corollary is that if they are forced to charge more, they will, and those who want that stuff will pay it.   It's really just that simple.

 

And those who don't will not.  You're right.  It really is that simple. 

[Ski Bum]

 

The Chinese workers aren't going to be paying for my Social Security and Medicare, right?

Why are we stuck on the idea that future generations pays for our stuff? If you want to look out for yourself, then how about you just save your own money which will pay for your own stuff? You'd come out way ahead. Otherwise, you're doing it for humanity reasons.

 

 And if one were to do as you suggest, they'll probably have more to leave for the betterment of humanity.  See Gates Foundation.

[Jim Naseum]

 

Your objection seems to be based on nothing more than political dogma.

 

No, just life with eyes wide open..... you forgot to answer my 2 simple questions, but not to worry, I understand your posts and that dogma thing you mentioned.

 

 

Do you have an economic proposition? I haven't seen it. 

 

My Proposition is this:

 

Higher wages in the low end produces immediate increase in demand (spending), which stimulates more production, which creates more jobs, and increases the GDP, and increases profits and stock prices. All of that is good for the country and good for the people. 

[Gilbert]

 

 

Your objection seems to be based on nothing more than political dogma.

 

No, just life with eyes wide open..... you forgot to answer my 2 simple questions, but not to worry, I understand your posts and that dogma thing you mentioned.

 

 

Do you have an economic proposition? I haven't seen it. 

 

My Proposition is this:

 

Higher wages in the low end produces immediate increase in demand (spending), which stimulates more production, which creates more jobs, and increases the GDP, and increases profits and stock prices. All of that is good for the country and good for the people. 

 

 

 

Woops, looks like we forgot to check the inflation, and increased costs of living boxes. Must be that dogma thing kicking in gear.

 

But I will admit, that idea of yours (and every dirty politician, sorry, not dogma, just an experience thing) looks really cool on paper. I would assume your still in school or have never owned a business. Carry on though, like I said, it looks great on paper.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Gilbert

[Mallette]

And those who don't will not. You're right. It really is that simple.

 

Indeed.  I am just saying that it's happened in the past and Mickey D kept growing.  People are addicted to this stuff and will pay the price when the kids start whining for a Happy Meal.

 

Dave

Edited November 16, 2015 by Mallette

[Jim Naseum]

 

The Chinese workers aren't going to be paying for my Social Security and Medicare, right?

Why are we stuck on the idea that future generations pays for our stuff? If you want to look out for yourself, then how about you just save your own money which will pay for your own stuff? You'd come out way ahead. Otherwise, you're doing it for humanity reasons.

 

 

I am unable to connect your last comment to anything I said that you quoted.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Your objection seems to be based on nothing more than political dogma.

 

No, just life with eyes wide open..... you forgot to answer my 2 simple questions, but not to worry, I understand your posts and that dogma thing you mentioned.

 

 

Do you have an economic proposition? I haven't seen it. 

 

My Proposition is this:

 

Higher wages in the low end produces immediate increase in demand (spending), which stimulates more production, which creates more jobs, and increases the GDP, and increases profits and stock prices. All of that is good for the country and good for the people. 

 

 

 

Woops, looks like we forgot to check the inflation, and increased costs of living boxes. Must be that dogma thing kicking in gear.

 

But I will admit, that idea of yours (and every dirty politician, sorry, not dogma, just an experience thing) looks really cool on paper. I would assume your still in school or have never owned a business. Carry on though, like I said, it looks great on paper.

 

Once more I ask, do you have some specific economic proposal, or are you just going to continue to recite inanities and non-sequitors, and bad attempts at humor? No one needs to own a business to understand economics. If you have some particular understanding of the economics involved to counter what I offered, then spit it out. 

[vindeville]

 

You just don't accept that the ultimate driver is EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY.

 

 

You don't understand that in the business world, where profit is the motive/goal, EFFICIENCY means "cost," and PRODUCTIVITY means produce more at less cost.  It is not as EFFICIENT to spend $15 an hour on labor when you can EFFICIENTLY spend $7.50.

