Liberal Forum

Part 1 of 2

Normally when a conservative retard talks about echo-naw-mix, usually I take a step back, listen, nod, and smile.

This is, of course, a measure designed to prevent myself from bursting out laughing at whatever retardation they are spewing.

Examples of retardation:

======================================

Thomas Sowell (paraphrase): "The MW hurts black workers. If we got rid of MW laws then black unemployment would drop drastically or be eliminated."

Reality: A large % of blacks are simply unemployable (i.e. they will simply steal the business owner's stuff/do nothing productive at work either because they can't or don't want to, which makes their effective net contribution to the value of the business negative, so even at an amazing wage of $0/hr they still wouldn't be hired, unless there happens to be a bunch of retarded business owners who enjoy proverbially setting their own businesses on fire.)

Conservatives (in general - paraphrase): Corporate tax cuts are great because they incentivize corps to create jobs.

Reality: Jobs are a function of market demand as well as the cost required to meet said demand. This means that 

1) A robust economy (unless you're in a counter cyclical industry/sector)
2) Lower expenses (incl. rent, wages, FF&E, vehicles, marketing, insurance)

are far more important than taxes (which is indeed an expense but a function of net profit rather than a prerequisite for revenue coming in).

You could lower corporate taxes to 0% and corps that sell "low end" goods would still operate out of Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Burma simply because wages there are far lower than those found in the states. 

Another point to consider is that corporate tax cuts not only DON'T create jobs - they DECREASE the # of jobs.

(The theory is not complicated: corporate tax cuts incentivize investing in capital goods (AKA AUTOMATION) and R&D, which reduces the need for additional workers and even allows for a reduction in the existing workforce, If you weren't retarded you may have noticed "why manufacturing facilities use robots with a small # of workers instead of an army of workers in 2023")

P.S.

That's ALSO assuming the corp tax cut wasn't distributed to shareholders via a dividend hike, a one-time dividend, or share buybacks.


Conservatives: A "free market" allocates resources efficiently.

Reality: We do not have a "free market" - we have a market controlled and dictated by Wall Street and (((GLOBALISTS))).

Second, even IF we did have a "free market," it would not allocate resources efficiently because all the small firms would get gobbled up by large corps and our eCONomy would turn into a heavily cartelized trainwreck. (Anyone remember the size of that Costco in Idiocracy?) 

Unfortunately, conservatives are either too stupid or too deceptive (mostly the former, I imagine) to comprehend a situation where the big wigs get together and iron out a price fixing plan to screw over consumers in the absence of their favorite fairy tale: a "free market." 
 

Part 2 of 2

Now that I'm done with the flaming / laughing @ retards, we can get to the main show: 

Conservatives are correct when they bitch and moan that...the TAXES are too damn high!    

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes


Case study:

Just graduated college student, entry-level civil engineer, single
Rent/own? Rent 1 BR
Dallas, TX
Salary: $69K

Pays about ~19.17% in federal, FICA, and state 

But hold on...there's more:

Property tax: It may seem odd to list "property tax" under someone who is renting. However, this is an academic question (property tax incidence) that has been explored for quite some time: whether the burden of a residential property tax falls mainly on the renter or landlord.

The answer is it depends on how elastic the market for rental property units is. If it is elastic (i.e. property renters can move about quickly/find new rental units in the event of rent increase) then the landlord shoulders the majority.

In most American urban areas with restrictive zoning regulations (and Dallas is one of the more lenient ones with regards to zoning, unlike say *cough* San Francisco *cough*), this is not the case as rents have been rising for well over a decade now since the 2008 debacle.

This implies a more inelastic curve, so at least for now, I would assume this person would shoulder roughly ~40%.

(Just FYI in more elastic scenarios, economists estimate that renters only shoulder ~15% of property taxes)

Condo price in Dallas, TX (1 BR): $235K 
Property tax rate: 2.22% (times 0.4 to represent renter's burden) = 0.888%
Tax: ~$2100/yr or ~3.0% of gross salary

Sales tax: 8.25%

Effective tax rate (based on sales tax paid) as a % of gross income is difficult to calculate since people's spending habits change from year to year. However, I believe an estimate of $20,000/yr that is taxable as sales is reasonable.

