Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 541

Thread: Minimum Wage and McBudgets

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You're missing one rather obvious point. If the company could have gotten away with raising prices 4 cents before, why didn't they do so? The most likely reason is that the increase would drive away more customers that would be earned by that increase.
    This generalization at the end here isn't any better than the one I made. It could be that an increase in cost is planned out over the course of a product's shelf life if that product performs well. It also varies heavily based on the type of business.

    Edit: My generalization was also done in response to Lewk's post, which was implying that the increase in cost to poor consumers would be too great to bear.
    . . .

  2. #32
    Are you instead assuming that companies keep prices down out of the goodness of their hearts?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #33
    I think it's garbage to argue that companies are obligated to pay enough for a single earner to support a family with full-time hours. It's an artifact of an economic slowdown that folks are turning to low-end jobs for full-time work. But it's nonsense to argue that these entry-level, low-skill jobs are meant to be a full-fledged career for a single earner.

    If these fast food workers want to stage a walkout, I say more power to them. I genuinely hope they get their way. But if there are tons of folks in line for these very jobs, that sets the wage rate as much as anything else.


    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    We can do this real quick I guess, using easy numbers. Say you have a retail store with 15 full time (hah!) employees making minimum wage. At 15 employees, for 8 hours each, and $7.25 per hour, thats $875 total for employee pay per day. Now lets pay them $10 per hour. That would be $1,200 per day, or a $325 increase. So lets say this hypothetical retail store makes $10,000 per day in sales (not profit). To cover the $325 increase in costs to pay the employees $10 per hour instead of $7.25, and keep the same profits, the store would have to increase the cost of an item by 3.25%. So for every dollar an item costs prior to the pay raise, your customers would be paying an extra 4 cents (I rounded up significantly from 3.25 cents) afterward. If someone wants to correct my math, please feel free to do so. This is just to illustrate that the higher costs aren't that significant towards the customers. However, something else this illustrates is that if a company wanted to charge an extra 4 cents on the dollar for a product and not increase employee pay, they'd be looking at an extra $118,625 per year, per store. They could then either roll that into an extra 16,362 hours of work paid at minimum wage for additional employees, or hire 7 additional full-time people at $15,080 per year ($7.25 per hour x 40 hours x 52 weeks), and still have money left over. What is more likely though is that extra money will just be kept by the company, since with larger retail chains, with thousands of stores, that extra money could be multiple hundreds of millions of dollars.
    1) How convenient of you to just make up a revenue number.

    2) Even using your totally made-up/bogus revenue number, you're suggesting that labor is ~10% of costs. What about the other costs? EG the cost of goods sold, the real estate costs, administrative costs, warehousing, utilities, taxes, etc. These things vary a LOT depending on what's being sold. It's nuts to deduce how much wages will impact prices without knowing those numbers.

    3) Employing someone full time requires a lot more than paying their salary.

    4) Making up a revenue number renders your math irrelevant, not wrong. Reiteration of #1. Sorry, but that's a really big deal.

  4. #34
    Yeah Illusions, couldn't you just have used a number that was based on your experiences with working in retail rather than one that has nothing to do with anything??
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    The "budget" that lewk is referring to. By comfortable debt free life he must mean working 2 jobs, imaginary health insurance, no a/c, owning but not using a car, etc.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...uget-low-wage/
    And yet I see "poor" folks putting upgrades in their vehicles, eating out (at fast food places ironically), and talking on new smart phones. I'm not defending the McDonalds budget as correct I'm defending the IDEA of having a budget and a spending plan which MOST Americans do not have and poor folks are even less likely to have even though they should be the ones who pay close attention to it.

  6. #36
    Also... who the heck works minimum wage for very long? First fast food job I got there were small raises as you moved from the easiest work to the slightly more complex.

