Top Economists Are Backing Sen. Bernie Sanders on Establishing a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I've never once heard my dad (who owns several hotels) complain about needing to pass the high minimum wage prices onto consumers.

Are you saying that because your dad does not complain about his labor charges they are not factored into the overall gross margin calculation?

No, I'm not necessarily claiming that.... I'm just stating it doesn't bother the business owner and that the consumers a both capable and prepared to pay the cost.

a reply to: AlaskanDadMinimum is all they have to offer us??? Wages go up, and so does: taxes, gas, food and electric prices.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
No, I'm not necessarily claiming that.... I'm just stating it doesn't bother the business owner and that the consumers a both capable and prepared to pay the cost.

That is precisely my point, your dad is not complaining becasue he passed the cost on to the consumer. It is factored into their P&L.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
No, I'm not necessarily claiming that.... I'm just stating it doesn't bother the business owner and that the consumers a both capable and prepared to pay the cost.

That is precisely my point, your dad is not complaining becasue he passed the cost on to the consumer. It is factored into their P&L.

Yeah maybe. But his making good money and the consumer can obviously afford the price of a hotel... That is the definition of a healthy economy, is it not?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It is the sign that for this particular business the end user is able to justify the pricing for the services rendered. Any further extrapolation in regards overall economic health is completely speculative.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

On a "macro scale" ... so you mean Revenue - Costs = Profit? I suppose on that macro level, all businesses are the same, at least, for-profit businesses.

Then it wouldn't be "new" ... that was the stipulation in the scenario. A "new" business would figure out how to meet demand under the new circumstances.

We're speaking theoretically; I have no more concrete data in this scenario than you do.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
On a "macro scale" ... so you mean Revenue - Costs = Profit? I suppose on that macro level, all businesses are the same, at least, for-profit businesses.

Then it wouldn't be "new" ... that was the stipulation in the scenario. A "new" business would figure out how to meet demand under the new circumstances.

A for profit business that found a 'new' way to do business implies that they have devised a method to make their product more appealing in some way to the end user. It does not alleviate them from the standard economics of doing business which is profitability. Regardless of their 'new' method, if they do not turn a profit they are not long for the business world.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is, again, generally true. In the course of this discussion, however, the "new" business postulated was one that came in after a "$15/hr" wage was established (and really, is anybody claiming that this would happen all at once?) and filled the gaps left by the businesses that failed under the "old" practices with the higher minimum wage requirement.

So, no ... they could be selling the same hamburger for the same price ... but have configured their margins differently.

You seem to be stating that for any business that profit, having reached a certain level, must either remain the same, or will always be increasing.

Do I have that correctly?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It is the sign that for this particular business the end user is able to justify the pricing for the services rendered. Any further extrapolation in regards overall economic health is completely speculative.

Well then prove your pure speculation... brother!

Just do a few simple google searches and some basic research and find an industry in Australia that has crashed because of the over $15US an hour minimum wage.

Otherwise... just admit there's no evidence whatsoever that a $15 an hour minimum would hurt the American economy in anyway.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, no ... they could be selling the same hamburger for the same price ... but have configured their margins differently.

The only way to reconfigure their margins, wiht all things being equal, would be in a reduction of fixed charges.

You seem to be stating that for any business that profit, having reached a certain level, must either remain the same, or will always be increasing.

Do I have that correctly?

It can fluctuate, and often does, but it must remain above a certain industry percentage for the business to remain viable.

A business can claim to be able to operate a fast food establishment selling product that enables them to afford a $15 per hour minimum wage but they need to demonstrate profitability for them to survive in the market place.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Most service industry jobs can absorb the cost of labor. Export jobs have mostly left the US; one exception being arms sales which depends on skilled workers and technology so raising min wage is not a big deal there.

We have had 35 years of trickle down economy that has destroyed the middle class. It is time to quit the failed reganomics that started in the 80's and raise the minimum wage. It is ridiculous that workers are earning wages below poverty levels, it's insane workers need food stamps to get by!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Just do a few simple google searches and some basic research and find an industry in Australia that has crashed because of the over $15US an hour minimum wage.