8.25% x 20,000 = 1650 or ~2.4%


Gasoline tax: 38.4 cents/gallon 
500 gallons/yr

$192 in gasoline tax/yr (insignificant, won't include)


There are other taxes like excise taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, etc. that don't apply to this person. 

When you add up the numbers, he's paying slightly under 25% of his gross income in taxes.

In other words, his EFFECTIVE tax rate (ALL INCLUSIVE) is ~24.5%.


===========================================================================

So let's get this record straight: Someone fresh out of college ready to start his first job making just under $70K a yr (which is not a lot of money) is paying  ~24.5% of his gross income in taxes.

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD




 

Part 3 of 2

The #s get worse if you're talking about "high income" earners

(I put "high income" in quotations since the numbers I'm going to use are not actually "very high" unless you have low standards...)

Dual Income / Married:

New York City: Investment Banker, $250K/yr (Assume wife makes $150K in some other finance career) = $400K/yr

San Francisco: Software Developer, $250K/yr (Assume wife makes $150K in some other software career) = $400K/yr

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes

NY state, federal, FICA = 33.7%
CA state, federal, FICA = 31.6%

Don't forget property taxes...(assume they "own" the house AKA made a deal with a banker who typed some digits into a computer and now have to slave away for 15-30 yrs to pay off the mortgage generated via credit)

NYC property tax based on $1.3M house: 0.88% * 1.3M = $11,400 (2.85%)
SF property tax based on $1.3M house: 1.18% * 1.3M = $15,340 (3.83%)

and sales taxes...

Both families spend $100K/yr that are taxable as sales

NYC sales tax: 8.8% = $8800 (2.2%)
SF sales tax: 8.6% = $8600 (2.15%)

NYC: 38.75%
SF: 37.58%

So...these cases (who are not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination) are paying 37-39% of gross income in taxes. 

The billionaires and oligarchs THANK you tax donkeys (upper middle class) wagie slavies for doing the hard lifting!

XDDDD

 
 

Speculating that evolving cannot be self contained to ancestors spontaneously evolving since conceived spontaneously here simultaneously since inception population is never same ancestors added twice governed by ideas living cannot be limited to eternally separated now in every alternate reality equal to ancestral generation gaps present.

Corruption created by selling time shares of occupying space naturally existing when timed apart ancestrally here now. Corporations are just community theater of people doing specialized tasks developing an economic system based on 4 principles of reasonable doubt life isn't kinetically self evident to behaviors of everyone here ignoring how evolving does happen limite to compounding changes in forms shaped since inception of occupying time when genetically present as a replacement of one's own changing form since conceived.

1. Contextual substitution of content inorganically and ancestrally present.
2. Every generation is included, no exceptions
3. Symbolism over substance is mandatory in every reality, rule of law protecting typecast people in charge
4. Anyone not performing as required faces insubordination, treason, blasphemy not complying to social consensus legislating morality, legality, ethics, economic value to one's chosen reality after birth.

People are required to mind possibilities and honor reasonable doubt until extinction arrives. Doesn't matter which of the 5 basic races, 5 generation gaps living, governed by 6 degrees of defying life is self evident.

Pick the institutions academia, arts, economics, politics beliefs, spiritual convictions life exceeds occupying the moment here, vernacular tribalism and common means to communicate between active brains occupying space when specifically ancestrally present.

Been going on historically within my own ancestry I watched going forward same way in everyone else's regardless their social defined character in categorical race, creed, color, national origin, gender since conceived, geological(chromosomes), geometrical(numbers present), geographical(specific location occupying space) since conceived to adapting in space one at a time now.

Self evident from personal time being alive here. Nobody agrees with me, why?
How does this continue?
When will it end and I am not acking which rotation of the planet it will be?
Where it happens is in this atmosphere as a whole species is destroying itself inside out, intellectually.

LowIQTrash » 03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm

Part 1 of 2

Normally when a conservative retard talks about echo-naw-mix, usually I take a step back, listen, nod, and smile.