  7. #37
    I'm half-convinced that this is being pushed in order to make a larger portion of Americans earn the minimum wage, which would create a larger constituency toward constantly raising the minimum wage.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm half-convinced that this is being pushed in order to make a larger portion of Americans earn the minimum wage, which would create a larger constituency toward constantly raising the minimum wage.
    Pushing a minimum wage that high would cause more people to be out of work leading to more people being put on government assistance for their basic necessities... once again creating a constituency for expanding welfare.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Are you instead assuming that companies keep prices down out of the goodness of their hearts?
    I'm not assuming that companies are keeping prices down out of the goodness of their hearts, but instead following a rhetoric where they don't 100% know for certain the exact price point to sell new product at, and when the product premiers, increase the price based on how well it sells, up to the point where it starts hurting sales. They also have the option of lowering the cost of production instead of increasing the price of an item if that becomes necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    1) How convenient of you to just make up a revenue number.
    Well since I can't just publish on the internet the revenue numbers of a single retail store for a day since it would be unethical, I'd have to make one up.

    2) Even using your totally made-up/bogus revenue number,
    Of course they are made up. I could say there is a retail employee somewhere making $8.15 an hour. Is that made up? Yes. Is it unrealistic or bogus? No.

    You're suggesting that labor is ~10% of costs.
    I'm suggesting no such thing. I was stating how much extra a company would have to charge per product if they continued to sell the same quantity and type of product. Or if you wanted to get technical their AUR would have to increase $.04 per $1.

    What about the other costs? EG the cost of goods sold, the real estate costs, administrative costs, warehousing, utilities, taxes, etc. These things vary a LOT depending on what's being sold. It's nuts to deduce how much wages will impact prices without knowing those numbers.
    Real Estate costs, administrative costs, warehousing, utilities, everything except taxes and the cost of employee benefits would be the same if we're selling widgets at $1.04 versus $1 and rolling the extra $.04 per product over into employee pay.

    3) Employing someone full time requires a lot more than paying their salary.
    Already discussed this, and I mentioned that I rather doubt it would increase the cost passed onto the consumer past $.05 per dollar spent. Regardless, the numbers I "made up" exaggerated the amount of full-time employees by a lot and went low, at least from my experience, on the per day earnings of the store.

    4) Making up a revenue number renders your math irrelevant, not wrong. Reiteration of #1. Sorry, but that's a really big deal.
    So what you're saying is either A) Someone has to do something unethical and publish retail store earnings, employee hours used, employee pay, etc. per day or B) Corporate has to do something stupid and publish this data publicly or you're going to ignore people's hypothetical scenarios based on experience?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Yeah Illusions, couldn't you just have used a number that was based on your experiences with working in retail rather than one that has nothing to do with anything??
    Yeah its almost like I have no experience with any of this ever and I'm just pulling the numbers out of thin air!
    . . .

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I'm not assuming that companies are keeping prices down out of the goodness of their hearts, but instead following a rhetoric where they don't 100% know for certain the exact price point to sell new product at, and when the product premiers, increase the price based on how well it sells, up to the point where it starts hurting sales. They also have the option of lowering the cost of production instead of increasing the price of an item if that becomes necessary.
    And the way they would lower the cost of production is by increasing the cost of labor...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    And the way they would lower the cost of production is by increasing the cost of labor...
    Or instead of having a frame with glass it could be a frame with plexiglass. Or instead of plexiglass, a thin sheet of acrylic. Then instead of two thin sheets of film to keep the acrylic from scratching, just one on the outside. Then none. Then instead of MDF for the backing board, a pine composite. Then cardboard. Then instead of flexible framing points, metal turnbuttons. You can then make these out of plastic instead. Also instead of making the frame out of solid plastic you can start using a plastic foam. Then instead of 3 rings to hang it from, just 2 sawtooth hangers. You can also change the printed design inside from cardstock/cardboard to thin paper. Also instead of packing them in double thick cardboard you go with single thick. You can also stop shipping them with packing foam between each frame and just use a single sheet of thin cardboard. Then instead of cardboard a newsprint like paper. Then instead of that, nothing.

    TL;DR - Use cheaper materials, less materials, less packing materials, lower quality packing materials, or switch to a different factory in a different province of China. This process may take several years, and the customer will still end up paying more for it than the original product cost. Its also ongoing to see just how low the production cost can be brought and still have the product sell.
    . . .

