Passing the Cost to the Consumer from a Business Owner's Perspective

page: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The economy should be like a natural environment. Each business a species.

Instead, the powers that be make the economy into an organism. Unnatural.

.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
But is a buisness that requires paying adults who work 40 hours a week less then it takes for an adult to support just themselves to be profitable ,truly profitable. Slavery is profitable and I'm not saying it's the same thing. But slavery is morally horrible so we don't do that. I don't think paying people less then it cost to survive for full time work is morally horrible but definatly morally questionable at best.


I am not able to speak for other business but forcing me to have paid my part time employees more just because someone felt it was 'right' is asinine. All my full time associates made more than the newly proposed minimum wage and paying someone $10.10 to work part time in a restaurant (two of my businesses) is absurd.

The vast majority of part timers I hired were inexperienced high school and college kids. I gave them a chance to make some money, learn some skills and responsibilities. The higher the wage creeps the more apt I would have been to exclude them from the process and strictly hirer full time associates with more flexibility and training. In my opinion you need to prove yourself to earn an increase, not just show up.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm not talking about right and wrong really. I'm saying that we as a society agree 40 hrs is a full time week. So paying an adult less then it takes to survive when you work them a full time job. Is definitely a negative to society.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Yes, it should, but the artificially induced pay raise for Joe from $8 to $10.10 is not based on merit. This creates a dynamic of where the unmerited get an increase while the merited do not. If I were Cathy I would ask for a raise too.

I would not classify it as the main driver of inflation, our corpulent government is the main cause of inflation.

Which is unfair to the businesses that would close, both to the owners and the employees. They obviously had a real working arrangement that both were satisfied with. Why alter that based on perception?

They both lead to more jobs, both directly and indirectly. If I expand I hire more people. If I affect capital improvements I need to engage and pay the appropriate persons or businesses to complete these projects and/or purchase the materials to do so myself. Either way the monies saved on taxes circulate back into the economy.

Do you feel there is more to wages than just a valuation of an individual's skills, since you suggest a dynamic?

How much do you think the minimum wage causes inflation, then?

Sanctification is different from necessity. You need to eat to live, and you need money to pay for food. We're the richest country in the world, yet a whole lot of people in the U.S. work for minimum wage - which is worth less per hour than it was fifty years ago.

If you expand, you will hire more staff (or at least increase hours). If you affect capital improvements, this doesn't necessarily happen. You cannot imply that it will. Nor can you imply that the money saved will go back into the economy. Consider - what happens when the budget of a government is reduced - what happens to government employees? Alternatively, what if the beneficiary of your spending on capital improvements originates from another nation?

originally posted by: macman
Instead of someone earning the increase in pay, you want people to just have an arbitrary number assigned for what they should be paid.

That seems to be your opinion, not mine. You do not speak for me, nor are you worth the time replying to further, if this is what you're going to do yet again.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

If you aren't comparing the 2, then why bring it up?

The company is not responsible to pay people what it takes to live. The company is there to provide a service/product so it can generate a profit for the owner(s). Employment is a by product.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
I'm not talking about right and wrong really. I'm saying that we as a society agree 40 hrs is a full time week. So paying an adult less then it takes to survive when you work them a full time job. Is definitely a negative to society.


If the adult cannot live on the wages why are they taking the job?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Do you feel there is more to wages than just a valuation of an individual's skills, since you suggest a dynamic?


I think tenure and the willingness to be cross functional also are major factors.

How much do you think the minimum wage causes inflation, then?


I am not certain of the exact number but I feel it is reflective of the overall increase.

Sanctification is different from necessity. You need to eat to live, and you need money to pay for food. We're the richest country in the world, yet a whole lot of people in the U.S. work for minimum wage - which is worth less per hour than it was fifty years ago.


I do not consider 4.7% of the workforce to be a 'whole lot' when admittedly your article states that they are mostly young as was the case when I owned my business. They have no relatable skill sets at that point and do not warrant much for their time. As they learn and expand their knowledge base they absolutely warrant an increase as long as the performance is there.

