• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Businesses find creative ways to cope with minimum wage hikes

Here is a scenario where the MW increase seems to have been the tipping point:

In 18 years of business, Borderlands has faced a number of challenges. The first and clearest was in 2000, when our landlord increased our rent by 100% and we had to move to our current location on Valencia Street. All of the subsequent ones have been less clear-cut but more difficult. The steady movement towards online shopping, mostly with Amazon, has taken a steady toll on bookstores throughout the world and Borderlands was no exception. After that and related to it, has been the shift towards ebooks and electronic reading devices. And finally the Great Recession of 2009 hit us very hard, especially since we had just opened a new aspect to the business in the form of our cafe.

But, through all those challenges, we've managed to find a way forward and 2014 was the best year we've ever had. The credit for that achievement goes to the fine and extraordinary group of people who have come together to work here. Their hard work, combined with the flawless execution and attention to detail provided by Jude Feldman, Borderlands' General Manager, is the reason we've succeeded for these past 18 years.

Throughout the years we've managed to plan for the problems that we could predict and, when we couldn't plan for them, we've just worked our asses off to get through. Overall, Borderlands has managed to defeat every problem that has come our way. At the beginning of 2014, the future of the business looked, if not rosy, at least stable and very positive. We were not in debt, sales were meeting expenses and even allowing a small profit, and, perhaps most importantly, the staff and procedures at both the bookstore and the cafe were well established and working smoothly.

So it fills us with sorrow and horror to say that we will be closing very soon.

In November, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly passed a measure that will increase the minimum wage within the city to $15 per hour by 2018. Although all of us at Borderlands support the concept of a living wage in principal and we believe that it's possible that the new law will be good for San Francisco -- Borderlands Books as it exists is not a financially viable business if subject to that minimum wage. Consequently we will be closing our doors no later than March 31st. The cafe will continue to operate until at least the end of this year.

Many businesses can make adjustments to allow for increased wages. The cafe side of Borderlands, for example, should have no difficulty at all. Viability is simply a matter of increasing prices. And, since all the other cafes in the city will be under the same pressure, all the prices will float upwards. But books are a special case because the price is set by the publisher and printed on the book. Furthermore, for years part of the challenge for brick-and-mortar bookstores is that companies like Amazon.com have made it difficult to get people to pay retail prices. So it is inconceivable to adjust our prices upwards to cover increased wages.

The change in minimum wage will mean our payroll will increase roughly 39%. That increase will in turn bring up our total operating expenses by 18%. To make up for that expense, we would need to increase our sales by a minimum of 20%. We do not believe that is a realistic possibility for a bookstore in San Francisco at this time.

The other obvious alternative to increasing sales would be to decrease expenses. The only way to accomplish the amount of savings needed would be to reduce our staff to: the current management (Alan Beatts and Jude Feldman), and one other part-time employee. Alan would need to take over most of Jude's administrative responsibilities and Jude would work the counter five to six days per week. Taking all those steps would allow management to increase their work hours by 50-75% while continuing to make roughly the same modest amount that they make now (by way of example, Alan's salary was $28,000 last year). That's not an option for obvious reasons and for at least one less obvious one -- at the planned minimum wage in 2018, either of them would earn more than their current salary working only 40 hours per week at a much less demanding job that paid minimum wage.

Although the major effects of the increasing minimum wage won't be felt for a while, we've chosen to close now instead of waiting for two reasons. First, the minimum wage has already increased from $10.74 per hour to $11.05 (as of January 1st) and it will increase again on May 1st to $12.25. Continuing to pay the higher wage without any corresponding increase in income will expend the store's cash assets. In essence, the store will have less money (or inventory) six months from now, so closing sooner rather than later makes better business sense. But more importantly, keeping up our morale and continuing to serve our customers while knowing that we are going to close has been very painful for all of us over the past three months. Continuing to do so for even longer would be horrible. Far better to close at a time of our choosing, keep everyone's sorrow to a minimum, and then get on with our lives.

Some of you may be wondering, what can I do to help? Honestly, the best thing that you can do for us is -- come in and buy books! We've got an awful lot of damn good ones and we'd love to see every single one go to someone who appreciates it before we close. We're also going to be selling all our shelves and other fixtures. It would make us very happy to know that our hand-built shelves were going to sit in the living room of someone who was a customer of ours and who appreciates their history. And finally, if you're looking for a way to remember Borderlands (and you already have enough shelves and books -- crazy though that idea is) -- we're having hooded sweatshirts made with our logo and "1997 - 2015" on them. Once we're closed, there'll never be another place to get them again. We’ll have those in by the middle of February.

