$15 an hour FUCK YA
Comments
-
You do realize there's a long history of minimum wage hikes that basically makes everything you just stated false.greenblood said:
Absolutely,SpoonieLuv said:The fallacy of the the $15 minimum wage (any minimum wage actually) is that it prices people who can only provide $14 worth of value out of the market entirely. The unseen victim in these transactions are the people who never were offered jobs who maintain an income of $0/hourly because they're priced out of the market relative to their labor value. If you were really concerned about the welfare of poor people you would be against the minimum wage altogether.
This kind of increase to minimum wage hurts more people than it actually helps.
People producing $15.00/hr of work at $10.00 an hour will no longer be underpaid, but people performing $10.00/hr work will be replaced by people performing $15.00/hr work. You basically price out the lower skilled worker. So now instead of making minimum wage, these guys make zero which then makes them higher recipients of welfare dollars.
People making $16.00-$20.00 will lose buying power
Social Security beneficiaries will also lose buying power, since they haven't seen an increase in benefits in over 3 years.
You'll actually see the opposite of what it's intention is supposed to be. You'll actually see an increase in poverty in general, and also an increase in the amount of severely impoverished.
The only true way of wealth growth is through job creation. 40% increase in minimum wage will actually take jobs away from the unskilled worker, which the minimum wage is supposed to protect.
HTH -
We've also never seen an increase of this size before. You can increase minimum wage to keep up with inflation, but to increase it by 40%-60% within 3 years is dangerous. In the Portland area it's going from $9.50 to $14.75.2001400ex said:
You do realize there's a long history of minimum wage hikes that basically makes everything you just stated false.greenblood said:
Absolutely,SpoonieLuv said:The fallacy of the the $15 minimum wage (any minimum wage actually) is that it prices people who can only provide $14 worth of value out of the market entirely. The unseen victim in these transactions are the people who never were offered jobs who maintain an income of $0/hourly because they're priced out of the market relative to their labor value. If you were really concerned about the welfare of poor people you would be against the minimum wage altogether.
This kind of increase to minimum wage hurts more people than it actually helps.
People producing $15.00/hr of work at $10.00 an hour will no longer be underpaid, but people performing $10.00/hr work will be replaced by people performing $15.00/hr work. You basically price out the lower skilled worker. So now instead of making minimum wage, these guys make zero which then makes them higher recipients of welfare dollars.
People making $16.00-$20.00 will lose buying power
Social Security beneficiaries will also lose buying power, since they haven't seen an increase in benefits in over 3 years.
You'll actually see the opposite of what it's intention is supposed to be. You'll actually see an increase in poverty in general, and also an increase in the amount of severely impoverished.
The only true way of wealth growth is through job creation. 40% increase in minimum wage will actually take jobs away from the unskilled worker, which the minimum wage is supposed to protect.
HTH -
You saw where Gov Jerry Brown just signed CA's new min wage hike "even though it doesn't make economic sense"
right? -
You answered it yourself, I bolded it, and there it stands. Another Hondo classic.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer as always.TurdBuffer said:2001400ex said:
Disagree.TurdBuffer said:There are several factors involved in pricing products, Hondo. Hence, your question is as poorly presented as your previous writing attempts.
BTW, "skidmark" is way funnier than "shitstain," which I think you were trying for.
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
28 years ago, when I entered the work force minimum wage was $3.75 an hour.2001400ex said:
You do realize there's a long history of minimum wage hikes that basically makes everything you just stated false.greenblood said:
Absolutely,SpoonieLuv said:The fallacy of the the $15 minimum wage (any minimum wage actually) is that it prices people who can only provide $14 worth of value out of the market entirely. The unseen victim in these transactions are the people who never were offered jobs who maintain an income of $0/hourly because they're priced out of the market relative to their labor value. If you were really concerned about the welfare of poor people you would be against the minimum wage altogether.
This kind of increase to minimum wage hurts more people than it actually helps.
People producing $15.00/hr of work at $10.00 an hour will no longer be underpaid, but people performing $10.00/hr work will be replaced by people performing $15.00/hr work. You basically price out the lower skilled worker. So now instead of making minimum wage, these guys make zero which then makes them higher recipients of welfare dollars.
