missouri passes state law forcing cities to lower their minimum wage

[coloradoatheist]

Except if McDonalds, Wendy's and BK's expenses all go up by 10% at the same time then they would raise their prices by the needed amount to cover those increasing expenses. So the wage increases would be passed on to the consumer. That would be the ideal world of inflation first before letting workers go.

The other side is that layoffs happen first, then inflation over time to compensate for the additional expenses. So those three companies cut expenses first and then try and raise rates over the long term. How fast each happens depends on the increase in costs.

 

[PyramidHead]

Except if McDonalds, Wendy's and BK's expenses all go up by 10% at the same time then they would raise their prices by the needed amount to cover those increasing expenses. So the wage increases would be passed on to the consumer. That would be the ideal world of inflation first before letting workers go.

The other side is that layoffs happen first, then inflation over time to compensate for the additional expenses. So those three companies cut expenses first and then try and raise rates over the long term. How fast each happens depends on the increase in costs.

Yeah, I don't buy that unless I'm shown some evidence. Companies take on additional expenses all the time without raising costs or laying people off. If they have enough overhead to cover the expenses, and there is a possibility that they will recoup some of the cost through higher sales (which could be the result of, say, a nationwide increase in the buying power of the majority of their customers), there is no reason to assume that they would raise prices in the "ideal world" or the real world.

 

[dismal]

Except if McDonalds, Wendy's and BK's expenses all go up by 10% at the same time then they would raise their prices by the needed amount to cover those increasing expenses. So the wage increases would be passed on to the consumer. That would be the ideal world of inflation first before letting workers go.

The other side is that layoffs happen first, then inflation over time to compensate for the additional expenses. So those three companies cut expenses first and then try and raise rates over the long term. How fast each happens depends on the increase in costs.

Yeah, I don't buy that unless I'm shown some evidence. Companies take on additional expenses all the time without raising costs or laying people off. If they have enough overhead to cover the expenses, and there is a possibility that they will recoup some of the cost through higher sales (which could be the result of, say, a nationwide increase in the buying power of the majority of their customers), there is no reason to assume that they would raise prices in the "ideal world" or the real world.

So, you can think of no possible harm that can come from raising the minimum wage? Even to $1000/hr?

 

[LordKiran]

Not off hand, but would be a PhD type paper. But yes, salaries do coorrelate with the productivity of the position, of either the financial position or other types of items.

Can you cite information which states that any wage increase directly correlates to an equal increase in the cost of products and services? Perhaps a reasonable assumption, but then perhaps not. So can you show this as being the case 100% of the time with every single wage increase? Because one would think if this were true, then management pay hikes would always result in increased costs of a given product or service.

It's interesting, that when talk about howhow wages are flat over decades they are talking about how wages and prices stay in strict correlation, especially at the bottom. And prices do reflect some of the costs of management, but when a company is huge, even the bonuses of the very few at the top aren't a lot in the scheme of everything. And management has different forms of compensation at times.

In addition to not being able to answer either of my requests to support your assertions with data, your last one smacks of excuse making.

Tell me, why not take those pay raises and other forms of compensation away from management and using the funds to instead give a needed payraise to the companies' employees? Even a 1$ per hour pay raise across the board would be far more useful to the minimum wage employees than a six figure raise is to a group of executives and is more stimulating to the economy as a whole. So why are the already well off and prosperous given priority over those in dire need and why are you still trying to make excuses for that? If they have money to give themselves pay raises, they have money to give everyone else one too. Quit making excuses for corporate inequitability.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah, I don't buy that unless I'm shown some evidence. Companies take on additional expenses all the time without raising costs or laying people off. If they have enough overhead to cover the expenses, and there is a possibility that they will recoup some of the cost through higher sales (which could be the result of, say, a nationwide increase in the buying power of the majority of their customers), there is no reason to assume that they would raise prices in the "ideal world" or the real world.

So, you can think of no possible harm that can come from raising the minimum wage? Even to $1000/hr?