Otherwise... just admit there's no evidence whatsoever that a $15 an hour minimum would hurt the American economy in anyway.

Demonstrating that an industrial sector has collapsed is not the point. It is the impact on indivudal businesses that are where the impact is felt.

To claim that increased costs will not be felt in some manner is not economically feasible.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Please supply some evidence for your claims regarding service industry jobs.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In other words, you can't provide one single practical instance to demonstrate that a $15 an hour minimum wage wouldn't work in America... correct?

Why are we stopping at $15/hr? If you can just raise the minimum wage and eliminate poverty, why not bump it to $30/hr? $50/hr? Heck, we can all be millionaires. You progressives need to think bigger...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It is very simple, if all service industry jobs get the same added cost of increased wages, the costs are easily passed on to the consumer.

If you think McDonald's will not sell burgers because they cost a little more, you should see the prices at the Ketchikan Mcdonald's!

a reply to: Edumakated

It is ironic that today's ceo's are paid tens of millions of dollars a year and they are getting multimillion dollar bonuses, while we argue over $15 bucks an hour for their employees.

Of course we both both realize that any minimum wage would need to be adjusted annually with coa's or it's meaningless. The current dilemma of workers needing food stamps was brought about by our minimum wage not being adjusted to:

if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour.

that's a little out of context:

The real, inflation-adjusted, value of the federal minimum wage has fallen dramatically over time. The real value of the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at 10.85 an hour, 50 percent above the current level. Moreover, since 1968, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by roughly 140 percent. This means that, if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour. (References for all data cited in this petition can be found here: www.peri.umass.edu...)

source

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Edumakated

It is ironic that today's ceo's are paid tens of millions of dollars a year and they are getting multimillion dollar bonuses, while we argue over $15 bucks an hour for their employees.

Of course we both both realize that any minimum wage would need to be adjusted annually with coa's or it's meaningless. The current dilemma of workers needing food stamps was brought about by our minimum wage not being adjusted to:

if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour.

that's a little out of context:

The real, inflation-adjusted, value of the federal minimum wage has fallen dramatically over time. The real value of the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at 10.85 an hour, 50 percent above the current level. Moreover, since 1968, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by roughly 140 percent. This means that, if the federal minimum wage had risen in step with both inflation and average labor productivity since 1968, the federal minimum wage today would be $26.00 an hour. (References for all data cited in this petition can be found here: www.peri.umass.edu...)

source

There is only one CEO, so their wages are commensurate with their scarcity. Assuming minimum wage should keep up with inflation is a fallacy. A lot of things are cheaper than they've ever been. Many people's standard of living has improved dramatically at the lower end, even though wages have not.

Cell phones, TVs, air conditioning, etc. Many of the so called poor standard of living is better than the upper and middle classes did barely 25 years ago. Simply saying wages have not kept up with inflation does not tell the whole story.

The point is that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs so someone can demonstrate an ability to come to work on time, learn some skills, and move up. They are not meant to be careers.

What is funny is that the minimum wage was initially put in place as a racist measure to keep blacks out of the work force who often times would work for less than many whites and union members. As a result, they lobbied for the minimum wage. In the 30s, the black unemployment rate was lower than whites. Urban blacks are generally the ones hurt the most now by these policies, particular teenagers.

a reply to: Edumakated

The point is that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be entry level jobs so someone can demonstrate an ability to come to work on time, learn some skills, and move up. They are not meant to be careers.

That's the whole problem though isn't it? You can tell corporations how it's "supposed" to be until your blue in the face. But there still only going to pay there(unskilled) employee's what there legally obligated to pay them.

I mean, the OP clearly states that the average individual making minimum wage is 36 years old. Which perfectly demonstrates that corporations are happily exploiting the most vulnerable people in society, in order to achieve maximum profits.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

My grandfather worked as a carpenter till he was 76. He tried retiring when he was 68 but he drove my grandmother nuts looking for things to do around the house. So he went back to work. When he did retire he lived for another 14 years, happy years for the most part. I plan to work till I drop. Where I live in NY the minimum wage is 8.75/hour, going to 9.00 by the end of the year.