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    And yet I see "poor" folks putting upgrades in their vehicles, eating out (at fast food places ironically), and talking on new smart phones. I'm not defending the McDonalds budget as correct I'm defending the IDEA of having a budget and a spending plan which MOST Americans do not have and poor folks are even less likely to have even though they should be the ones who pay close attention to it.
    You are seeing what you want to see. You have no idea what poor is, who is poor, or apparently what stuff costs. For example, I just bought a smartphone from metropcs for $25, with a $25 monthly plan, even the free services like safelink use smartphones. You sound like those dumbasses who freaked out when the 1st lady had her picture taken by someone with a blackberry.

    and you totally ignored the point of my response, with or without a bugdet, there is no "comfortable debt free life" for these people.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  13. #43
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    So our displays will look like crap (for higher end stores)or they are already are thus the employer has already cut production/presentation where she can...

    The biggest area an employer can impact revenue has been payroll. Very little else is malleable at the point of sale level. And every thing else that has been has already been done if the people that do that are doing their jobs in the home office.

    We are at the same argument again, companies are already absorbing higher costs (fuel for shipping for example). Again business is a marginal profit, and every thing has to be kept an eye on.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  14. #44
    Saw that 67 cent "study" about Big Macs if McDonald's pays its workers $15 an hour. Apparently it's no big deal to increase the price of your products by 22%...

    Also, no word at all about how this would affect workers in other fields. It's not like it would incentivize entry-level white collar workers to try to get fast food jobs instead. That's certainly what we need more of in the economy...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Apparently it's no big deal to increase the price of your products by 22%...
    Wendys and Arbys recently did this with several of their value meal items, and have you seen McDonald's new quarter pounder menu? they are seriously pushing for premium pricing.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-31-2013 at 05:10 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    So our displays will look like crap (for higher end stores)or they are already are thus the employer has already cut production/presentation where she can...

    The biggest area an employer can impact revenue has been payroll. Very little else is malleable at the point of sale level. And every thing else that has been has already been done if the people that do that are doing their jobs in the home office.

    We are at the same argument again, companies are already absorbing higher costs (fuel for shipping for example). Again business is a marginal profit, and every thing has to be kept an eye on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Or instead of having a frame with glass it could be a frame with plexiglass. Or instead of plexiglass, a thin sheet of acrylic. Then instead of two thin sheets of film to keep the acrylic from scratching, just one on the outside. Then none. Then instead of MDF for the backing board, a pine composite. Then cardboard. Then instead of flexible framing points, metal turnbuttons. You can then make these out of plastic instead. Also instead of making the frame out of solid plastic you can start using a plastic foam. Then instead of 3 rings to hang it from, just 2 sawtooth hangers. You can also change the printed design inside from cardstock/cardboard to thin paper. Also instead of packing them in double thick cardboard you go with single thick. You can also stop shipping them with packing foam between each frame and just use a single sheet of thin cardboard. Then instead of cardboard a newsprint like paper. Then instead of that, nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I'm not assuming that companies are keeping prices down out of the goodness of their hearts, but instead following a rhetoric where they don't 100% know for certain the exact price point to sell new product at, and when the product premiers, increase the price based on how well it sells, up to the point where it starts hurting sales. They also have the option of lowering the cost of production instead of increasing the price of an item if that becomes necessary.

    Real Estate costs, administrative costs, warehousing, utilities, everything except taxes and the cost of employee benefits would be the same if we're selling widgets at $1.04 versus $1 and rolling the extra $.04 per product over into employee pay.

    Already discussed this, and I mentioned that I rather doubt it would increase the cost passed onto the consumer past $.05 per dollar spent. Regardless, the numbers I "made up" exaggerated the amount of full-time employees by a lot and went low, at least from my experience, on the per day earnings of the store.
    Few things here.

    1. You can't raise the cost of a good by 4 cents because it has to end in a 9. They'll probably raise costs by say $1 and use the minimum wage raise to justify it to customers.