This is, of course, a measure designed to prevent myself from bursting out laughing at whatever retardation they are spewing.

Examples of retardation:

======================================

Thomas Sowell (paraphrase): "The MW hurts black workers. If we got rid of MW laws then black unemployment would drop drastically or be eliminated."

Reality: A large % of blacks are simply unemployable (i.e. they will simply steal the business owner's stuff/do nothing productive at work either because they can't or don't want to, which makes their effective net contribution to the value of the business negative, so even at an amazing wage of $0/hr they still wouldn't be hired, unless there happens to be a bunch of retarded business owners who enjoy proverbially setting their own businesses on fire.)

Conservatives (in general - paraphrase): Corporate tax cuts are great because they incentivize corps to create jobs.

Reality: Jobs are a function of market demand as well as the cost required to meet said demand. This means that 

1) A robust economy (unless you're in a counter cyclical industry/sector)
2) Lower expenses (incl. rent, wages, FF&E, vehicles, marketing, insurance)

are far more important than taxes (which is indeed an expense but a function of net profit rather than a prerequisite for revenue coming in).

You could lower corporate taxes to 0% and corps that sell "low end" goods would still operate out of Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Burma simply because wages there are far lower than those found in the states. 

Another point to consider is that corporate tax cuts not only DON'T create jobs - they DECREASE the # of jobs.

(The theory is not complicated: corporate tax cuts incentivize investing in capital goods (AKA AUTOMATION) and R&D, which reduces the need for additional workers and even allows for a reduction in the existing workforce, If you weren't retarded you may have noticed "why manufacturing facilities use robots with a small # of workers instead of an army of workers in 2023")

P.S.

That's ALSO assuming the corp tax cut wasn't distributed to shareholders via a dividend hike, a one-time dividend, or share buybacks.

Conservatives: A "free market" allocates resources efficiently.

Reality: We do not have a "free market" - we have a market controlled and dictated by Wall Street and (((GLOBALISTS))).

Second, even IF we did have a "free market," it would not allocate resources efficiently because all the small firms would get gobbled up by large corps and our eCONomy would turn into a heavily cartelized trainwreck. (Anyone remember the size of that Costco in Idiocracy?) 

Unfortunately, conservatives are either too stupid or too deceptive (mostly the former, I imagine) to comprehend a situation where the big wigs get together and iron out a price fixing plan to screw over consumers in the absence of their favorite fairy tale: a "free market."

nm

LowIQTrash » 03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm

Part 1 of 2

Normally when a conservative retard talks about echo-naw-mix, usually I take a step back, listen, nod, and smile.

This is, of course, a measure designed to prevent myself from bursting out laughing at whatever retardation they are spewing.

Examples of retardation:

======================================

Thomas Sowell (paraphrase): "The MW hurts black workers. If we got rid of MW laws then black unemployment would drop drastically or be eliminated."

Reality: A large % of blacks are simply unemployable (i.e. they will simply steal the business owner's stuff/do nothing productive at work either because they can't or don't want to, which makes their effective net contribution to the value of the business negative, so even at an amazing wage of $0/hr they still wouldn't be hired, unless there happens to be a bunch of retarded business owners who enjoy proverbially setting their own businesses on fire.)

Conservatives (in general - paraphrase): Corporate tax cuts are great because they incentivize corps to create jobs.

Reality: Jobs are a function of market demand as well as the cost required to meet said demand. This means that 

1) A robust economy (unless you're in a counter cyclical industry/sector)
2) Lower expenses (incl. rent, wages, FF&E, vehicles, marketing, insurance)

are far more important than taxes (which is indeed an expense but a function of net profit rather than a prerequisite for revenue coming in).

You could lower corporate taxes to 0% and corps that sell "low end" goods would still operate out of Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Burma simply because wages there are far lower than those found in the states. 

Another point to consider is that corporate tax cuts not only DON'T create jobs - they DECREASE the # of jobs.

(The theory is not complicated: corporate tax cuts incentivize investing in capital goods (AKA AUTOMATION) and R&D, which reduces the need for additional workers and even allows for a reduction in the existing workforce, If you weren't retarded you may have noticed "why manufacturing facilities use robots with a small # of workers instead of an army of workers in 2023")

P.S.