How did you get that from any of what I wrote? I'm saying wages should be treated like any other expense. Just because a company decides to invest in a bunch of new equipment doesn't mean there is no possible harm in spending too much money on equipment. But that fact does not mean that any increase in equipment expenses will thus be harmful. You keep trying to catch people with your reductio nonsense, but this is just another version of the Laffer curve. One side says we're already over the edge, the other says we're not. There is no deeper disagreement at play than this; some people think the minimum wage is already at the point where raising it will be bad, some people think that point is further away and some benefits can be gained by raising it from where it currently stands. I happen to think that the working poor could stand to have some more money and that it would be good for us all if they did, because I don't think we are as near to the point of harming the economy with wage increases as some do. If I thought we were nearer to it, I might be singing a different tune.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

How could it not?

No one is going to chase these stupid red herrings. Previously the economy was supporting the wage level and unemployment was at a record low. And the republican government intervened and lowered the minimum wage. We (progressives) are being asked to try to understand the conservative position - so again I ask why is this some sort of great policy?

Continuing to assert that we should raise the min wage it to $1000 answers none of my questions, nor provides any insight as to why conservatives wanted to intervene into a functional economy and cause harm where the benefits seem minimal to non-existent.

I would instead argue that I am taking the conservative position. "If it ain't broke, then the government better intervene and "fix" it before it's too late" is a position that conservatives consistently rail against. Why not now?

aa

Still no answer to this?? It was deposited early in this thread that liberals are 'mean' because they assume that conservatives have evil motives. Yet not one conservative on this board can provide a decent explanation as to why LOWERING the minimum wage in Missouri is going to be so great.

Why is decreasing the income for the poorest earners in the state some tremendous benefit? If your answer is to decrease unemployment from 3.5% to 3% - yes, you are just being a dick to poor people. And please don't think that 'raising it to $1000' bullshit is an answer. That may address why raising the MW is bad, but does nothing to answer why lowering it is good.

aa

 

[bleubird]

Fast food seems to be the industry most effected by min wage.What is the externalized cost to the economy by low wages?Snap.Even in the poorest states $15 is survival wage.Fat ass America needs to pay more for that fast cheese burger!

 

[Elixir]

Fast food seems to be the industry most effected by min wage.What is the externalized cost to the economy by low wages?Snap.Even in the poorest states $15 is survival wage.Fat ass America needs to pay more for that fast cheese burger!

^THAT.
Hate to butt in, but I keep wondering what the impact would be if fast food suddenly got REALLY expensive due to a say, $18 minimum wage for workers in that sector alone.
People eating less of that shit would reduce the burden on our healthcare system to the tune of billions, and putting all that money in the pockets of the workers would turn them into consumers instead of public-assisted parasites... and I can think of a host of other benefits that will never be realized under a slow-creep scenario toward a $15 min wage.
Pie in the sky, of course.
Carry on...

 

[bleubird]

Fast food seems to be the industry most effected by min wage.What is the externalized cost to the economy by low wages?Snap.Even in the poorest states $15 is survival wage.Fat ass America needs to pay more for that fast cheese burger!

^THAT.
Hate to butt in, but I keep wondering what the impact would be if fast food suddenly got REALLY expensive due to a say, $18 minimum wage for workers in that sector alone.
People eating less of that shit would reduce the burden on our healthcare system to the tune of billions, and putting all that money in the pockets of the workers would turn them into consumers instead of public-assisted parasites... and I can think of a host of other benefits that will never be realized under a slow-creep scenario toward a $15 min wage.
Pie in the sky, of course.
Carry on...

Walmart cost over $6 billion for snap and welfare.If your burger cost $3.99 or $4.99 is your life going to change?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Except if McDonalds, Wendy's and BK's expenses all go up by 10% at the same time then they would raise their prices by the needed amount to cover those increasing expenses. So the wage increases would be passed on to the consumer. That would be the ideal world of inflation first before letting workers go.

The other side is that layoffs happen first, then inflation over time to compensate for the additional expenses. So those three companies cut expenses first and then try and raise rates over the long term. How fast each happens depends on the increase in costs.

