Franchise group files to block [Seattle's] $15 minimum-wage phase-in

[Loren Pechtel]

What he is talking about is all the other labor involved in getting the burger to McDonalds. You have the farmers and the farm hands, the butchers, the packers, shippers, and truckers. So which of those will also be increased because of wage increases?

Yes, I want him to include that.

- - - Updated - - -

How much of the price of a $2.00 burger is the labor?

In the big picture 100% of it. *ALL* costs are labor if you follow the trail far enough.

All material costs are somebody else's labor cost.

Tell that to the cow.

Since when are you paying the cow?

- - - Updated - - -

What he is saying is that a lot of the costs that get passed on are the labor costs from a previous step, with a lot of it being cyclical.

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just trying to dispel this ridiculous notion that if MW goes up 25%, prices also go up 25% negating the increase in wages. It's a stupid argument.

And you can try to dispel the windmill with your lance.

In the long run it's exactly what happens.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What he is saying is that a lot of the costs that get passed on are the labor costs from a previous step, with a lot of it being cyclical.

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

Hmm, interesting. I point out the fact that *gulp* costs are not always passed on and that *gulp* higher labor costs can lead to higher profits and we have the straw man of infinite profits. Amazing!

Let's just say that all margins are razor thin and there is zero profitability for any business and that prices are only set by costs not by demand and what people are willing to pay. That should keep this conversation far enough from reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

Hmm, interesting. I point out the fact that *gulp* costs are not always passed on and that *gulp* higher labor costs can lead to higher profits and we have the straw man of infinite profits. Amazing!

Let's just say that all margins are razor thin and there is zero profitability for any business and that prices are only set by costs not by demand and what people are willing to pay. That should keep this conversation far enough from reality.

It's the same thing as always--fund the largesse by taking it out of profits.

Since there's never any discussion of whether there are enough profits to do this the pool must be infinite.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

Hmm, interesting. I point out the fact that *gulp* costs are not always passed on and that *gulp* higher labor costs can lead to higher profits and we have the straw man of infinite profits. Amazing!

Let's just say that all margins are razor thin and there is zero profitability for any business and that prices are only set by costs not by demand and what people are willing to pay. That should keep this conversation far enough from reality.

It's the same thing as always--fund the largesse by taking it out of profits.

Since there's never any discussion of whether there are enough profits to do this the pool must be infinite.

in that case the minimum wage must be infinite too, and yes I've mentioned profit margins several times in the thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

Hmm, interesting. I point out the fact that *gulp* costs are not always passed on and that *gulp* higher labor costs can lead to higher profits and we have the straw man of infinite profits. Amazing!

Let's just say that all margins are razor thin and there is zero profitability for any business and that prices are only set by costs not by demand and what people are willing to pay. That should keep this conversation far enough from reality.

It's the same thing as always--fund the largesse by taking it out of profits.

Since there's never any discussion of whether there are enough profits to do this the pool must be infinite.

in that case the minimum wage must be infinite too, and yes I've mentioned profit margins several times in the thread.

But the assumption always is that any desirable project can be funded from them without any attempt to actually show this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, I want him to include that.

- - - Updated - - -

How much of the price of a $2.00 burger is the labor?

In the big picture 100% of it. *ALL* costs are labor if you follow the trail far enough.

All material costs are somebody else's labor cost.

Tell that to the cow.

Since when are you paying the cow?

- - - Updated - - -

What he is saying is that a lot of the costs that get passed on are the labor costs from a previous step, with a lot of it being cyclical.

And costs are also absorbed. And profits sometimes grow. Etc. Etc...

Once again the infinite pool of profits idea shows up.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just trying to dispel this ridiculous notion that if MW goes up 25%, prices also go up 25% negating the increase in wages. It's a stupid argument.

And you can try to dispel the windmill with your lance.

In the long run it's exactly what happens.

Prove it.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I'm just trying to dispel this ridiculous notion that if MW goes up 25%, prices also go up 25% negating the increase in wages. It's a stupid argument.

And you can try to dispel the windmill with your lance.

In the long run it's exactly what happens.

Oh marvellous!

When some fraction of a single factor of production increases in cost, firms raise their prices as if it were their entire production cost. And they all do so in unison, no competition or anything.

Compelling free market argument right there

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you can try to dispel the windmill with your lance.

In the long run it's exactly what happens.

Oh marvellous!

When some fraction of a single factor of production increases in cost, firms raise their prices as if it were their entire production cost. And they all do so in unison, no competition or anything.

Compelling free market argument right there

After everything is settled *ALL* of their costs will have increased.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Oh marvellous!

When some fraction of a single factor of production increases in cost, firms raise their prices as if it were their entire production cost. And they all do so in unison, no competition or anything.

Compelling free market argument right there

After everything is settled *ALL* of their costs will have increased.

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

 

[coloradoatheist]

After everything is settled *ALL* of their costs will have increased.

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

 

[ksen]

wages have been flat with prices

No they haven't. Real wages have fallen.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

 

[coloradoatheist]

wages have been flat with prices

No they haven't. Real wages have fallen.

Which time frame are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

Over the whole supply chain, labor makes up most of the costs. The question is usually where in the chain that labor is.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No they haven't. Real wages have fallen.

Which time frame are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

Over the whole supply chain, labor makes up most of the costs. The question is usually where in the chain that labor is.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near cheap labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

 

[ksen]

No they haven't. Real wages have fallen.

Which time frame are you referring to?

Which time frame were you referring to?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which time frame are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

Over the whole supply chain, labor makes up most of the costs. The question is usually where in the chain that labor is.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near cheap labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

Why did you put in the term cheap labor there? I never said anything about the cost of the specific labor.

- - - Updated - - -

Which time frame are you referring to?

Which time frame were you referring to?

Since supposedly the 60s when the BLS started recording the different mechanisms we use to compare different time periods.

 

[ksen]

Which time frame are you referring to?

Which time frame were you referring to?

Since supposedly the 60s when the BLS started recording the different mechanisms we use to compare different time periods.

Since you mention the 60s the MW has fallen in real dollars, i.e. after being adjusted for inflation.

And since inflation is a general indicator of price growth how is it possible for something to fall against the thing it is supposedly keeping up with?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Which time frame are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

Over the whole supply chain, labor makes up most of the costs. The question is usually where in the chain that labor is.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near cheap labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

Why did you put in the term cheap labor there? I never said anything about the cost of the specific labor.

You are correct.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near the docile labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which time frame are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not and certainly not by the same %. No firm's costs consist entirely of MW labour, and for most it's a small fraction. You're now asserting that all firms put their prices up in unison by more than the increase in costs. It'd be a good argument for regulation if it wasn't laughable.

Yes, you can keep increasing the minimum wage to keep it ahead but you'll just be driving inflation up and hurting everyone.

Ahead of your supposed above-costs price hikes, you mean?

You are right that they don't all shift at once, but it's where equillibrium goes to over time and hence why wages have been flat with prices since costs are tied to labor.

It's good to know that only labor costs rise. Good show.

Over the whole supply chain, labor makes up most of the costs. The question is usually where in the chain that labor is.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near cheap labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

Why did you put in the term cheap labor there? I never said anything about the cost of the specific labor.

You are correct.

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near the docile labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

And for those plant operators, what is driving the costs of operating the plant?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Exactly, that's why plants turning bauxite into aluminum locate near the docile labor which is always near hydroelectric water resources. You must be a supply chain manager!

And for those plant operators, what is driving the costs of operating the plant?

I'm not sure, why don't you look it up?