That's ALSO assuming the corp tax cut wasn't distributed to shareholders via a dividend hike, a one-time dividend, or share buybacks.

Conservatives: A "free market" allocates resources efficiently.

Reality: We do not have a "free market" - we have a market controlled and dictated by Wall Street and (((GLOBALISTS))).

Second, even IF we did have a "free market," it would not allocate resources efficiently because all the small firms would get gobbled up by large corps and our eCONomy would turn into a heavily cartelized trainwreck. (Anyone remember the size of that Costco in Idiocracy?) 

Unfortunately, conservatives are either too stupid or too deceptive (mostly the former, I imagine) to comprehend a situation where the big wigs get together and iron out a price fixing plan to screw over consumers in the absence of their favorite fairy tale: a "free market."

MW regulation makes more Blacks less employable than if there was no minimum.
MW regulation is inflationary and so it makes life worse for the unemployed and not much better for the French Fry Technicians either.

LowIQTrash » 03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm

Part 1 of 2

Normally when a conservative retard talks about echo-naw-mix, usually I take a step back, listen, nod, and smile.

This is, of course, a measure designed to prevent myself from bursting out laughing at whatever retardation they are spewing.

Examples of retardation:

======================================

Thomas Sowell (paraphrase): "The MW hurts black workers. If we got rid of MW laws then black unemployment would drop drastically or be eliminated."

Reality: A large % of blacks are simply unemployable (i.e. they will simply steal the business owner's stuff/do nothing productive at work either because they can't or don't want to, which makes their effective net contribution to the value of the business negative, so even at an amazing wage of $0/hr they still wouldn't be hired, unless there happens to be a bunch of retarded business owners who enjoy proverbially setting their own businesses on fire.)

Conservatives (in general - paraphrase): Corporate tax cuts are great because they incentivize corps to create jobs.

Reality: Jobs are a function of market demand as well as the cost required to meet said demand. This means that 

1) A robust economy (unless you're in a counter cyclical industry/sector)
2) Lower expenses (incl. rent, wages, FF&E, vehicles, marketing, insurance)

are far more important than taxes (which is indeed an expense but a function of net profit rather than a prerequisite for revenue coming in).

You could lower corporate taxes to 0% and corps that sell "low end" goods would still operate out of Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Burma simply because wages there are far lower than those found in the states. 

Another point to consider is that corporate tax cuts not only DON'T create jobs - they DECREASE the # of jobs.

(The theory is not complicated: corporate tax cuts incentivize investing in capital goods (AKA AUTOMATION) and R&D, which reduces the need for additional workers and even allows for a reduction in the existing workforce, If you weren't retarded you may have noticed "why manufacturing facilities use robots with a small # of workers instead of an army of workers in 2023")

P.S.

That's ALSO assuming the corp tax cut wasn't distributed to shareholders via a dividend hike, a one-time dividend, or share buybacks.

Conservatives: A "free market" allocates resources efficiently.

Reality: We do not have a "free market" - we have a market controlled and dictated by Wall Street and (((GLOBALISTS))).

Second, even IF we did have a "free market," it would not allocate resources efficiently because all the small firms would get gobbled up by large corps and our eCONomy would turn into a heavily cartelized trainwreck. (Anyone remember the size of that Costco in Idiocracy?) 

Unfortunately, conservatives are either too stupid or too deceptive (mostly the former, I imagine) to comprehend a situation where the big wigs get together and iron out a price fixing plan to screw over consumers in the absence of their favorite fairy tale: a "free market."

It's obvious you've never owned a business in your life or educated yourself to the reality of how businesses work to put forth such an idiotic left-wing spate of **** as you've done.
 

What is MW and FFE?

BuckNaked » 04 Oct 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 11:01 am

What is MW and FFE?

Minimum
Wage

 
FF&E....I think this  applies to necessities like furniture and cars

LowIQTrash » 03 Oct 2023, 10:51 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Oct 2023, 10:51 pm

 

The billionaires and oligarchs THANK you tax donkeys (upper middle class) wagie slavies for doing the hard lifting!