That's why businesses that can absorb the cost actually advocate for a legal mandate, it forces their competitors to comply with it at the same time and thus eliminates a competitive disadvantage for those who would go alone raising wages. Plus it forces some smaller competitors out of business, so much the better.

 

[Trausti]

Seems the proponents of an excessively inflated minimum wage place their self-interest in appearing self-righteous and morally superior over the harm of lost jobs and more difficulty for unskilled workers to enter the job market. If an employer offers a job at a certain wage and a potential employee accepts that offer - why would you interfere with that? Anyway, http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/progressive-business-owner-living-wage-law-arithmetic-doesnt-work

 

[RVonse]

I live in St Louis and make a lot more than minimum wage already anyway. I see both sides of the arguments.

But what strikes me as hypocritical about this, is that generally speaking the conservative Republicans would have you believe that policy should always be made at the local level where decisions can be more effecient to the needs of locality. And yet here we have a Republican state legislature telling a city what they must do. Oh my, it looks like mother goose does not want to follow her own rules if it does not comply to her conservative agenda!

One more important point to be made. If Missouri is such a conservative pro friendly government to business, how come all the best high paying industry and jobs are in liberal silicon Valley in California and NOT Missouri? I'd like someone like Dismal to provide some sort of explanation as to why the conservative state of Missouri sucks compared to liberal California when it comes to good jobs and GNP. Could it be that operating in a conservative climate is actually not that great for business in the long-term?

 

[LordKiran]

Seems the proponents of an excessively inflated minimum wage place their self-interest in appearing self-righteous and morally superior over the harm of lost jobs and more difficulty for unskilled workers to enter the job market. If an employer offers a job at a certain wage and a potential employee accepts that offer - why would you interfere with that? Anyway, http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/progressive-business-owner-living-wage-law-arithmetic-doesnt-work

As opposed to a non-excessively inflated minimum wage? Do you even English, broh?

 

[DBT]

Prices of goods are tied to the wages that go in. The only to make people better off is to make them more productive, not just paying them more.

What they want is redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

Never mind the reality that those making above minimum wage do so because they have skills that employers will pay for, and thus will be able to demand a higher wage that eats up the gains made through raising the minimum wage.

The only lasting effect will be an inflation tax on people's monetary assets. Never mind that that only applies to those with dollar-denominated assets--mostly the middle class. (The rich mostly have their money in things or stock.)

As it stands, the distribution of wealth being transfered from the poor (inadequate incomes) and the middle class to the pockets of the very rich, unlike physics, a powerful flow upwards, but a mere trickle, more like a drip, downwards. An economic system designed by the rich and powerful to benefit the rich and powerful by exploiting cheap labour (amongst other things, tax breaks, loop holes, etc).

 

[LordKiran]

What they want is redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

Never mind the reality that those making above minimum wage do so because they have skills that employers will pay for, and thus will be able to demand a higher wage that eats up the gains made through raising the minimum wage.

The only lasting effect will be an inflation tax on people's monetary assets. Never mind that that only applies to those with dollar-denominated assets--mostly the middle class. (The rich mostly have their money in things or stock.)

As it stands, the distribution of wealth being transfered from the poor (inadequate incomes) and the middle class to the pockets of the very rich, unlike physics, a powerful flow upwards, but a mere trickle, more like a drip, downwards. An economic system designed by the rich and powerful to benefit the rich and powerful by exploiting cheap labour (amongst other things, tax breaks, loop holes, etc).

I think it's time we acknowledge that the very concept of "Redistribution of wealth" is bullshit. Any social spending can be qualified as this, so what LP is patently stating is he is against any and all social spending that enriches anyone ever, on principle. Uhm, why?

 

[KeepTalking]

probably miss it because I never see such question posted, just straw-men and baseless assertions of calamity. Or ridiculous hyperbole, like the 1000 degrees comment, that would indicate no attempt at a serious discussion of the issue.

I have no information on what a 'right amount' would be, and have serious doubts you would accept the evidence even if I did have it. But it doesn't take a PhD to realize that wages should be higher...... I could go on to explain, but is it even worth the attempt? I doubt it.