    2. It'll be okay to do so for many companies because ALL companies employing minimum-wage workers will have to make the same adjustment to maintain the same profit margin while maintaining everything else. It'll suck for companies and probably a number of small businesses already living too close to the edge of bankrupcy. The objection that "if companies could raise prices they'd have done so already" presupposes that there are no downsides to raising prices other than influencing a customer's decision to buy a good at all. In reality there is the significant down-side of making a customer buy the same good or an equivalent from a competitor. If all competitors sell their goods at the same price then things look a lot better for all equally successful businesses in that industry and only marginally worse for most customers.

    3. Companies will get creative finding other ways to reduce costs and the most effective way to reduce costs at point of sale will be to reduce the reliance on high-rent brick-and-mortal stores in those hellholes you call "shopping malls". This change is already occurring independently of the present proposals to raise the minimum wage and any company not looking into these changes aren't doing good business.

    4. The demand for mall space will still be high but malls will now mostly be filled with more profitable products. In hellholes malls will have difficulties attracting businesses and will be forced to lower their rents. Children will starve.

    Yeah its almost like I have no experience with any of this ever and I'm just pulling the numbers out of thin air!
    With skills like that you could have a lucrative career in finance

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Also... who the heck works minimum wage for very long?
    That's an incredibly ignorant question that even you should have been able to answer on your own in the five minutes it took you to carefully poke out that post. The answer to questions like "Who works minimum wage for very long" and "Who works for less than a living wage for very long" is "people who want to work those jobs or find themselves forced to because they eg. dropped out of school after ninth grade and had four kids to three deadbeats--of whom two are in prison--and now can't find a way out of their poverty trap because they can't sell their kids 'cause no-one with enough money wants to buy a black kid knowing full well the kid'll get executed by the neighborhood watch a few years down the line." Well, that's one answer at least, but there are many variations that are equally accurate while being more succint.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    base on corporate figures the cost of a big mac would raise 68 cents if mcdonald's salaries were doubled.

    curious if anyone considers that detrimental.
    I do, for 2 reasons:

    1. You forget that the average American needs at least 4 Big Macs to be satisfied and the extra $2.68 will mean he won't be able to drive to McDonald's. The consequences will be devastating for gas-station owners.

    2. I don't own McDonald's stock and so I wouldn't be able to benefit from their increased profits
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I do, for 2 reasons:

    1. You forget that the average American needs at least 4 Big Macs to be satisfied and the extra $2.68 will mean he won't be able to drive to McDonald's. The consequences will be devastating for gas-station owners.

    2. I don't own McDonald's stock and so I wouldn't be able to benefit from their increased profits
    Not to be mean, but I don't think a lot of people here have a good concept on how businesses work. It's $2.72 (+ local tax), and simply increasing price doesn't increase profits. In fact, if it did, then they would increase the price. There is something called elasticity in economics, which compares the percent change in price to the percent change in quantity sold, because the too are related. A product like cigarettes probably can increase it's price (if all companies did it) and still sell fine, however, products people aren't addicted to, or aren't necessities will have their change in price have a change in quantity sold. My solution is that I think the higher paid management will work that same job for substantially less pay, and therefore I think taxing them appropriately is the answer. I don't mind having wealthy people, it's just a matter of finding a tax balance that works.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I do, for 2 reasons:

    1. You forget that the average American needs at least 4 Big Macs to be satisfied and the extra $2.68 will mean he won't be able to drive to McDonald's. The consequences will be devastating for gas-station owners.

