It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Saying absolutes are illogical but having no problem making sweeping generalizations, that's how.
Just so you know, the story in the OP is spun to make it look like the pay raise caused the shutdown of the business. That wasn't the case.
The Aqueduct Buffet opened with the casino in October 2011, but casino officials say it had never been a profitable enterprise, though the casino has garnered nearly $1 billion in revenue since it opened. It was located on the casino’s main floor — the Times Square Casino floor — and overlooked the racetrack.
“I’m guessing it was somewhat more profitable at $20 a plate than $40 a plate,” Addabbo said. “I understand the overhead may have increased because of [the pay raise]
reply to post by OpinionatedB
I don't see what your point is. The buffet was just part of the business as a whole. They decided that it was not profitable enough and discontinued it.
There is nothing wrong with that and given that that particular casino is "the most lucrative slot floor in the US", it doesn't seem likely that the business as a whole was not turning a healthy profit and since they said it themselves, "the pay raise was not the reason for closing the buffet".
So then - have you been able to uncover any other statement indicating what the sudden reason (beyond the increased loss attendant upon the payroll increase) WAS?
bigfatfurrytexanSince you are so well versed in how a business is run, then please enlighten us. I would LOVE to see a business model for any service business where you can have all employees paid "a living wage" (which is, I believe, variable by region). ill eagerly await it.
bigfatfurrytexanPlease name these multiple better systems that our arrogant ignorance prevents us from seeing.
reply to post by daskakik
The whole point, it appears, is that if you have no skills, you can't get a skilled job, and so must settle for the dregs. The obvious remedy for that is to get some skills.
For those struggling with the concept of wealth I recommend a simple book called "Rich Dad Poor Dad" By: Robert Kiyosaki
Another great book if you like long reads is "Atlas Shrugged"....
I don't expect people to actually read these books though...their dead set on their opinion and point of view on the subject because they already ARENT reading books like these.
So what should be a living wage in America, and should flipping burgers actually be a solo living wage? Should we base the lowest living wage on one person providing even just for himself, much less a family. Has there ever been a time in the last 100 years that a person could flip burgers and live on that wage?
I can tell you that as a business owner (5 employees) if I had to double their wages they would be unemployed. Simple as that.
The idea of a living wage crazy also. Prices are based off the minimum wage. If mcdonalds has to pay workers $12 an hour, they will compensate by making Big Macs $9. Then your living wage will still not be enough because of price increases. Every action has a reaction.
You think such a successful person is going to be content to flip burgers if they lose one well paid job or do you think they are going to become the manager of the McDonalds after working their ass off and learning the business? Those screaming for a "living wage" for unskilled minimum wage jobs are not the riches to rags types...they are the ones who never aspired to more than flipping burgers. A successful person like you described above will raise themselves up without the government's help.
NavyDocAnd those jobs are designed for kids. Expecting to support a family on a kid's job is an absolute piss take.
No and I honestly don't care.
They gave their reason.
Their numbers and the decision to keep 90% of the staff working seems to indicate that although the raise would obviously affect profits, it was not by any significant amount and surely not even close to driving them out of business.
Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to, really. Digging too deeply might damage the narrative you prefer to believe. understandable. It's a common human trait.
They did. it was operating at a consistent loss. The timing is suspect, since I only know of one thing that would have deepened that loss, but again digging too deeply could be narrative damaging, so lets not do that.
Significantly, perhaps, the did not close the casino, which is operating at a profit, and can thus sustain itself. One would not expect them to close a profitable venture. I've not found anything to indicate the raise was across the board for casino staff, but that obviously doesn't mean that it wasn't - just that I've not found anything to indicate that it was. Still, it was operating at enough profit to take the hit from a raise, so one would not expect it to close even if the raise were across the board.
The buffet appears to have been a different story.
If I'm operating a car wash that makes a profit, and a movie theater at a loss, I'm not going to rob from the car wash to pay for the losses of the theater, especially if the theater suddenly becomes even more of a liability. One of them will get closed. Can you guess which?
The casino recently raised prices at the buffet, where weekend favorites were crab legs and steak. Kerri Lyon, a Genting Group spokeswoman, said that there was no connection between the new contracts and the price increase, and that the restaurant had lost money since it opened. There are several other restaurants in the casino complex.
Under the new agreement with the Hotel Trades Council, Resorts World Casino New York City will increase the salaries of 1,400 of its 1,750 employees to more than $60,000 per year — doubling the take for some of those workers, officials said.
I have skills, however they don't get me a good job. There's no demand for that type of thing in my area. My job requires 2 college degrees and pays minimum wage, that's just the way things are. What are my options? Refuse to work it? Then an important job goes unfilled and I have no income at all, everyone loses from my employer, to me, to the people I work with, to the community impacted by those I work with.
From 1950 until the late 1970's you could own a small home, afford college, and have a little bit left over on just a full time minimum wage job. A minimum wage job in 1980 in terms of purchasing power translates to 50k today, which just so happens to be our median wage. So yes, it's quite possible. Incidentally, if you took our poverty rate in 1955 and applied it to the real inflation rate today it would be 35k/year.
No one won in this debacle.
The employer (Genting Group) has billions in assets and employs over 58,000 people globally.
Somehow I suspect that they could care less about the employees or the loss in income.
Correct. Skills alone will not get you that job - you have to go get IT, which is where the skills come in handy. If there is no demand in your area, then you change areas. Just out of curiosity, what sort of job requires 2 college degrees just to achieve minimum wage?
If "an important job goes unfilled", that isn't your problem if you're in it for the money, and they aren't willing to get up off the money to snag you. If you're NOT in it for the money, then the point is moot. You'll do it for nothing or next to it, and not complain. Other people's losses are not your problem, either, if they are unwilling to pay the rate you want. Only your own losses matter, and those can be eliminated by a move - either to another area, or to another profession, or both.
Statistics are cute. I had a minimum wage job for a while in 1980, and had nowhere near the purchasing power of 50k today, regardless of what the statistics say. I lived it.
I always had money, sure, but it was in spite of the job, rather than because of it. It was because of the way I managed my finances, rather than the money I made on that job having such massive purchasing power. 3.10 in 1980 was equivalent to about 5.90 today
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
I've always wondered why (mostly liberals) have the "Robin Hood" mentality. And as youstated, thye always, ALWAYS seem to only look at things from a poor person's perspective, to the point that they could never see themselves as a rich person.
They never consider that they may and could have wealth.
So they continue to sympathize with the poor, and look at anyone who is not as EVIL.