XDDDD

It kind of sounds like you don't identify with the "upper middle class", which in 2023 is between $90k-$150k. The reality is you wish you had their problem.

Economic Experts are a dime a dozen.
Want to buy some beachfront property?


 

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 8:06 am

MW regulation makes more Blacks less employable than if there was no minimum.
MW regulation is inflationary and so it makes life worse for the unemployed and not much better for the French Fry Technicians either.

This ^ is prescription - not description.

All it would take for you to change your tune is a minimum wage job. 

For decades, Arkansans voted against a state minimum wage - terrified by the propaganda of the money boys you're listening to. They were assured that if they voted for a state minimum, all of the jobs would flee. In 2018, out of nowhere, AR voters pulled their heads out of their asses and instituted a 9 dollar minimum starting Jan 1 of 2019, raising to 10 in 2020 and 11 in 2021. That is a hike of more than 50% in 3 short years - quite a shock to employers, one would expect. 

YOU CAN LOOK FOR YOURSELF AT THE RECORD RESULTS ON STATE GDP: 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187 ... ince-1997/ The chart veritably CLIMBS upward in the wake of the raise - for obvious reasons. Higher minimum wage is the most stimulative thing for an economy. 

You can look at unemployment - it's at record lows: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ARUR

The state had a record 1.63 billion dollar budget surplus last year.

Okay, enough facts - give us more prescriptions. What happens to states that hike the minimum wage in your anecdotal experience, as opposed to the experience of economists and statisticians?

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 1:21 pm

FF&E....I think this  applies to necessities like furniture and cars

Ford Fairmonts & Easychairs.

Economists have found that these items are perfect bell-weathers.   
 

Fuelman » 04 Oct 2023, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 4:31 pm

Economic Experts are a dime a dozen.

Not according to economic experts, they aren't.

They say they're worth a mint!
 

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 4:57 pm

This ^ is prescription - not description.

All it would take for you to change your tune is a minimum wage job. 

For decades, Arkansans voted against a state minimum wage - terrified by the propaganda of the money boys you're listening to. They were assured that if they voted for a state minimum, all of the jobs would flee. In 2018, out of nowhere, AR voters pulled their heads out of their asses and instituted a 9 dollar minimum starting Jan 1 of 2019, raising to 10 in 2020 and 11 in 2020. That is a hike of more than 50% in 3 short years - quite a shock to employers, one would expect. 

YOU CAN LOOK FOR YOURSELF AT THE RECORD RESULTS ON STATE GDP: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187 ... ince-1997/ The chart veritably CLIMBS upward in the wake of the raise - for obvious reasons. Higher minimum wage is the most stimulative thing for an economy. 

You can look at unemployment - it's at record lows: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ARUR

The state had a record 1.63 billion dollar budget surplus last year.

Okay, enough facts - give us more prescriptions. What happens to states that hike the minimum wage in your anecdotal experience, as opposed to the experience of economists and statisticians?

We're talking about just the advantages and disadvantages for ****** who teeter on the edge of unemployability....right...?
My comment was limited to.backing up Sowells' observations as to how MW affects marginally employable ******.
I think MW raises the bar for production  standards that encourage the importatation of more Illegal Aliens and it puts more "marginally employable" Americans [not just ****** but also drug addled Wiggers, Hipsters and SJWs] out of work.
I don't want to encourage more future Democrats to enter our society for any reason.
If manufacturers are forced to raise costs what does that do to prices...?
Do you think the manufacturers eat the 50% increase in labor cost..?
I would like to know how many customers were served by McDonalds daily.....BEFORE and AFTER large scale MW laws took effect.
I am not interested in sales figures as much as I am interested in knowing what it did to the number of customers they served.

 

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

We're talking about just the advantages and disadvantages for ****** who teeter on the edge of unemployability....right...?

I do not share your concern for Moors. I don't actually give a **** about your Delanamores and Shaquitas.

So I was commenting on the broader issue.

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

My comment was limited to.backing up Sowells' observations as to how MW affects marginally employable ******.