It's not ridiculous hyperbole, but rather a standard means of disproving something: Identify something that meets the stated criteria yet is obviously wrong.

What we hear again and again from the left is that the economy will be better with a higher minimum wage. This is open-ended, so we take it to an extreme that obviously doesn't work.

It isn't ever open ended, that's why those $1,000 minimum wage arguments your side comes up with are ridiculous. Take this thread, for example, the minimum wage target is $10/hr, nothing open ended about it. The Ontario and Seattle threads set the amount at $15/hr, once again, not open ended. We sometimes talk about tying the MW to inflation, or making it a living wage, but neither of these are open ended either, they have targets of whatever the current inflationary rate, or prevailing living wage, is.

 

[dismal]

It's not ridiculous hyperbole, but rather a standard means of disproving something: Identify something that meets the stated criteria yet is obviously wrong.

What we hear again and again from the left is that the economy will be better with a higher minimum wage. This is open-ended, so we take it to an extreme that obviously doesn't work.

It isn't ever open ended, that's why those $1,000 minimum wage arguments your side comes up with are ridiculous. Take this thread, for example, the minimum wage target is $10/hr, nothing open ended about it. The Ontario and Seattle threads set the amount at $15/hr, once again, not open ended. We sometimes talk about tying the MW to inflation, or making it a living wage, but neither of these are open ended either, they have targets of whatever the current inflationary rate, or prevailing living wage, is.

If only someone could just explain why a $1000 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $15 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It isn't ever open ended, that's why those $1,000 minimum wage arguments your side comes up with are ridiculous. Take this thread, for example, the minimum wage target is $10/hr, nothing open ended about it. The Ontario and Seattle threads set the amount at $15/hr, once again, not open ended. We sometimes talk about tying the MW to inflation, or making it a living wage, but neither of these are open ended either, they have targets of whatever the current inflationary rate, or prevailing living wage, is.

If only someone could just explain why a $1000 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $15 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

Because a $1000 minimum wage would cause more problems than it solves. Depending on the location, $15 is just about on the threshhold of "helpful" by raising incomes to a degree that the rise in earnings just slightly outweighs the loss in work hours. In fact, giving workers more free time to reinvest in education and their families is a net gain too, so even if the reduction in labor perfectly balances with the rise in wages, it would still be a win. At $17 or $20, the side effects become more extreme and outweigh the benefits, so that would be considered excessive.

Your turn now: perhaps you could explain why a $15 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $0 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

 

[dismal]

If only someone could just explain why a $1000 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $15 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

Because a $1000 minimum wage would cause more problems than it solves. Depending on the location, $15 is just about on the threshhold of "helpful" by raising incomes to a degree that the rise in earnings just slightly outweighs the loss in work hours. In fact, giving workers more free time to reinvest in education and their families is a net gain too, so even if the reduction in labor perfectly balances with the rise in wages, it would still be a win. At $17 or $20, the side effects become more extreme and outweigh the benefits, so that would be considered excessive.

Your turn now: perhaps you could explain why a $15 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $0 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

Like, what problems? What side effects?

I have not taken the position that a "$15 minimum wage is ridiculous" nor that "a $0 minimum wage causes harm to no one".

 

[LordKiran]

Because a $1000 minimum wage would cause more problems than it solves. Depending on the location, $15 is just about on the threshhold of "helpful" by raising incomes to a degree that the rise in earnings just slightly outweighs the loss in work hours. In fact, giving workers more free time to reinvest in education and their families is a net gain too, so even if the reduction in labor perfectly balances with the rise in wages, it would still be a win. At $17 or $20, the side effects become more extreme and outweigh the benefits, so that would be considered excessive.

Your turn now: perhaps you could explain why a $15 minimum wage is ridiculous but a $0 minimum wage causes no harm to anyone.

Like, what problems? What side effects?

I have not taken the position that a "$15 minimum wage is ridiculous" nor that "a $0 minimum wage causes harm to no one".

Yes you have and it doesn't matter. Nobody argued for a 1k minimum wage but it didn't stop you from bringing it up, so answer the question.