 

Exactly, the margin has to be there or why bother having a business for profit. At our place of work we are always looking at metrics and labor is a part of that. Efficiency would dictate making something quickly, cheaply with no waste and at the highest quality possible to be accepted in the market place, along with labor cost and benefits to attract and keep good employees engaged at their jobs over time. There are federal and state requirements and regulations as well as raw material costs, safety, development costs, marketing, sales, and shipping. A competitive edge must be maintained within the margin of profit as well particularly in these times. We all serve someone or something to earn money in this world so lets stop the silly servant and slavery comments. If  you're work place does not treat you right, pay you right or you feel like a slave there, move on.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

You just don't accept that the ultimate driver is EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY.

 

 

You don't understand that in the business world, where profit is the motive/goal, EFFICIENCY means "cost," and PRODUCTIVITY means produce more at less cost.  It is not as EFFICIENT to spend $15 an hour on labor when you can EFFICIENTLY spend $7.50.

 

Exactly, the margin has to be there or why bother having a business for profit. At our place of work we are always looking at metrics and labor is a part of that. Efficiency would dictate making something quickly, cheaply with no waste and at the highest quality possible to be accepted in the market place, along with labor cost and benefits to attract and keep good employees engaged at their jobs over time. There are federal and state requirements and regulations as well as raw material costs, safety, development costs, marketing, sales, and shipping. A competitive edge must be maintained within the margin of profit as well particularly in these times. We all serve someone or something to earn money in this world so lets stop the silly servant and slavery comments. If  you're work place does not treat you right, pay you right or you feel like a slave there, move on.

 

I think you misunderstood the post you are commenting to. Naturally, it's efficient to pay less ( I highlighted it in red). No one pays $15 if they can just as well pay $7. That's not being argued here at all.  DUH.

 

What's being argued is a minimum wage by law. A part of the regulatory aspect of the economy. Just as we grant economic monopolies, and grant guaranteed pricing and profits to certain companies, we also grant certain minimums to wages. Each has a purpose which is unique, but fits into the economic whole of the nation. We try to balance the interests of all. Like it or not, what we have is a highly regulated economy. So, whatever proposals you offer have to fit within that reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand novel, it's real life. 

 

Q: Do you oppose all regulations, or just the ones that benefit labor?

 

Q: Since I stated the economic benefit of increasing the minimum wage very clearly above, do you have a better economic proposal, or reason for not raising the minimum wage?

[Paducah Home Theater]

The Chinese workers aren't going to be paying for my Social Security and Medicare, right?

Why are we stuck on the idea that future generations pays for our stuff? If you want to look out for yourself, then how about you just save your own money which will pay for your own stuff? You'd come out way ahead. Otherwise, you're doing it for humanity reasons.

 

I am unable to connect your last comment to anything I said that you quoted.

Your quote is based on being worried about yourself. You help American workers so they can pay your retirement. I'm just saying you gotta figure out what your priorities are, helping yourself, or helping fellow humans.

I'm also saying that helping somebody so they can pay for your retirement isn't very efficient, you can do it yourself and come out ahead. I don't like the pension and social security we have now, I'd rather have more control of it myself. If you could take your social security taxes and invest it all your life, you'd have a ridiculously fat bank account when you retire, instead of worrying about whether it's going to be there, and if younger generations are making enough to support you.

Edited November 16, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[vindeville]

You just don't accept that the ultimate driver is EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY.

You don't understand that in the business world, where profit is the motive/goal, EFFICIENCY means "cost," and PRODUCTIVITY means produce more at less cost. It is not as EFFICIENT to spend $15 an hour on labor when you can EFFICIENTLY spend $7.50.

Exactly, the margin has to be there or why bother having a business for profit. At our place of work we are always looking at metrics and labor is a part of that. Efficiency would dictate making something quickly, cheaply with no waste and at the highest quality possible to be accepted in the market place, along with labor cost and benefits to attract and keep good employees engaged at their jobs over time. There are federal and state requirements and regulations as well as raw material costs, safety, development costs, marketing, sales, and shipping. A competitive edge must be maintained within the margin of profit as well particularly in these times. We all serve someone or something to earn money in this world so lets stop the silly servant and slavery comments. If you're work place does not treat you right, pay you right or you feel like a slave there, move on.