People making $16.00-$20.00 will lose buying power
Social Security beneficiaries will also lose buying power, since they haven't seen an increase in benefits in over 3 years.
You'll actually see the opposite of what it's intention is supposed to be. You'll actually see an increase in poverty in general, and also an increase in the amount of severely impoverished.
The only true way of wealth growth is through job creation. 40% increase in minimum wage will actually take jobs away from the unskilled worker, which the minimum wage is supposed to protect.
HTH
-
Min wage in Australia is $15 or $16 an hour. Their economy is fine.
-
Resource economy, but largely still a yes.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Min wage in Australia is $15 or $16 an hour. Their economy is fine.
-
It actually is higher than that.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Min wage in Australia is $15 or $16 an hour. Their economy is fine.
However, what you fail to mention ... teenagers are paid much less. McDonald's pays kids the equivalent of $8 an hour to teenagers.
In addition the cost of the food is much higher than it is in the United States, about 17%.
I do believe an economy can absorb these higher wages. However, it will come at a cost. It will either drive prices up ... negating the increase in pay ... or it will eliminate jobs. -
You were worth $2.45 tops.topdawgnc said:
28 years ago, when I entered the work force minimum wage was $3.75 an hour.2001400ex said:
You do realize there's a long history of minimum wage hikes that basically makes everything you just stated false.greenblood said:
Absolutely,SpoonieLuv said:The fallacy of the the $15 minimum wage (any minimum wage actually) is that it prices people who can only provide $14 worth of value out of the market entirely. The unseen victim in these transactions are the people who never were offered jobs who maintain an income of $0/hourly because they're priced out of the market relative to their labor value. If you were really concerned about the welfare of poor people you would be against the minimum wage altogether.
This kind of increase to minimum wage hurts more people than it actually helps.
People producing $15.00/hr of work at $10.00 an hour will no longer be underpaid, but people performing $10.00/hr work will be replaced by people performing $15.00/hr work. You basically price out the lower skilled worker. So now instead of making minimum wage, these guys make zero which then makes them higher recipients of welfare dollars.
People making $16.00-$20.00 will lose buying power
Social Security beneficiaries will also lose buying power, since they haven't seen an increase in benefits in over 3 years.
You'll actually see the opposite of what it's intention is supposed to be. You'll actually see an increase in poverty in general, and also an increase in the amount of severely impoverished.
The only true way of wealth growth is through job creation. 40% increase in minimum wage will actually take jobs away from the unskilled worker, which the minimum wage is supposed to protect.
HTH -
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
You missed a key comparison. Instead of comparing the same truck 1 year later, you need to compare pricing of 2016 trucks in August 2015 and 2017 trucks in August 2016. That's where you'll see the actual result.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
Liquidating inventory is a common occurrence in retail, so you need to compare new arrival costs from one year to another. -
Awesomed for sheer stupidity.2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. -
I guess you forgot by the end of the product life cycle all fixed costs associated with production have been covered and each new car rolling off the assembly line is making more profit than the one before it.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
But you knew that, just forgot. -
You missed the discussion on the prior page.greenblood said:
You missed a key comparison. Instead of comparing the same truck 1 year later, you need to compare pricing of 2016 trucks in August 2015 and 2017 trucks in August 2016. That's where you'll see the actual result.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
Liquidating inventory is a common occurrence in retail, so you need to compare new arrival costs from one year to another. -
I feel where you are going with this. Then answer this question. If they make zero changes for the 2017 model, why is the exact truck $55,300 in August of 2016?topdawgnc said:
I guess you forgot by the end of the product life cycle all fixed costs associated with production have been covered and each new car rolling off the assembly line is making more profit than the one before it.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
But you knew that, just forgot. -
Because they can.2001400ex said:
I feel where you are going with this. Then answer this question. If they make zero changes for the 2017 model, why is the exact truck $55,300 in August of 2016?topdawgnc said:
I guess you forgot by the end of the product life cycle all fixed costs associated with production have been covered and each new car rolling off the assembly line is making more profit than the one before it.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
But you knew that, just forgot. -
So you agree that demand is the driving factor in how businesses price products.topdawgnc said:
Because they can.2001400ex said:
I feel where you are going with this. Then answer this question. If they make zero changes for the 2017 model, why is the exact truck $55,300 in August of 2016?topdawgnc said:
I guess you forgot by the end of the product life cycle all fixed costs associated with production have been covered and each new car rolling off the assembly line is making more profit than the one before it.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
But you knew that, just forgot. -
-
Prices have gone up, Hondo, and will continue to rise. Yes, the prudent move for any business is to raise prices because, with a higher minimum wage, their customers will have more money in their pockets to spend on the same items they'd been producing at a lower cost, prior to the wage increase. Increased efficiencies may also aid businesses in mitigating their increased costs, but well-run businesses are already efficient, so it's very unlikely they can absorb the increased costs entirely in-house, without raising prices. Also, those who voted for, and support the increased minimum wage, knew to expect price increases when they voted, and won't complain a whole lot about small price increases. But a retired person on a fixed income will.