If you expand, you will hire more staff (or at least increase hours). If you affect capital improvements, this doesn't necessarily happen. You cannot imply that it will.


I most certainly can. The capital improvement expenses go directly back into the economy, often times the local, and have an impact on the same.


Consider - what happens when the budget of a government is reduced - what happens to government employees?


A government budget can be reduced without lose of jobs by using attrition.


Alternatively, what if the beneficiary of your spending on capital improvements originates from another nation?


That is a stretch in my opinion. The majority of businesses in the United States are small businesses and interact more with their local economy than a foreign entity. If they need an addition is a Chinese company going to build it? If they want new fixtures are they calling somewhere in Europe? If they need to repair the building are they calling an contractor in South America?


edit on 16-5-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lots of reasons. The same reasons they do it for 50 cents a day in china and Mexico. Because our world runs on money. You have to feed your children and lots don't have the benifit of a family to help them get started. Some make a mistake or two and now never get oppertunities again.

IMHO if you take on an employee for full
Time work you as his employer have the responsibility to at least pay enough for the barest apartment, food, utilities, and transportation to work.

But besides that I think buisness owners who don't invest in there employees are hurting there own buisness. People you invest in that know there being taken care of work harder, steal less and generally care more about the success the buisness. Plus the cost to train new employees is really high.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

No matter how damaging to society the environment or there employees. Profits all that matters huh?

That's what I'm saying. In that same logic slavery was profitable so we souls have kept it. Not racial slavery. Roman slavery.

Businesses should be finding a way to make money while improving society.... Not make a profit at the expense of society.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
Lots of reasons. The same reasons they do it for 50 cents a day in china and Mexico.


What other countries pay is irrelevant.


You have to feed your children and lots don't have the benifit of a family to help them get started.


If you are having children while making minimum wage you are making a rather large mistake which should not be anyone else's burden.


Some make a mistake or two and now never get oppertunities again.


Yeah? And?

IMHO if you take on an employee for full
Time work you as his employer have the responsibility to at least pay enough for the barest apartment, food, utilities, and transportation to work.


Why? Who says I should be paying for what you think you need instead of what I think your time and effort are worth?

But besides that I think buisness owners who don't invest in there employees are hurting there own buisness. People you invest in that know there being taken care of work harder, steal less and generally care more about the success the buisness. Plus the cost to train new employees is really high.


Who says I did not take care of my employees? I paid them well but I certainly did not overpay them based on some perception as to what people think other people should be earning.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE

It isn't the job, nor the function of a company to do any of that.

That is what people are supposed to do.

You seem to have blurred what is a business with the Red Cross and Salvation Army.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I just love it when a business owner tacks on a fuel surcharge then never removes it even though its been several years, why not just raise the dang price. Its one way to screw the subcontractor as he is deducted the "fuel surcharge" percentage from the contract pay...total BS.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

It's been the function of every buisness before our present system. Almost all jobs had insurance and retirement. Only in the last 30 years have buisness stopped caring if there employees can make it.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lots of reasons. The same reasons they do it for 50 cents a day in china and Mexico. Because our world runs on money. You have to feed your children and lots don't have the benifit of a family to help them get started. Some make a mistake or two and now never get oppertunities again.

IMHO if you take on an employee for full
Time work you as his employer have the responsibility to at least pay enough for the barest apartment, food, utilities, and transportation to work.

But besides that I think buisness owners who don't invest in there employees are hurting there own buisness. People you invest in that know there being taken care of work harder, steal less and generally care more about the success the buisness. Plus the cost to train new employees is really high.


Yes, I agree people have to take what they can get. It's do or die. However, the business owner has no obligation to give an employee anything outside the law. The owner may have to tweak procedures a bit to keep the help, but there is no reason to go further. When I play games like Gin Rummy or Carcassonne, I don't goof around. I play the game as tightly as I can to insure that I win and win big. The object of a game is to win. Capitalism is a game.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gentledissident

Absolutely. But at the same time it's obviously a negative on society. Like a slum lord or a drug dealer. Just legal until they raise min wage. Which they will both sides are talking about it now.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
If the adult cannot live on the wages why are they taking the job?