Big fan of Sowell. My comment was more intended to back up lowIQtrash - to represent the actual facts on the ground about hiking minimum wage.

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

I think MW raises the bar for production  standards that encourage the importatation of more Illegal Aliens and it puts more "marginally employable" Americans [not just ****** but also drug addled Wiggers, Hipsters and SJWs] out of work.

Immigration is driven far more by weak border enforcement and fifth columnists in government than by minimum wage.

But let's grant your argument, here. Are you suggesting that we should tailor our policies to be unattractive to Guatemalens?

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

I don't want to encourage more future Democrats to enter our society for any reason.

And I don't want to live in a country that desperate people DON'T try to live in.

For any reason.

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

If manufacturers are forced to raise costs what does that do to prices...?

Raise 'em?

So, if we DO NOT raise minimum wages annually, what will that do to the purchasing power of minimum wage workers, year over year? Before you answer, let me key you in on my thinking. It's my suspicion that inflation will LOWER their purchasing power, bringing them closer to the afore mentioned Guatemalens. Which means without a COLA, minimum wage workers are getting poorer and poorer and poorer. If this continues, we're likely to see people just give up on work altogether, on the reasoning that poverty is less miserable if it is at least bloody well attended by leisure. Imagine the insult of working to exhaustion and being no better off financially than the slacker in the next bus seat over. 

What say you about my math and reasoning?

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

Do you think the manufacturers eat the 50% increase in labor cost..?

I know for a fact they eat the (some less preposterous number) increase in labor cost.

Then they pass them along to whatever degree that they can.

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:49 pm

I would like to know how many customers were served by McDonalds daily.....BEFORE and AFTER large scale MW laws took effect. I am not interested in sales figures as much as I am interested in knowing what it did to the number of customers they served.

Why would that matter? The money is green, no matter how many hands it leaves. Also, any intelligent reckoning would have to include their competitors. ALL of them. It's the MARKET that tells the tale of the tape - not just one company.

And cost is not necessarily the major issue in the size and behavior of the fast food market. Commute times likely have a greater impact than the nickels and dimes required to offset a hike in the minimum wage. Also, a great proportion of the fast food market is likely minimum wage and near minimum wage workers - whom hikes give more money to spend on fast food. The people who make more than double the minimum are much less likely to purchase fast food. The more money people make, the more intelligently they tend to behave in general. And consuming fast food is not intelligent. On any level.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 6:32 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 6:32 pm

I do not share your concern for Moors. I don't actually give a **** about your Delanamores and Shaquitas.

So I was commenting on the broader issue.

Big fan of Sowell. My comment was more intended to back up lowIQtrash - to represent the actual facts on the ground about hiking minimum wage.

Immigration is driven far more by weak border enforcement and fifth columnists in government than by minimum wage.

But let's grant your argument, here. Are you suggesting that we should tailor our policies to be unattractive to Guatemalens?

And I don't want to live in a country that desperate people DON'T try to live in.

For any reason.

Raise 'em?

So, if we DO NOT raise minimum wages annually, what will that do to the purchasing power of minimum wage workers, year over year? Before you answer, let me key you in on my thinking. It's my suspicion that inflation will LOWER their purchasing power, bringing them closer to the afore mentioned Guatemalens. Which means without a COLA, minimum wage workers are getting poorer and poorer and poorer. If this continues, we're likely to see people just give up on work altogether, on the reasoning that poverty is less miserable if it is at least bloody well attended by leisure. Imagine the insult of working to exhaustion and being no better off financially than the slacker in the next bus seat over. 

What say you about my math and reasoning?

I know for a fact they eat the (some less preposterous number) increase in labor cost.

Then they pass them along to whatever degree that they can.

Why would that matter? The money is green, no matter how many hands it leaves. Also, any intelligent reckoning would have to include their competitors. ALL of them. It's the MARKET that tells the tale of the tape - not just one company.

And cost is not necessarily the major issue in the size and behavior of the fast food market. Commute times likely have a greater impact than the nickels and dimes required to offset a hike in the minimum wage. Also, a great proportion of the fast food market is likely minimum wage and near minimum wage workers - whom hikes give more money to spend on fast food. The people who make more than double the minimum are much less likely to purchase fast food. The more money people make, the more intelligently they tend to behave in general. And consuming fast food is not intelligent. On any level.