I think you misunderstood the post you are commenting to. Naturally, it's efficient to pay less ( I highlighted it in red). No one pays $15 if they can just as well pay $7. That's not being argued here at all. DUH.

What's being argued is a minimum wage by law. A part of the regulatory aspect of the economy. Just as we grant economic monopolies, and grant guaranteed pricing and profits to certain companies, we also grant certain minimums to wages. Each has a purpose which is unique, but fits into the economic whole of the nation. We try to balance the interests of all. Like it or not, what we have is a highly regulated economy. So, whatever proposals you offer have to fit within that reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand novel, it's real life.

Q: Do you oppose all regulations, or just the ones that benefit labor?

Q: Since I stated the economic benefit of increasing the minimum wage very clearly above, do you have a better economic proposal, or reason for not raising the minimum wage?

duh really? lol, I'll overlook that because of you're obvious insulting, condescending nature as shown in most any thread you participate in. . YOU are really gonna accuse me of getting off track in this thread??? now that funny coming from you. My posts are comments on the matter from my perspective even if I don't chose to share my definitive "vote" on the matter directly. I would possibly support a moderate minimum wage increase but there are many other things like tax reform etc. that should be addressed first. I am all for more money in the working mans pocket but it must go hand in hand with a good healthy business climate. A failed business employs no man. How about a junior wage for young people to get a foot in the work place, or would that be servitude? and by the way I do not see in my community that older folks are taking the fast food jobs etc. just yet. It is still mostly young folks around here and they certainly are not ghosts to me or any of us less astute dopes that you look down you nose at. Edited November 17, 2015 by vindeville

[Mallette]

You just don't accept that the ultimate driver is EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY.

 

I do! I do!  With just under 40 years in the technical training business we're in my territory here and it brings to mind an actual case. 

 

The only "1%" I've belonged to is the top one percent of salaried training professionals.  Now, that is hardly comparable to those other folks as they spend more than my yearly salary was on servants but still a decent living. 

 

I got there by a simple way:  Learning that management was not interested in training but in profit.  OK, Duh.  But most in my business don't really understand this or how to use it.  In my first few years as a consultant for ARCO we'd demonstrated that using CBT we could improve the performance of people who'd knew how to do a task but had learned it on the job by an average of 15% by teaching them the CORRECT and EFFICIENT way to do it.  That's real money when spread over thousands of employees.  Their convenience store group, AM/PM, got wind of this and ask if we could help them.  Seems the average turnover of a clerk was about six weeks and the overall cost was about twice what the person hard received in pay for that period.  Not good, but apparently about average.  We developed CBT they could do right at the register when no customers were around and could pause and resume at will when interrupted.  I might have gotten rich and retired early if ARCO hadn't gotten bought out before the project was fully implemented.  Initial response was a doubling of productivity PLUS nearly doubling the turnover time.  Many stayed longer and rec'd raises as management suddenly realized a couple of dollars raise actually made them even more money by keeping trained employees on the job.  Serious money! 

 

As mentioned, ARCO got bought out and this project wasn't even on the radar so disappeared. 

 

If American industry really could get the message that effective training makes workers feel appreciated and more proud of what they do as well as making them MUCH more productive and loyal this discussion would be moot. 

 

Here's the deal:  You get what you pay for.  AM/PM had assumed that training was a waste of time since nobody stayed around long enough, and didn't realize that one of the reasons they didn't stay around was that they weren't trained. 

 

One of my favorite companies is Discount Tire.  I've been an totally loyal customer for over 20 years and pay a bit more for tires there (but not much) because they are totally professional and a joy to deal with.  Their shops are spotless and every move says "training, training, training."  A safe, efficient shop is a joy to behold.  I rather doubt those who work there are getting rich since nobody gets rich working for the man...but I'll bet turnover is about as low as it gets in such service industries and that profit reflects it.

 

Dave

[muel]

If you want to understand basic economic principles

(even if you think you do).

 

Thomas Sowell,  Basic Economics

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465060730