Because there is no other.

You are aware of economics - what happens when there are more workers than there are jobs?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I am not certain of the exact number but I feel it is reflective of the overall increase.

I do not consider 4.7% of the workforce to be a 'whole lot' when admittedly your article states that they are mostly young as was the case when I owned my business. They have no relatable skill sets at that point and do not warrant much for their time. As they learn and expand their knowledge base they absolutely warrant an increase as long as the performance is there.

I most certainly can. The capital improvement expenses go directly back into the economy, often times the local, and have an impact on the same.

A government budget can be reduced without lose of jobs by using attrition.

That is a stretch in my opinion. The majority of businesses in the United States are small businesses and interact more with their local economy than a foreign entity. If they need an addition is a Chinese company going to build it? If they want new fixtures are they calling somewhere in Europe? If they need to repair the building are they calling an contractor in South America?

I have yet to find any good numbers on inflationary pressure in regards to the minimum wage. It certainly doesn't always have an effect - if it's below what everybody already makes in a labor market, it does nothing.

On the other hand, here's some more info on wages. Those are the figures at minimum wage. Those aren't figures for near minimum wage. Let me elaborate - the common measurement of income in the U.S. is by household. Households can consist of several individuals. A more accurate picture of wages would then be to examine individuals. According to this report, median individual income in the U.S. in 2010 was around $32k/yr for men and $21k/yr for women.

It wouldn't be fair to simply divide that by 52wk x 40hr, but average annual hours worked were ~1700 hours in 2010 - right around 32hr/wk. That isn't quite the full picture either, as men work slightly longer than women, on average, 8.05 hours to 7.13 hours, or about 13% more. Also, women make up 47% of the workforce. So, that should break down to just over 34hrs/wk for men and just under 30hrs/wk for women. This makes the median hourly rate $18.07 for men and $13.44 for women. That's not too far removed from the minimum wage, now is it? Now, this is based on Census data.

In 2013, the BLS published some other estimates: $22.33 mean hourly wage and $16.87 median hourly wage. This gives you an idea of what kind of skewing the immense hourly earnings higher up are having - 32.4%! It also means at least half of the American workforce earned less than $16.87. Again, that's not too far removed from the minimum wage.

How much of it goes back into the local economy, though? Larger corporations are the bigger concern here, since they have a network to distribute money much further than genuine small businesses can. And there's always option C - instead of expanding or making improvements, you can increase your profit margins. This is perhaps shortsighted, but not rare.

Loss of jobs by attrition, eh? I guess that's one way to explain killing jobs.

Not necessarily people, in that scenario, but parts and equipment might originate from other countries.
edit on 11Sat, 17 May 2014 11:03:58 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: formatting



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Because there is no other.
You are aware of economics - what happens when there are more workers than there are jobs?


I find that to be a cop out answer. There are always more than just minimum wage jobs available. If the person does not have the skill sets to do anything but a minimum wage job it is not anyone else's obligation to support the with more money. They should be attempting to increase their market value; school, trade school, acquiring new skills, etc.

It wouldn't be fair to simply divide that by 52wk x 40hr, but average annual hours worked were ~1700 hours in 2010 - right around 32hr/wk. That isn't quite the full picture either, as men work slightly longer than women, on average, 8.05 hours to 7.13 hours, or about 13% more. Also, women make up 47% of the workforce. So, that should break down to just over 34hrs/wk for men and just under 30hrs/wk for women. This makes the median hourly rate $18.07 for men and $13.44 for women. That's not too far removed from the minimum wage, now is it? Now, this is based on Census data.


Those are nearly double and two and half time the minimum wage respectively so they are very far removed from that figure.