Raise the minimum to a high enough point and we might start seeing machines replace cashiers and cooks.
We might start seeing 10  self checkout stations at grocery and hardware stores manned but just 1 minimum wage attendant.
I realize this sounds very futuristic and hard to believe BUT IT MIGHT HAPPEN..!
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 7:44 pm

Raise the minimum to a high enough point and we might start seeing machines replace cashiers and cooks.

Let's not go six figures, then.

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 7:44 pm

We might start seeing 10  self checkout stations at grocery and hardware stores manned but just 1 minimum wage attendant.
I realize this sounds very futuristic and hard to believe BUT IT MIGHT HAPPEN..!

Lol.

We've heard these reasons time after time, and in every state that I know about which has raised the minimum wage, a prolonged period of economic prosperity ensued.

I travelled to the Seattle area with a small operator who was taking over three fast food places. They had recently raised their minimum, and the changes were taking place within a few months of the turnover.

I counseled my principle to pay two dollars ABOVE the minimum, in order to get the pick of the labor market. A tight and competent crew can be smaller than a gang of minimum wage schleps - which I argued would offset the cost of paying more.

He took my advice, and it did. The result was that he was approached by corporate with an offer for his top location to become a training store - a profitable achievement. He is selling the stores today at a very handsome profit.

I have always argued that business people who can only win by someone else losing are better suited to be employees than employers. The folks who lose from minimum wage hikes are folks that never belonged in business in the first place.

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 7:58 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 7:58 pm

Let's not go six figures, then.

Lol.

We've heard these reasons time after time, and in every state that I know about which has raised the minimum wage, a prolonged period of economic prosperity ensued.

I travelled to the Seattle area with a small operator who was taking over three fast food places. They had recently raised their minimum, and the changes were taking place within a few months of the turnover.

I counseled my principle to pay two dollars ABOVE the minimum, in order to get the pick of the labor market. A tight and competent crew can be smaller than a gang of minimum wage schleps - which I argued would offset the cost of paying more.

He took my advice, and it did. The result was that he was approached by corporate with an offer for his top location to become a training store - a profitable achievement. He is selling the stores today at a very handsome profit.

I have always argued that business people who can only win by someone else losing are better suited to be employees than employers. The folks who lose from minimum wage hikes are folks that never belonged in business in the first place.

So your guy gobbled up the "pick of the litter" which  you say allowed him to employ fewer people  than what he would normally employ and  NOBODY loses...?

https://hbr.org/2021/06/research-when-a ... mpensation

 
 

Cannonpointer » 04 Oct 2023, 5:02 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 5:02 pm

Not according to economic experts, they aren't.

They say they're worth a mint!
 

https://www.thatskinnychickcanbake.com/ ... t-patties/

the link is to a person making look alike candy on youtube. "mint"

GHETTOBLASTER » 04 Oct 2023, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Oct 2023, 8:28 pm

So your guy gobbled up the "pick of the litter" which  you say allowed him to employ fewer people  than what he would normally employ and  NOBODY loses...?

https://hbr.org/2021/06/research-when-a ... mpensation

I'm saying HE did not lose, because he actually BELONGS in business.

I am further saying those who are put out of business by higher minimum wage laws are not REALLY losing for that reason. They were already losing, and that pushed them over.

If you go out of business and the next guy in the same field doesn't, I would suggest you look in the mirror. 
 
By the way, this is from the second paragraph of your link:

However, economists remain uncertain as to the long-term impact of these policies on the welfare of American workers. Some studies suggest

They remain "uncertain." So - no actual information available. 

"Some" (we are not informed how many or what percentage) studies SUGGEST.

I SUGGEST that's not very authoritative. It reminds me of what passes for "journalism." In fact, it IS what passes for "journalism."

But it doesn't pass with me. To me, it just looks like the ceiling, because it makes me roll my eyes. 

Like I said, I like Sowell. But I disagree with him on minimum wage laws. I do not want to live in Honduras.