What Communists like yourself are advocating is for the business owner to take the entire hit and magically become more efficient and increase production while holding costs as low as possible. In other words, you say business owners should just work harder, and not pass costs onto their customers. To which I say, go fuck yourself. Business owners already work longer hours, work harder, do more jobs, wear more hats, and deal with more taxes than the slacker running the register will ever dream of doing. And the business owner is now responsible for "living wages" for all, like your fat, dumpy GF Sawant goes on about. -
You don't read well either. I'm saying, some businesses may raise prices, others not. The demand for their product will dictate prices. If McDonald's raises their prices and burger King doesn't, then McDonald's will lose sales to burger King.TurdBuffer said:Prices have gone up, Hondo, and will continue to rise. Yes, the prudent move for any business is to raise prices because, with a higher minimum wage, their customers will have more money in their pockets to spend on the same items they'd been producing at a lower cost, prior to the wage increase. Increased efficiencies may also aid businesses in mitigating their increased costs, but well-run businesses are already efficient, so it's very unlikely they can absorb the increased costs entirely in-house, without raising prices. Also, those who voted for, and support the increased minimum wage, knew to expect price increases when they voted, and won't complain a whole lot about small price increases. But a retired person on a fixed income will.
What Communists like yourself are advocating is for the business owner to take the entire hit and magically become more efficient and increase production while holding costs as low as possible. In other words, you say business owners should just work harder, and not pass costs onto their customers. To which I say, go fuck yourself. Business owners already work longer hours, work harder, do more jobs, wear more hats, and deal with more taxes than the slacker running the register will ever dream of doing. And the business owner is now responsible for "living wages" for all, like your fat, dumpy GF Sawant goes on about.
It's all about elasticity of demand. If the cost of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, do you think it'll sell as well as it does now?
Use your brain. -
Jesus. Why even try? So, to win business, Burger King shrink it's margins as labor costs rise. Okay. Fine. Right. Sure. I'm sure they have plenty of room to do that in a high-volume, fast-food restaurant employing 10 to 15 minimum wage workers per shift.
In your world the smart business owner leads the race to the bottom. Whatever you say, chief. Christ.
Hondo: How many people have you accused on these boards of not reading what you wrote, not reading well, etc?
Dude: Your writing sucks. Improve or GTFO. -
Shitstain, I'm saying a smart business owner looks at every factor, mostly demand, when pricing their products.TurdBuffer said:Jesus. Why even try? So, to win business, Burger King shrink it's margins as labor costs rise. Okay. Fine. Right. Sure. I'm sure they have plenty of room to do that in a high-volume, fast-food restaurant employing 10 to 15 minimum wage workers per shift.
In your world the smart business owner leads the race to the bottom. Whatever you say, chief. Christ.
Hondo: How many people have you accused on these boards of not reading what you wrote, not reading well, etc?
Dude: Your writing sucks. Improve or GTFO.
It's clear you have never been involved in management of any business. You are probably a government employee on a union contact working for your pension. -
No2001400ex said:
So you agree that demand is the driving factor in how businesses price products.topdawgnc said:
Because they can.2001400ex said:
I feel where you are going with this. Then answer this question. If they make zero changes for the 2017 model, why is the exact truck $55,300 in August of 2016?topdawgnc said:
I guess you forgot by the end of the product life cycle all fixed costs associated with production have been covered and each new car rolling off the assembly line is making more profit than the one before it.2001400ex said:
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already.greenblood said:
Because they'll be rolling out new 2017 trucks, effectively driving down the cost of a new 2016 to create new inventory space. Was that a serious question?2001400ex said:
OK great shitstain. So then why does a brand new 2016 diesel truck sell for $55,000 in September 2015 and sell for $48,000 in August 2016. For the exact same truck with the exact same options? So Chevy has the same cost in each.TurdBuffer said:
One more time.2001400ex said:
Nice non answer. For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy.
But you knew that, just forgot. -
Technology displaces minimum wage
-
Why do you hate restaurants that are using technology to replace workers in states that are at the federal minimum wage?sarktastic said:Technology displaces minimum wage
-
I don't hate anybody.
-
You're probably a welfare leech who watches reruns of The Apprentice all day.2001400ex said:
It's clear you have never been involved in management of any business. You are probably a government employee on a union contact working for your pension.TurdBuffer said:Hondo: How many people have you accused on these boards of not reading what you wrote, not reading well, etc?
Dude: Your writing sucks. Improve or GTFO.
Hondo's greatest hits on this thread. So far.
What really is going to happen? Your favorite fast food costs you another dollar? Does anyone really eat enough fast food for that to matter? Hondo concedes price increases.
Except the facts are, grocery prices aren't up 15%. Or even close. Hondo obviously doesn't by meat or beer.
Shitstain, who the fuck eats Pho? Don't you think the closure of a Pho restaurant is more because no one wants to eat that shit? It's funny when people blame the government for their business failing when really it's just a fucktarded business model. Hondo fights reality that Pho is popular in Seattle.
Our sales were about $500k a year before minimum wage went up. Now they are over $600k.
But if our sales grow to $650k a year, we come out ahead on the deal. This is a great one. Hondo concedes his revenue must climb 30% (150K) before he's profiting on the Min Wage increase.
And if you ever have owned a business, you'd know businesses price their products to get the demand they need. Right here, Hondo stumbles through basic English for unknown reasons, then later blames the readers for his incomprehensible word usage.
Look at Apple, the iPhone costs like $150 to make, but they sell them for $700. Do you think if their product note costs $200 they can just raise the price to $750 to cover the difference and there won't be an impact on their sales? Hondo demonstrates immeasurable ignorance toward phenomenon of Apple, off-shore manufacturing, trade policy, and a host of factors that accompany trend-setting, market leading companies.
"businesses price their products to get the demand they need." Does it make anymore sense now? Didn't think so.
For the record, shitstain and others have implied that the smart decision is to raise prices just because costs go up. And that's an effective pricing strategy. Hondo already conceded prices will increase, above, yet proceeds to sarcastically argue with himself.
Wait a minute. I thought the manufacturers cost was the driving force on the price? You mean to say there are other factors such as demand at work? Like what I've stated 15 times already. Hondo swims against the current of product cycles, seasonal sales, and about 80% of the rest of basic economics while recalling 15 times he discussed demand, 13 or 14 of which never happened. Hondo begins descent into madness.
You don't read well either. There he goes again, blaming the reader for his fractured English. I'm saying, some businesses may raise prices, others not. The demand for their product will dictate prices. If McDonald's raises their prices and burger King doesn't, then McDonald's will lose sales to burger King. Oops! Concedes price increases again, arguing against himself. Descent into madness continues.
It's all about elasticity of demand. If the cost of milk goes up to $20 a gallon, do you think it'll sell as well as it does now? Hondo can say "elasticity."
Why do you hate restaurants that are using technology to replace workers in states that are at the federal minimum wage? Hondo shows his empty thought bubble again.
Conclusion: Batshit Crazy.
Signed,
Got any blow?