In 2013, the BLS published some other estimates: $22.33 mean hourly wage and $16.87 median hourly wage. This gives you an idea of what kind of skewing the immense hourly earnings higher up are having - 32.4%! It also means at least half of the American workforce earned less than $16.87. Again, that's not too far removed from the minimum wage.


$16.87 is nearly two and half time the minimum wage. Your concept of 'not too far removed' is obviously not the same as everyone else.

How much of it goes back into the local economy, though? Larger corporations are the bigger concern here, since they have a network to distribute money much further than genuine small businesses can. And there's always option C - instead of expanding or making improvements, you can increase your profit margins. This is perhaps shortsighted, but not rare.


I would still wager that the bulk of capital improvements would affect the United States more than it would benefit a foreign nation.

Loss of jobs by attrition, eh? I guess that's one way to explain killing jobs.


Yeah, because our bloated Federal government needs to continue to suck at the neck of the citizens. Ever wonder why the richest counties in the United States are centered around Washington DC?

Not necessarily people, in that scenario, but parts and equipment might originate from other countries.


So what? The improvements still need to be installed by Americans.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I find that to be a cop out answer. There are always more than just minimum wage jobs available. If the person does not have the skill sets to do anything but a minimum wage job it is not anyone else's obligation to support the with more money. They should be attempting to increase their market value; school, trade school, acquiring new skills, etc.

Those are nearly double and two and half time the minimum wage respectively so they are very far removed from that figure.

$16.87 is nearly two and half time the minimum wage. Your concept of 'not too far removed' is obviously not the same as everyone else.

I would still wager that the bulk of capital improvements would affect the United States more than it would benefit a foreign nation.

Yeah, because our bloated Federal government needs to continue to suck at the neck of the citizens. Ever wonder why the richest counties in the United States are centered around Washington DC?

So what? The improvements still need to be installed by Americans.

It's reality. If there is significant unemployment in an industry, the businesses in that industry have more bargaining power on wages than businesses in an industry that has little unemployment. This depresses workers' wages. When you're fighting to feed yourself and/or family, you're liable to make some concessions. You can say it's a cop, but that's how the world is - even from an economic standpoint.

Take note, women have a median hourly wage well below that of men - $13.44. This means that half of the women in the workforce earn $13.44 or lower. That's 23.5% of the workforce who earn (presumably) between minimum wage and 185% of minimum wage. That's pretty near minimum wage - anything less than double it.

Only if businesses did make improvements. It seems they opted put the money in the bank for a rainy day. Perhaps small businesses wouldn't do that.

Who, in government, is making such extravagant wages? Last I remember, government work paid less than private sector work, but tended to have better benefits.

What if the company you hire to make improvements also doesn't hire more staff or increase hours? Perhaps they just spread the work over a longer time period to get it in. Maybe they push the workers harder so that they can pocket more cash. Were any jobs created now?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ArtemisE

It isn't the job, nor the function of a company to do any of that.

That is what people are supposed to do.

You seem to have blurred what is a business with the Red Cross and Salvation Army.



You quote is EXACTLY why we need labor laws and taxation.

First, in the long-term helping society does raise profits. Business that focus on the short-term are bad for the economy. A healthy work force with low poverty does help corporations. Short-term focus on $$ will destroy and business AND a SOCIETY.

Second, why do you think business isn't SUPPOSED to help society but instead focus ONLY on money? Whether it's a one person landscaping business or a international corporation? Do you really think that's going to create a good society? Do you think killing your competition is ok too if it will increase your profits? Child labor ok in your book if your profit margin this month goes up a 1/2 %?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ArtemisE
That's what I'm saying.


But the rich refuse to acknowledge it, it seems. It's only about how much they can make because too much is never enough while the people who make them what they are live in poverty. It's mind-boggling, this mind-set.

I would like to see these greedy elites support their families on what they pay for one year. I bet many of them still wouldn't get it even after that! The wrong people are in control. Time to change that.






top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join