But, more importantly than coming in and buying stuff, please come in and say, "Hi". The best thing about this business has been our customers and we're going to miss you all (well, most of you at least <grin>). But please do be considerate of us; we all understand that finding that we're closing may be sad and upsetting but remember -- it's even harder for us. Borderlands was our livelihood, our pride & joy, and, for many of us, it was a big part of what defined us. Although we understand your feeling of loss, it is dwarfed by what we are feeling. So come in, give us your best wishes, and try to be cheerful. Everything changes and everything ends. We did a hell of a job for a long time and now it's time for us to do something else.

Some of you reading this probably have questions popping into your minds -- Is there a way to keep Borderlands open? What alternatives have you considered? What about moving out of SF? What is going to happen to the cafe? Is the business for sale? And so on. Before asking us your questions, please wait for a week. We'll be sending out and posting updates frequently over the next week or so and those updates will probably answer most of your questions. We will also be holding a public meeting in the cafe at seven P. M. on Thursday, February 12th. We'll be on hand to answer questions and moderate a discussion about alternatives to closing the store. Although we do not believe that any viable alternative exists, we also think that we have a very smart and imaginative group of customers. It is not impossible that we've missed a potential solution, and so we want an opportunity to hear your thoughts.

Thank you all for your support, business, and friendship over these last 18 years. This has been the best job that any of us has ever had and we're very grateful to you for giving us the chance to do it.

http://borderlands-books.blogspot.com/2015/02/borderlands-books-to-close-in-march.html
 
They were paying a manager only $28,000/yr? In San Francisco?

Sounds like the business wasn't that sustainable to begin with. And seriously, who tries to keep a brick and mortar bookstore open anyway? Maybe we should lament the passing of Blockbuster while we're at it.

At least now Alan can go find a job that pays him more.
 
Snide? It sounds like they weren't profitable during late night and concentrated labor where they were most profitable. Smart business. Especially since the bar isn't making money to cover the cost of minimum wage employees.

This is why we shouldn't make decisions and form opinions based on soundbites, as reality is a bit more complicated.
Of course not, but we have nothing else to go on. I'm sure if we actually could open the books and see the actual numbers and business plans then we could see exactly what is happening.

For example, a local pub closed "due to the smoking ban". Steve Malloy (tobacco lobbyist) sent a film crew in to document closing night. He plastered it around as the poster child of tobacco bans killing small businesses. Trouble is everyone in the bar knew the owner was a incompetent drunk who alienated his customers, fired his hardest workers and never noticed that his employees were skimming the top. In other words: bad restaurant management.

But publicly: it was the tobacco ban.

I'm just saying we can't jump to conclusions for any particular case. There are many reasons why businesses fail. Increased labor costs can certainly be a contributing factor in some situations. Similarly, rarely can say that increased labor costs are the sole factor for any particular business shutting down.

Yep, and that was my point. A business admits that it doesn't get late night business in the bar decides to close earlier and blames it on minimum wage.
 
Businesses find creative ways to cope with minimum wage hikes
When the minimum wage in San Jose went from $8 to $10 an hour in 2013, Adolfo Gomez started sending kitchen staff at his Mexican restaurant home early. His mother and brother handled the extra work..

In Albuquerque, Myra Ghattas told cooks and hostesses to come in later when the wage there increased from $7.50 to $8.50 the same year. Down the road, Steve Paternoster started closing the bar early at his Italian restaurant.

"You just schedule as tight as you can," said Paternoster, who owns Scalo Northern Italian Grill. "I put the emphasis on being there fishing when the fish are biting."

As political leaders in Los Angeles look to raise the minimum wage, some business owners have argued the move would force layoffs for workers and price increases for customers. But a look at how businesses fared after minimum wage hikes elsewhere offers a more nuanced portrait of how businesses cope with higher labor costs.

Many owners who at the time predicted their business would close are still in operation. Mass layoffs weren't an option, business owners said, because service would suffer.

Still, the wage increases ate into profits at businesses in San Francisco, San Jose, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, N.M. And that fundamentally changed the way they did business. Owners couldn't simply absorb the costs, so they scrubbed their budgets to preserve profits.