    2. I don't own McDonald's stock and so I wouldn't be able to benefit from their increased profits
    You forget that the average American has plenty of fast food choices, and might even cook their own food is pushed far enough. There's a reason fast food places rarely raise prices.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You forget that the average American has plenty of fast food choices, and might even cook their own food is pushed far enough. There's a reason fast food places rarely raise prices.
    You forget that minimum wage laws would affect all fast-food companies that employ minimum-wage workers and the few burger-lovers that know how to cook their own food probably number in the hundreds
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  21. #51
    you can be a burger lover and still not be arsed enough some days to fire up the grill
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You forget that minimum wage laws would affect all fast-food companies that employ minimum-wage workers and the few burger-lovers that know how to cook their own food probably number in the hundreds
    Either A) this kind of law won't apply to small businesses, in which case it would drive the large chains out of business. Or B) this does apply to everyone and pretty much bankrupts all small fast food places. But at least you helped the workers!
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon View Post
    Not to be mean, but I don't think a lot of people here have a good concept on how businesses work. It's $2.72 (+ local tax), and simply increasing price doesn't increase profits. In fact, if it did, then they would increase the price. There is something called elasticity in economics, which compares the percent change in price to the percent change in quantity sold, because the too are related.
    Not to be mean but I was flippantly expressing my belief that demand for the big mac is sufficiently inelastic that it can tolerate a minute price hike. In fact McDonald's has been adjusting its prices almost annually to offset increased costs due to inflation, changes in food supply etc.

    The objection you raise presupposes that fast food companies are NOT locked in a sort of stag hunt situation where a player can't raise prices without losing customers unless ALL players do. In reality (simplified for clarity) a higher federally mandated minimum wage would, in those states where it is higher than the state's minimum wage, increase the costs--and thus perhaps also the prices--of all fast food as well as all groceries.

    That will be manageable for almost all Americans because there are no poor people in the US except for the poor people who're poor because they buy lottery tickets and cigarettes. This very small group will only have to stop buying lottos and ciggies to adapt to these increased living costs and let's face it that's what we want them to do. It'll probably also stop them from having more children because the cost of raising kids will go up.

    What's retarded is that these minimum wage increases would probably still be subject to payroll taxes for SS, medicare/medicaid, assorted nonsense. One wonders why the govt. can't find a better way to actually tax corporate income.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Either A) this kind of law won't apply to small businesses, in which case it would drive the large chains out of business. Or B) this does apply to everyone and pretty much bankrupts all small fast food places.
    I'm guessing it'll be the latter but c'mon big corporations are society's best friends and the fast-food joint owners can always work at McDonald's.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  25. #55
    Your belief has no basis on fact. Food prices are incredibly elastic, because there are readily available alternatives in terms of both venues and other food products. Inelastic products are things that people have no choice but to use (i.e. things they're addicted to or things that must be consumed and can't easily be replaced). This is especially true for fast food businesses that compete on price.

    Simply put, a 20% hike in prices would lead to a greater than a 20% decrease in demand. You're thus expecting McDonald's to lose perhaps 5-10% in revenue, while increasing costs by 15-20% (labor costs are about 35% of an average fast food store's budget).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Your belief has no basis on fact. Food prices are incredibly elastic, because there are readily available alternatives in terms of both venues and other food products.
    Your objection has no basis in the reality that minimum wage laws could and would influence prices at all those alternative venues as well as all alternative food products that are bought from grocery stores, never mind that the cost--wrt time and effort--for home-cooking would still be insurmountable. McDonald's doesn't just sell "food"--it sells "McDonald's", an experience that consists of a particular kind of convenience, a particular kind of food, a particular set of flavours, a particularly appealing brand, etc.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  27. #57
    A) There are fast food places that have fewer workers (maybe just the owner and family). They wouldn't have to worry about doubling wages. They could afford to keep prices low, thus screwing large chains out of business.
    B) By doubling the cost of labor, you're making capital far more attractive. Fast food companies will rapidly attempt to replace most of their workers with machines. Some workers are obviously necessary, but one can significantly cut down if one is willing to buy expensive machinery.
    C) The least skilled workers (usually member of ethnic minorities) will be priced out of the market. They will be the first ones fired due to B, and they're not going to be hired by anyone at $15 an hour.
    D) By paying fast food workers $15 an hour, you're going to encourage people to pursue fast food jobs instead of getting a college education. Why go to college for 4 years just to get an entry-level position that pays no better than McDonald's? In fact, this is what happened in Spain with the construction industry.
    E) Products are bought at the margin, not in the abstract "how much do I think food is worth". At the margin, there will be people who are priced out of the fast food market if prices increase too sharply. This is especially true for poor people, who literally can't afford to spend more on fast food.

