Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minimum Wage vs. Cost of Living

ZenBear
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 8:54:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Obviously it's true that the minimum wage shouldn't be raised because it can't bridge the gap. On that, we agree... so I'll explain cost of living.

Cost of living is based upon the cost of things in the area, so the question is more about what's raising prices, not necessarily the cost of living itself. Prices rise for a variety of reasons, so there's quite a bit to discuss here:

A big reason prices increase is out of necessity; products become more expensive when supply prices increase. There's an optimal value for everything, and subsequent inflation forces prices to rise. When there becomes too much of something, the money becomes relatively worthless and companies lose profits. To counter this, they raise prices. When the inflationary effects expire, there's no reason for companies to lower prices when individuals will pay the higher price anyways, so they don't. Essentially, there just becomes a LOT of money flowing through the economy and getting backed up because of price increases.

Another reason for price increases is taxes. Placing taxes on things is a common way for governments to create revenue, and they often do it liberally. Another aspect is how corporations become successful. When a product or just a service becomes popular, firms recognize the opportunity to create more profit. Their goods are so popular that raising the prices a little give them a lot more revenue, but doesn't turn off buyers either.

Conclusively, wages do have an impact, but there are other facts (as I've mentioned) that cause an increase in prices and the subsequent increase the cost of living.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 5:32:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 8:54:31 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Obviously it's true that the minimum wage shouldn't be raised because it can't bridge the gap. On that, we agree... so I'll explain cost of living.

Cost of living is based upon the cost of things in the area, so the question is more about what's raising prices, not necessarily the cost of living itself. Prices rise for a variety of reasons, so there's quite a bit to discuss here:

A big reason prices increase is out of necessity; products become more expensive when supply prices increase. There's an optimal value for everything, and subsequent inflation forces prices to rise. When there becomes too much of something, the money becomes relatively worthless and companies lose profits. To counter this, they raise prices. When the inflationary effects expire, there's no reason for companies to lower prices when individuals will pay the higher price anyways, so they don't. Essentially, there just becomes a LOT of money flowing through the economy and getting backed up because of price increases.

Another reason for price increases is taxes. Placing taxes on things is a common way for governments to create revenue, and they often do it liberally. Another aspect is how corporations become successful. When a product or just a service becomes popular, firms recognize the opportunity to create more profit. Their goods are so popular that raising the prices a little give them a lot more revenue, but doesn't turn off buyers either.

Conclusively, wages do have an impact, but there are other facts (as I've mentioned) that cause an increase in prices and the subsequent increase the cost of living.

Also a very big factor of the rising cost of the standard of living is the overall efficiency of the economy. If we have inefficient producers and distributors of goods, prices will be high. Regulations are always costly and inefficient to varying levels of detriment. Taxes come in to play along with all overheads such as energy costs and various mandates such as union contracts. Basically, anything that messes with efficiency will cause the price of living to rise.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:45:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 5:32:55 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also a very big factor of the rising cost of the standard of living is the overall efficiency of the economy. If we have inefficient producers and distributors of goods, prices will be high. Regulations are always costly and inefficient to varying levels of detriment. Taxes come in to play along with all overheads such as energy costs and various mandates such as union contracts. Basically, anything that messes with efficiency will cause the price of living to rise.

That's true too. I think this pretty well sums up additional reasons.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:46:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

True.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

And then China puts the man out of his misery with an assault of cheap labor goods.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:23:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 10:16:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

And then China puts the man out of his misery with an assault of cheap labor goods.

Lol
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:24:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 8:46:23 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

True.

Well also something else I was considering as I was changing clothes, assuming a rise in all goods, you would have to multiply that increase across every good you purchase to live, but you only get one job.....
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:25:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 10:24:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Well also something else I was considering as I was changing clothes, assuming a rise in all goods, you would have to multiply that increase across every good you purchase to live, but you only get one job.....

What? lol
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 10:16:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

And then China puts the man out of his misery with an assault of cheap labor goods.

I work for a US company that sells China made products (we also sell USA made products). Both the US side and the China side are growing very well (we're looking at about 20% for this year). Of the China made products, only about 15% of the price you pay goes to the China manufacturing plant. The rest goes to the store (which is probably in the US with US employees) and to our company (which is a US company with US employees).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 10:24:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2015 8:46:23 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:41:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/30/2015 1:55:35 AM, ZenBear wrote:
As I understand it, cost of living has risen while minimum wage has stagnated. Raising minimum wage will not solve this problem because prices will rise to match, thus the gap between income and cost of living remains roughly the same.

What has caused cost of living to rise independent of the minimum wage? If raising income will not bridge the gap then the problem must be tackled from the other end, so how do we lower cost of living?

Not entirely true.

As a most basic example. Product X cost $10. Of that cost $5 is the cost of labor and $5 is overhead and profits. If labor is doubled, to $10, then the cost should only increase to $15 ($10 for labor, still $5 for overhead and profit). But we see that the laborer is making 100% more while the cost of the goods is only up 50%.

True.

Well also something else I was considering as I was changing clothes, assuming a rise in all goods, you would have to multiply that increase across every good you purchase to live, but you only get one job.....

If your pay goes up 100%, and all your bills and things you need to buy go up 50%, you are still doing better.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:57:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!

Not necessarily. Standard laws of supply and demand say that it would rise somewhere in the middle (pending the elasticity of the market). Some owners my only raise 25% to undercut competitors and get more business (which, more units sold equals more total profit at the end of the month). The most basic understanding of S&D says that it will only increase a portion, not the full amount.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 12:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:57:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!

Not necessarily. Standard laws of supply and demand say that it would rise somewhere in the middle (pending the elasticity of the market). Some owners my only raise 25% to undercut competitors and get more business (which, more units sold equals more total profit at the end of the month). The most basic understanding of S&D says that it will only increase a portion, not the full amount.

that has nothing to do with covering the rising cost of living of the business owner.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 3:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 12:24:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:57:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!

Not necessarily. Standard laws of supply and demand say that it would rise somewhere in the middle (pending the elasticity of the market). Some owners my only raise 25% to undercut competitors and get more business (which, more units sold equals more total profit at the end of the month). The most basic understanding of S&D says that it will only increase a portion, not the full amount.

that has nothing to do with covering the rising cost of living of the business owner.

Doesn't have to. That's basic market forces. Just like with taxes. If you impose a 10% tax on a product, the price will adjust from basic market forces. Any business owner that doesn't adjust is only hurting himself. Since demand will still exist, as he prices himself out of business, other businesses that are smarter will fill the demand. Basic supply and demand.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 3:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Basically what I am getting at is arbitrage (making money with zero risk or zero investment) is a poor model for the long term economy. Like one politician said, "If the solution was that clear, all Haiti would need to do to eliminate poverty is simply raise the minimum wage...."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 3:43:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 3:42:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 12:24:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:57:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!

Not necessarily. Standard laws of supply and demand say that it would rise somewhere in the middle (pending the elasticity of the market). Some owners my only raise 25% to undercut competitors and get more business (which, more units sold equals more total profit at the end of the month). The most basic understanding of S&D says that it will only increase a portion, not the full amount.

that has nothing to do with covering the rising cost of living of the business owner.

Doesn't have to. That's basic market forces. Just like with taxes. If you impose a 10% tax on a product, the price will adjust from basic market forces. Any business owner that doesn't adjust is only hurting himself. Since demand will still exist, as he prices himself out of business, other businesses that are smarter will fill the demand. Basic supply and demand.

Again, you didn't address the issue.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 3:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 3:43:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2015 3:42:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 12:24:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:57:37 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 2:47:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
So I had this idea after waking up from a 3 hour power nap. Great example, but the same profit margin just wouldn't be the same. The profit margin would automatically rise 50% to account for the business owners personal living cost increases. And then it would also rise a likely significant amount as other costs independent of labor to produce those goods rose as well. Power naps rock!

Not necessarily. Standard laws of supply and demand say that it would rise somewhere in the middle (pending the elasticity of the market). Some owners my only raise 25% to undercut competitors and get more business (which, more units sold equals more total profit at the end of the month). The most basic understanding of S&D says that it will only increase a portion, not the full amount.

that has nothing to do with covering the rising cost of living of the business owner.

Doesn't have to. That's basic market forces. Just like with taxes. If you impose a 10% tax on a product, the price will adjust from basic market forces. Any business owner that doesn't adjust is only hurting himself. Since demand will still exist, as he prices himself out of business, other businesses that are smarter will fill the demand. Basic supply and demand.

Again, you didn't address the issue.

Again, it doesn't have to. We're talking about minimum wage and the cost of living. The owner of the business may not increase their income with the cost of living, but then, they aren't making minimum wage. if they are, they should probably blame their business skills if they run their own business and still can't make the same as a hamburger flipper.

But if cost of living increases 50%, I'm not too concerned with making sure Donald Trump's income increases 50% as well.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 3:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 3:42:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Basically what I am getting at is arbitrage (making money with zero risk or zero investment) is a poor model for the long term economy. Like one politician said, "If the solution was that clear, all Haiti would need to do to eliminate poverty is simply raise the minimum wage...."

Haiti doesn't have an economy sufficient enough to do that. Their GDP per capita is only about $1,300. As opposed to the US which is over $56,000
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 3:47:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Again, it doesn't have to. We're talking about minimum wage and the cost of living. The owner of the business may not increase their income with the cost of living, but then, they aren't making minimum wage. if they are, they should probably blame their business skills if they run their own business and still can't make the same as a hamburger flipper.

But if cost of living increases 50%, I'm not too concerned with making sure Donald Trump's income increases 50% as well.

i can see you're not at all concerned about the potential loss of jobs if you think that issue does not "have to" be addressed.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:41:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:28:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2015 3:47:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Again, it doesn't have to. We're talking about minimum wage and the cost of living. The owner of the business may not increase their income with the cost of living, but then, they aren't making minimum wage. if they are, they should probably blame their business skills if they run their own business and still can't make the same as a hamburger flipper.

But if cost of living increases 50%, I'm not too concerned with making sure Donald Trump's income increases 50% as well.

i can see you're not at all concerned about the potential loss of jobs if you think that issue does not "have to" be addressed.

1949 doubled the minimum wage (almost, from 0.40 to 0.75) and jobs were created and unemployment dropped... for years. The forces involved that would "cost" jobs are incredibly insignificant compared to all other economic factors.

Really, so long as you make more money for your employer than you cost, it will be in their interest to keep hiring you.

If the market value for my services (because of a large supply of workers) is only $7 an hour, but my labor creates $20 every hour ($7 which goes to me and $13 that goes to my employer), then a raise in minimum wage that bumps me up to $11 would not cost my job, since cutting that job would cut my employer from $9 profit each hour of my labor.

Since corporate profits are WAY up over the last 30+ years, it is pretty safe to say that workers are, for the most part, making their employers significantly more money than they are being paid. So enforcing a raise will not cost jobs. For example, the minimum wage was raised at the worst point in the crash and we've still recovered over 7 million private sector jobs since then and we are enjoying our best job growth right now since the 90's.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:48:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
fun fact. If Walmart gave every employee they have a $2 raise, it would lower their gross profits by less than 5% (the raise would cost them about $5.2 billion against their 2014 gross income of $120.565 billion).

While the factors create a force that works against jobs, you are over estimating just how powerful that force is. Unless you are talking about a monster increase, the force is tiny.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:51:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Investors do a risk to reward assessment when deciding to create/remove jobs.

In your example, you reduced the investor's reward by saying he will make the same profit to pay for his own personal increases in living expenses.

That's a fatal economic oversight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:57:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:48:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
fun fact. If Walmart gave every employee they have a $2 raise, it would lower their gross profits by less than 5% (the raise would cost them about $5.2 billion against their 2014 gross income of $120.565 billion).

While the factors create a force that works against jobs, you are over estimating just how powerful that force is. Unless you are talking about a monster increase, the force is tiny.

Nice omission of the effects of elasticity in a market of mostly impoverished consumers...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:59:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I also heard on the radio how Amazon's model is going to bury brick and mortar Walmart as more and more poor people gain internet access. The wage for a Walmart employee will then be zero.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:51:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Investors do a risk to reward assessment when deciding to create/remove jobs.

In your example, you reduced the investor's reward by saying he will make the same profit to pay for his own personal increases in living expenses.

That's a fatal economic oversight.

Yes, because the example was only for the purpose of showing that raising the minimum wage does not de facto raise the cost of goods by the same amount.

It is the exact same economic model of imposing a sales tax of 10%. Cost of goods will adjust so that part of the sales tax is paid by the consumer and part is paid by the business. It is almost never imposed entirely on the consumer.

Washington (just over the river) has an 8.5% sales tax. When I was a kid, I could go up there and buy a pack of magic cards for $2.99 +$0.25 for $3.24 total. I could buy them here in Oregon with no sales tax for.... $3.25. The sales tax in Washington is being 100% eaten by the company, because magic cards are extremely elastic.

Minimum Wage is really nothing more than a labor tax that goes to the laborer. Depending on the elasticity of the industry, the owner will absorb a percentage of it. If they choose to not to, basic supply and demand show that someone else will step into the void.

The investor is not special in that if he says "nope, not gonna create jobs," other investors will fill the void and so jobs will still be created, just by someone else.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:59:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I also heard on the radio how Amazon's model is going to bury brick and mortar Walmart as more and more poor people gain internet access. The wage for a Walmart employee will then be zero.

I would recommend you double check what you hear on the radio.

Walmart's net income last year was $16.363 billion. Amazon lost over $240 million last year. A large reason being because Walmart only puts about 19% of revenue towards SGA (which is where the CEO pay and bonus sits, aswell as all other bonuses for the big bosses, along with other stuff) while Amazon put 29.3% there last year (compared to only 26.2% the year before).

So I don't think there is much concern on that.

https://finance.yahoo.com...
https://finance.yahoo.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:29:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:11:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/17/2015 4:59:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I also heard on the radio how Amazon's model is going to bury brick and mortar Walmart as more and more poor people gain internet access. The wage for a Walmart employee will then be zero.

I would recommend you double check what you hear on the radio.

Walmart's net income last year was $16.363 billion. Amazon lost over $240 million last year. A large reason being because Walmart only puts about 19% of revenue towards SGA (which is where the CEO pay and bonus sits, aswell as all other bonuses for the big bosses, along with other stuff) while Amazon put 29.3% there last year (compared to only 26.2% the year before).

So I don't think there is much concern on that.

https://finance.yahoo.com...
https://finance.yahoo.com...

I said Amazon's model, not Amazon, lol.