Many question whether workers benefited.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-minimum-wage-cities-20150211-story.html#page=1

It seems like many of the things basic economics would predict in response to a minimum wage increase are in evidence here. Reductions in hours, lost profits, reduced service, shifting investment to lower labor cost models.

Do greedy business owners respond to incentives after all?

I love little word games like this.

"His mother and brother handled the extra work.."

Apparently the kitchen work was not worth the $8.50 an hour needed to pay an employee, but family are charitable enough to contribute to the business. I wonder where "free labor" is entered on the balance sheet?
 
They were paying a manager only $28,000/yr? In San Francisco?

Sounds like the business wasn't that sustainable to begin with. And seriously, who tries to keep a brick and mortar bookstore open anyway? Maybe we should lament the passing of Blockbuster while we're at it.

At least now Alan can go find a job that pays him more.
And this is in the Mission district in San Francisco noted for higher rents. I suspect that the doubling of rent on their last place had everything to do with minimum wage. :P It sounds like they were only barely making a profit and perhaps should have moved to a lower rent neighborhood like most science fiction/fantasy bookstore. Then again, there are about 10 other booksellers in a five block radius. They also chose to go out of business before the minimum wage increases, throwing in the towel. - Probably a smart move. (Although they should look at changing locations. IMHO)

They talk about reducing expenses, but never mention how they might have grown revenue. -- which I admit is hard for a specialty bookseller. Minimum wage aside, it looks like they weren't long for this world.
 
Years ago, Inc. Magazine used to follow up select start up businesses and follow them through their first five years. They would analyze the triumphs and mistakes of the business. (Most often it was: did no research, spent all start up capital on decor.) I really wish they still did that.
 
They were paying a manager only $28,000/yr? In San Francisco?

Sounds like the business wasn't that sustainable to begin with. And seriously, who tries to keep a brick and mortar bookstore open anyway? Maybe we should lament the passing of Blockbuster while we're at it.

At least now Alan can go find a job that pays him more.
And this is in the Mission district in San Francisco noted for higher rents. I suspect that the doubling of rent on their last place had everything to do with minimum wage. :P It sounds like they were only barely making a profit and perhaps should have moved to a lower rent neighborhood like most science fiction/fantasy bookstore. Then again, there are about 10 other booksellers in a five block radius. They also chose to go out of business before the minimum wage increases, throwing in the towel. - Probably a smart move. (Although they should look at changing locations. IMHO)

They talk about reducing expenses, but never mention how they might have grown revenue. -- which I admit is hard for a specialty bookseller. Minimum wage aside, it looks like they weren't long for this world.

There is such a thing as a non-viable business. If this little bookstore was selling 100 books a day and still couldn't make the rent and payroll, it's time to move. When revenues don't exceed expenses and neither inventory or employees move, it's a bad business.
 
And this is in the Mission district in San Francisco noted for higher rents. I suspect that the doubling of rent on their last place had everything to do with minimum wage. :P It sounds like they were only barely making a profit and perhaps should have moved to a lower rent neighborhood like most science fiction/fantasy bookstore. Then again, there are about 10 other booksellers in a five block radius. They also chose to go out of business before the minimum wage increases, throwing in the towel. - Probably a smart move. (Although they should look at changing locations. IMHO)

They talk about reducing expenses, but never mention how they might have grown revenue. -- which I admit is hard for a specialty bookseller. Minimum wage aside, it looks like they weren't long for this world.

There is such a thing as a non-viable business. If this little bookstore was selling 100 books a day and still couldn't make the rent and payroll, it's time to move. When revenues don't exceed expenses and neither inventory or employees move, it's a bad business.

And with higher wages there are more if these things called non-viable businesses, fewer hours it's worth keeping your bar open, more incentives to employ substitutes (such as family), more incentive to reduce service, etc.
 
If 15%-20% of restaurants close every year and it's the same when the MW is raised and when it is not raised then it's probably safe to say the MW increase didn't have too much of an effect on restaurant closings.

The two restaurants in the story didn't close because of the MW. The MW didn't even cause them to become unprofitable. The MW just helped reallocate some of the profit, not all of it, to the people working in those restaurants. And the owners didn't like that so they shifted work and shifts around in order to preserve the level of profit they had become accustome to.

If MW induced restaurant closings were rampant then the author of the OP piece wouldn't have had a hard time finding examples of those to fill his story with.

Ok, but what's the endgame here? Will businesses that accept lower profit and maintain the same employment be able to compete with businesses that don't?

Yes. Amount of profit has minimal impact on ability to "compete", if what is meant by this vague and unscientific term is stay in business and even grow in size relative to one's own current state. IF by "compete" you mean get ever bigger at the same rate as the fastest growing companies out there, then no, but no sensible person gives a shit about that because it isn't remotely neccessary or often even desirable to do this.
Most companies that made good livings for their owners for many years only "competed" in the former sense and not the later sense.
Not every company can, does, or should try to be the biggest most ferocious shark in the ocean. Every shark but 1 in the ocean is not the top of the heap and yet they do pretty well.

The "end game" is a sustainable and minimally civil society that is only possible if most people are willing to let other's have a decent living without scheming the shove every additional dollar they can into their own pockets. Profit motive becomes a toxic danger eroding stable society when not tempered and restrained by human decency and civility. Plenty of successful owners abide by this and have profitable companies for many years. Unfortunately, the religion that free market greed is good has increasing spread exacerbated by companies so large and/or disconnected from the human lives their decision makers impact that human decency gets overlooked. Thus, those of us who value a civil sustainable society and don't ignorantly equate unrestrained fucking people over with the liberty to control one's own actions and body favor legal requirements that set a low bar for the minimal human decency one must show the people whose labor one is profiting from.

In addition, if you oppose min wage hikes on your argument, then logically you must oppose any min wage at all, because the same argument applies. Some free-market faithers are honest enough to oppose all min wage, some are not. Note that logic does not dictate opposing ever increasing min wage, because the above argument for it is all about setting a min level in order to balance profit concerns with other concerns that unrestricted profit motive inherently undermines. The goal is striking a balance between silly notions that any reduction in profit of current companies is a net bad for the economy or society, and the silly notion that profit is always evil and should be attacked wherever it exists.
 
Here is a scenario where the MW increase seems to have been the tipping point:

http://borderlands-books.blogspot.com/2015/02/borderlands-books-to-close-in-march.html

The article mentions all the other factors as well, so if it weren't for those other factors then the MW increase wouldn't have been the tipping point. Therefore you can't say the MW increase was the tipping point. ALL those other factors were the tipping point, they just chose to blame the MW increase.[/conservoprogressive]
 
Here is a scenario where the MW increase seems to have been the tipping point:

http://borderlands-books.blogspot.com/2015/02/borderlands-books-to-close-in-march.html

The article mentions all the other factors as well, so if it weren't for those other factors then the MW increase wouldn't have been the tipping point. Therefore you can't say the MW increase was the tipping point. ALL those other factors were the tipping point, they just chose to blame the MW increase.[/conservoprogressive]

Actually there is some truth to what you say when dealing with a specific example which is why economists usually talk about behavior at the margin. If you look across the economy there will always be some businesses at or near the tipping point that are pushed across it by a given action. There will also be many who are pushed marginally closer to the tipping point who may be tipped over by some other final straw. There will also be --at the margin -- some bars that open for a few hours less, workers replaced with family members, workers replaced by automatons, etc.

This is not an earth shattering exotic theory whipped up to trash the minimum wage. It's the typical reasons why demand curves slope down.
 
The article mentions all the other factors as well, so if it weren't for those other factors then the MW increase wouldn't have been the tipping point. Therefore you can't say the MW increase was the tipping point. ALL those other factors were the tipping point, they just chose to blame the MW increase.[/conservoprogressive]

Actually there is some truth to what you say when dealing with a specific example which is why economists usually talk about behavior at the margin. If you look across the economy there will always be some businesses at or near the tipping point that are pushed across it by a given action. There will also be many who are pushed marginally closer to the tipping point who may be tipped over by some other final straw. There will also be --at the margin -- some bars that open for a few hours less, workers replaced with family members, workers replaced by automatons, etc.

This is not an earth shattering exotic theory whipped up to trash the minimum wage. It's the typical reasons why demand curves slope down.

And some of these marginal businesses were lucky to make it this far.

aa
 
There is such a thing as a non-viable business. If this little bookstore was selling 100 books a day and still couldn't make the rent and payroll, it's time to move. When revenues don't exceed expenses and neither inventory or employees move, it's a bad business.

And with higher wages there are more if these things called non-viable businesses, fewer hours it's worth keeping your bar open, more incentives to employ substitutes (such as family), more incentive to reduce service, etc.

What is the incentive to reduce service? Service is what brings in the money. If a bar doesn't make money after 11pm, it's not a reduction in service to close at 11. You aren't serving anyone.

If a business is working at full capacity and can't pay the bills, that's one thing, but a business which could easily accommodate more customers and doesn't have them is not a viable business, if it can't cover it's expenses.

Would dropping the minimum wage saved any of these businesses? What point do we go to keep a business open? Would a crew which consisted of six family members who work full time just to cover the fixed costs be a tenable business model?
 
The story says the MW increase ate into the profits of those two places not that profits were eliminated. The restaurants were still profitable but not as profitable as the owners were used to. The owners didn't have to do any of those cutbacks but in order to preserve the level of profit they felt entitled to they resorted to scamming off family for free labor and making it more likely their trained staff would look for better hours somewhere else.

Which is their prerogative as business owners.

Yes, business owners respond to incentives just like anyone else. Why would we think they wouldn't?

Survivor effect--the guys who didn't make it aren't around to be asked.

Furthermore, when you drive the profit margin lower you discourage new entrants into the market. When a place goes under it's less likely it's going to be replaced. The number of jobs will go down.

And note exactly the effect I predicted--a cutback in hours.
 
Around 15%-20% of restaurants close every year. They do so most often because there is no profit being made. How do you know that minimum wage hike didn't have anything to do with this for some of them in CA?

If 15%-20% of restaurants close every year and it's the same when the MW is raised and when it is not raised then it's probably safe to say the MW increase didn't have too much of an effect on restaurant closings.

The two restaurants in the story didn't close because of the MW. The MW didn't even cause them to become unprofitable. The MW just helped reallocate some of the profit, not all of it, to the people working in those restaurants. And the owners didn't like that so they shifted work and shifts around in order to preserve the level of profit they had become accustome to.

If MW induced restaurant closings were rampant then the author of the OP piece wouldn't have had a hard time finding examples of those to fill his story with.

More important than the number that close are the number that aren't re-opened by new owners.
 
The story says the MW increase ate into the profits of those two places not that profits were eliminated. The restaurants were still profitable but not as profitable as the owners were used to. The owners didn't have to do any of those cutbacks but in order to preserve the level of profit they felt entitled to they resorted to scamming off family for free labor and making it more likely their trained staff would look for better hours somewhere else.

Which is their prerogative as business owners.

Yes, business owners respond to incentives just like anyone else. Why would we think they wouldn't?

Survivor effect--the guys who didn't make it aren't around to be asked.

Furthermore, when you drive the profit margin lower you discourage new entrants into the market. When a place goes under it's less likely it's going to be replaced. The number of jobs will go down.

And note exactly the effect I predicted--a cutback in hours.

You have little faith in demand. We really need to employ everybody who needs work. Your idea is that the only thing that deserves to survive is some model of business that devalues human labor. That is really what this is all about...treating people as if they were merely disposable things to shuck at the first sign of discomfort. Your prediction is wrong in the first place. Of course the Republicans can still make it come true.
 
Food service is very hard to get into and stay.labor is a big part,so,wages are low.It is at the bottem of the food chain.Retail food like big grocery/liquor is different.labor is a much smaller part of business.So it pays better.
 
We live in a nation with of people. And these people, most of them anyway, feel a person should make enough money working for a living to, well, LIVE.

For this to even be an option, a minimum wage (or universal basic income of some sort) is necessary.

And in order to keep up with inflation, that MW (or UBI) needs to be adjusted upwards from time to time.

If you can't see this, then you are looking at the world through the eyes of a bastard or a fool. You pick.
 
Yep, and that was my point. A business admits that it doesn't get late night business in the bar decides to close earlier and blames it on minimum wage.

You misunderstand. The decided that with the higher labor costs it no longer made sense to be open as late.
 
And with higher wages there are more if these things called non-viable businesses, fewer hours it's worth keeping your bar open, more incentives to employ substitutes (such as family), more incentive to reduce service, etc.

What is the incentive to reduce service? Service is what brings in the money. If a bar doesn't make money after 11pm, it's not a reduction in service to close at 11. You aren't serving anyone.

If a business is working at full capacity and can't pay the bills, that's one thing, but a business which could easily accommodate more customers and doesn't have them is not a viable business, if it can't cover it's expenses.

Would dropping the minimum wage saved any of these businesses? What point do we go to keep a business open? Would a crew which consisted of six family members who work full time just to cover the fixed costs be a tenable business model?

A bar makes money after 11pm. The question is if it makes enough to meet costs. The higher those costs the less likely this is to be true and the earlier it will close.
 
Back
Top Bottom