    So as usual, lefties like you ignore all the inevitable side-effects of a do-gooder policy, side-effects that happen to be far worse than the supposed benefit.

    As for some facts:

    "We found mean price elasticity estimates ranging from 0.27 to 0.81 (absolute values), with the highest price elasticities for food away from home, soft drinks, juice, meats, and fruit and the most inelastic demand for eggs. "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804646/
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Either A) this kind of law won't apply to small businesses, in which case it would drive the large chains out of business. Or B) this does apply to everyone and pretty much bankrupts all small fast food places. But at least you helped the workers!
    Meh. My question is does it exempt the non-profits?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  29. #59
    Just looked up the median wages in this country. The median wage is $17 an hour. Pushing the minimum wage to $15 would thus increase the wages of around 40% of the work force. That seems an incredibly good idea if you're either a deranged communist or an anarchist who wants 40% unemployment.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    A) There are fast food places that have fewer workers (maybe just the owner and family). They wouldn't have to worry about doubling wages. They could afford to keep prices low, thus screwing large chains out of business.
    Unless the owner buys a humongous new restaurant and cyborg tentacles for his wife and himself, no, they would not do anything of the sort.

    B) By doubling the cost of labor, you're making capital far more attractive. Fast food companies will rapidly attempt to replace most of their workers with machines. Some workers are obviously necessary, but one can significantly cut down if one is willing to buy expensive machinery.
    Good so what you're saying is in fact that costs for companies would in the long term be maintained or decreased due to innovation and productivity would probably increase. The owner and his family from the foregoing example would likely be screwed out of business.

    C) The least skilled workers (usually member of ethnic minorities) will be priced out of the market. They will be the first ones fired due to B, and they're not going to be hired by anyone at $15 an hour.
    You're probably correct about this. Just so we're clear, btw, I was thinking of the miniscule minimum wage raise that's actually being backed by the govt., not the doubling being demanded by some McDonald's workers.

    D) By paying fast food workers $15 an hour, you're going to encourage people to pursue fast food jobs instead of getting a college education. Why go to college for 4 years just to get an entry-level position that pays no better than McDonald's? In fact, this is what happened in Spain with the construction industry.
    See above. Moreover, would you choose to work at McDonald's if your salary were $15/hour? I hear construction is extremely satisfying for some people. The ginger's dad started out in construction and stayed in that business for very many years before deciding to get rich.

    E) Products are bought at the margin, not in the abstract "how much do I think food is worth". At the margin, there will be people who are priced out of the fast food market if prices increase too sharply. This is especially true for poor people, who literally can't afford to spend more on fast food.
    This is also correct. However, you forget that there are basically no poor people in the US who can't afford more Big Macs by not buying lottos and cigarettes. But in general yes you're correct in that the poor would be priced out of the fast food market in which they used to work until rising costs made them lose their jobs

    So as usual, lefties like you ignore all the inevitable side-effects of a do-gooder policy, side-effects that happen to be far worse than the supposed benefit.
    So as usual you're so goddamned thick that you've failed to notice that I'm not casting substantial increases to minimum wages as being unmitigated awesomeness. What I have done is challenged some of your assumptions, in the interest of getting a clearer picture.

    As for some facts:

    "We found mean price elasticity estimates ranging from 0.27 to 0.81 (absolute values), with the highest price elasticities for food away from home, soft drinks, juice, meats, and fruit and the most inelastic demand for eggs. "

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804646/
    As for facts, the authors noted that "We had limited statistical power to synthesize estimates for other foods of interest, including fresh fruits and vegetables, fast food, snacks, and candy." This is probably because only about two of the studies reviewed offered estimates for fast food. Of those, one noted that the demand elasticity of fast food was likely influenced by the availability of convenient foods, eg. from other fast food places and grocery stores. They could offer no solid conclusions about what happens when prices increase for everyone.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •