minimum wage hikes(follow-up)...not so good

[GGGG]

Many equal studies and examples that prove the opposite.  If your theory was spot on, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour?

How about economics is 't An exact science which is why finding 500 economists, many of them Nobel prize winners will say raising min wage is a bad idea and 500 different economists will come up with the exact opposite argument.

How can this be?  How can this be?  Instead it's always the other guy is wrong. 

Yep.  You are wrong.  Good call.

[MU82]

So if I say that someday we'll have a recession and someday we'll have a recovery does that mean I'm prescient?

I'd prefer it if you were president!

[Cheeks]

Yep.  You are wrong.  Good call.

I think you just admitted you are.

There's a reason why economics is not an absolute science and why Nobel laureates can say the exact opposite regarding the same issue.

Glad you came around to understanding that.

So rather than the same bullshit that always goes on here, let's just admit both sides will only site studies that support their side and trash studies that oppose it.  Both sides will do a "I told you so" until things aren't going their way and then they will be silent.


Cool.  Great.  Shut down the thread because otherwise the same nonsense until the end of time.

[GGGG]

I think you just admitted you are.

There's a reason why economics is not an absolute science and why Nobel laureates can say the exact opposite regarding the same issue.

Glad you came around to understanding that.

So rather than the same bullcrap that always goes on here, let's just admit both sides will only site studies that support their side and trash studies that oppose it.  Both sides will do a "I told you so" until things aren't going their way and then they will be silent.


Cool.  Great.  Shut down the thread because otherwise the same nonsense until the end of time.

Declares victory with no evidence presented, then wants the topic shut down.

Same ole Chicos.

[MU82]

In my company we have determined it is cheaper to pay overtime than to hire an additional employee.  In most cases the employee appreciates the opportunity for extra earnings and we avoid the training and hiring costs.

It is cheaper because healthcare costs have risen so fast in recent years (15.4% for my company in 2017).  The average employee now costs over $10/hour just for healthcare in addition there is unemployment, workers comp, and other bennies and costs .  Since we only calculate benefits over the first forty hours the forty first hour in many cases is cheaper than any of the first forty. Our starting wage is $16 and Ave is $23

This makes a lot of sense PBR, and I'm sure your existing employees appreciate the OT.

Obviously, this decision of yours was made independently of any minimum wage, as you pay far more.

I wish you and your business great fortune in 2019 and beyond.

[Cheeks]

Declares victory with no evidence presented, then wants the topic shut down.

Same ole Chicos.

What evidence do you want? That's the entire point. If I present 500 economists including Nobel laureates, you will dismiss it and come up with your own 500.  If I provide the Harvard study from 2017

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2017/05/03/minimum-wage-hikes-drive-eateries-out-of-business.html

You will dismiss it with another study.

If I provide a study from UCLA in 2018 that says it is impossible that at least one of or all things must happen if wages are increased. (Profits cut, jobs cut, costs passed on to consumers)....you will come up with something else that says differently.

I'm trying to save everyone a lot of time and energy.  That's All.  It is economics, it isn't absolute science.  Do the back and forth we go forever?  Only evidence that either raise people care about is what supports their position? What could go wrong.  It's the same bullshit we get when one only watch's FOX or Only watches MSNBC....confirmation bias has done wonders for us so far, eh? 

[GGGG]

I'm trying to save everyone a lot of time and energy.  That's All. 

Then don't respond.  If you don't want to participate, go away.  It's very simple.

But you don't merely want to save people's time.  You want everyone to think you are some wise sage with this stuff.  But you're not fooling anyone. 

[Cheeks]

I took my kids to the NFL studios this morning so they could watch how the Red Zone is done live and mission control of 15 games at one time.  On the tour they explained how it used to take 100 people to do this, now it takes about 30....robotic cameras, digital monitoring that used to be done by a person, sensors driving stats in real-time in shoulder pads, ball, etc.  Human beings let go as a result.

Now other industries gearing up, people to fix those robotic cameras, sensors, etc....but this is the world.  They were literally showing my kids huge rooms that used to have maybe 15 to 20 people working in them and now have one or two....almost all of it automated.  Reality check for my kids, unfortunate huge reality check for those that have been let go already.

[Lennys Tap]

I'd prefer it if you were president!

And I that you be!

[Cheeks]

Then don't respond.  If you don't want to participate, go away.  It's very simple.

But you don't merely want to save people's time.  You want everyone to think you are some wise sage with this stuff.  But you're not fooling anyone.

I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn't really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it's always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person's side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry

[GGGG]

I took my kids to the NFL studios this morning so they could watch how the Red Zone is done live and mission control of 15 games at one time.  On the tour they explained how it used to take 100 people to do this, now it takes about 30....robotic cameras, digital monitoring that used to be done by a person, sensors driving stats in real-time in shoulder pads, ball, etc.  Human beings let go as a result.

Now other industries gearing up, people to fix those robotic cameras, sensors, etc....but this is the world.  They were literally showing my kids huge rooms that used to have maybe 15 to 20 people working in them and now have one or two....almost all of it automated.  Reality check for my kids, unfortunate huge reality check for those that have been let go already.

Then how come unemployment was at a 50 year low in September?  See this convinces me you know very little about economics.  Sure people can lose their jobs to technology in the short term.  But technology adds to the economy way more than it takes away.  The fact is that the people who once filled those positions are now doing something else. 

[GGGG]

I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn't really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it's always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person's side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry

Again, you don't like it?  Then leave.  Don't waste your time in this topic.

It's clear you are out of your depth anyway.

[Cheeks]

Then how come unemployment was at a 50 year low in September?  See this convinces me you know very little about economics.  Sure people can lose their jobs to technology in the short term.  But technology adds to the economy way more than it takes away.  The fact is that the people who once filled those positions are now doing something else.

How come unemployment is at a 50 year low across most of the country in places that did NOT adjust min wage?


It's happening everywhere....that's my point.  Unemployment is down whether changes were made or not.  Now, when the down cycle happens (always does) and businesses have to tighten, what will happen?  Question will be whether it happens at a greater pace than in other years during down cycles.  Prices also went up, to pay for those increases.  The wages have to come out of somewhere....profits, jobs/hours, or consumer prices.  Economic fact even Krugman agrees to because he wrote it in his textbook.

[SoCalEagle]

I provided you what you asked for, evidence...which you will now say isn't really true, has flaws, etc.   which furthers my point.  This debate will never end, nor the legal decisions that go 5-4 (it's always political on the side that went 5 unless it went 5 to that person's side and then it is just narrow justice), not the gun debate, or any other that goes on here. 

Entrenched, dig in, heels strongly into the ground, scream at each other, refuse to accept either view even if evidence is there, wash, rinse, repeat, fluff dry

It's called making an argument in order to persuade a neutral third party that your side has merit.  It's a lost art, as most (including you, apparently) now simply believe "I have my facts, and you have your facts" so why try to persuade.  What you don't appear to realize is that you are not trying to convince the other side that you are 100% correct.  You are trying to bolster your argument by demonstrating that your argument has merit.  This usually starts with being credible (i.e you have posted clear, concise, reasonable arguments in the past) .... but that's another story altogether.

[Pakuni]

How come unemployment is at a 50 year low across most of the country in places that did NOT adjust min wage?


It's happening everywhere....that's my point.  Unemployment is down whether changes were made or not.  Now, when the down cycle happens (always does) and businesses have to tighten, what will happen?  Question will be whether it happens at a greater pace than in other years during down cycles.  Prices also went up, to pay for those increases.  The wages have to come out of somewhere....profits, jobs/hours, or consumer prices.  Economic fact even Krugman agrees to because he wrote it in his textbook.

Except this runs counter to the doom and gloom you and others offered up earlier in this thread. If your predictions were correct, businesses and labor markets in places like Seattle and San Francisco would be faltering relative to the rest of the nation. They're not. Those places are booming, often at a pace ahead of the rest of the nation.
Never in this thread did any of you naysayers say the negative impacts would be felt only in a down economy. Raising that now is just a desperate attempt to save your bad forecasts of disaster.

Nobody disputes the wages have to come from somewhere. So, what's your point?

[Cheeks]

Can you explain the Harvard and UCLA studies to me?  The ones that say in certain industries labor cuts are happening?  And what happens when the inevitable downturn happens?  If raising min wage is so wonderful, why isn't $45 an hour?

[Pakuni]

Can you explain the Harvard and UCLA studies to me?  The ones that say in certain industries labor cuts are happening?  And what happens when the inevitable downturn happens?  If raising min wage is so wonderful, why isn't $45 an hour?

1. I already explained the Harvard study. It didn't say what you claimed it said. You haven't provided the UCLA story for me to explain.
2. Because it's not economically feasible and can't be tied to any actual benchmark (such as growth in personal income, adjustment for inflation, etc.).
And if that's the best argument you've got at this point, you should stop posting rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Did you read the article?

It wasn't written by Krugman, or even by anybody at Krugman's employer (the not-failing NYTimes).

It's an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Barry Ritholtz.

The author does a good job of using facts -- yes, I know; facts are so passe -- to support his position that the minimum-wage hike actually has helped the very businesses that they were supposed to hurt.

Your statement that things could change if we enter into another recession could end up being true. But for now, the fact is that so far, the hysteria about minimum-wage hikes crushing Seattle's restaurant industry was extremely misplaced.

That's what Ritholtz's look clearly shows, and Krugman agrees so he tweeted out the article.

Otherwise, it has nothing to do with Krugman, so your rant was dopey.

And BTW ... it appears Krugman very well might have been right about the market and the recession; he was just a couple years too early.

This was my favorite part about the dopey rant:

let's see how things go when downturns happen and fixed costs like labor have to be shed.

LOL labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

Typical of business-y types like Chicos, trying to use jargon to sound smart and "win" an argument but ultimately revealing their ignorance in the process

[warriorchick]

This makes a lot of sense PBR, and I'm sure your existing employees appreciate the OT.

Obviously, this decision of yours was made independently of any minimum wage, as you pay far more.

I wish you and your business great fortune in 2019 and beyond.

I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?

[MU82]

I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?

You should have addressed this to PBR, chickadee, as I obviously don't know. I hope he reads it and answers.

[MU82]

labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

So true. My wife was a restaurant manager for a few years. Always dealing with employees who didn't show up, who quit without notice (a couple of times in the middle of shifts), who stole, etc.

And every time somebody leaves or is fired, the newbies have to be trained, a pretty expensive process.

It's a tough business to make money in, which is why there are so many closings.

The vast majority of the employees my wife dealt with were good, reliable people. But as in any situation, the bad apples always stand out.

[forgetful]

I want to know what kind of insurance PBR's company is offering that costs them over $20K per year per employee.  My organization's most expensive plan choice -BCBS with a low deductible - is less than that for family coverage, and that is before the employee's payroll deductions.  Our average net cost for coverage among all of our plans is closer to $4-5 per hour.

Is this a union thing?

Can't speak for PBR, But the employer part of my benefits for a family plan runs $22800 a year, and that is for a plan with a $2k deductible from BCBS.  That is before adding dental and life insurance.  And there are no unions.

It also doesn't include the employer match (8%) to the 401k, at least at my employer, the employer match does not apply to overtime or additional pay.

It is vastly cheaper to pay an existing employee overtime, or force them to take on more work (salaried employees) than to bring in a new employee.

[GGGG]

$22800 a month?  That has to be a year right?

[forgetful]

$22800 a month?  That has to be a year right?

My bad, I meant year.  $22800 a month would be absurd, I'd tell them to just pay me the cash and I'd worry about everything for that kind of money.

Corrected.

As an aside. A $2700 deductible family plan from MU cost the university ~$19200 a year.  Add in dental and it is costing the University over $20k per year per employee.

[Cheeks]

This was my favorite part about the dopey rant:

LOL labor is the very definition of variable cost in the restaurant business

Typical of business-y types like Chicos, trying to use jargon to sound smart and "win" an argument but ultimately revealing their ignorance in the process

LOL.  Labor can be both fixed or variable....yes, even in the restaurant business.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012915/do-minimum-wage-laws-make-labor-fixed-or-variable-cost.asp