Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 541

Thread: Minimum Wage and McBudgets

  1. #61
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    Yeah its almost like I have no experience with any of this ever and I'm just pulling the numbers out of thin air!
    So, in the absence of reality, you're just going to rest on an appeal to authority. Unless you've owned, operated and run the books on a store, I don't think it's reasonable for you (or I) to just blithely say there's plenty of room in a retailer's budget to increase its own labor costs. We're just supposed to believe you that there's plenty of margin after you include other business expenses? And there's plenty of pricing power for any given good? Most of retail is fairly high-risk and low-margin, especially when you don't look at the specialty retail establishments.

    More importantly, this isn't just about what a business could do. The idea is about the principle that the government shouldn't dictate price floors because it feels like it. It doesn't work for sugar and it doesn't for labor. If a business wants to invest in higher-quality employees, they are welcome to pull a Costco and do so. I encourage that; I'm glad Costco can make the numbers work. But that's very different than forcing it.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So, in the absence of reality, you're just going to rest on an appeal to authority. Unless you've owned, operated and run the books on a store, I don't think it's reasonable for you (or I) to just blithely say there's plenty of room in a retailer's budget to increase its own labor costs. We're just supposed to believe you that there's plenty of profit after you include other business expenses?
    Er no you were supposed to believe that his example of a retail store making $10,000 in revenue in one day isn't as far removed from reality as, say, a budget wherein healthcare costs $20 and heating costs $0. Re. profitability the average moderately successful (aka getting by) US retail store probably has a profit margin of something like 1.5%-4% after the ridiculous rents are subtracted. I can't help but wonder how minimum wage laws would influence those rents in the long term.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So, in the absence of reality, you're just going to rest on an appeal to authority.
    This isn't an appeal to authority. This is "I'm stating an abstraction of my first hand experience because just stating my first hand experience is unethical and goes against the contracts I've signed for my employment". This is also not how an appeal to authority fallacy works.

    Unless you've owned, operated and run the books on a store, I don't think it's reasonable for you (or I) to just blithely say there's plenty of room in a retailer's budget to increase its own labor costs. We're just supposed to believe you that there's plenty of profit after you include other business expenses? And there's plenty of pricing power for any given good? Most of retail is fairly high-risk and low-margin, especially when you don't look at the specialty retail establishments.
    Again, it was how much extra a consumer would have to spend in order to keep profits the same for the corporation. Lewk's argument was that consumers would be hurt by the price increases necessary for raising the wages of retail and food industry employees without stating how much that price increase would be, and I came back with a hypothetical scenario based on an abstraction of real world numbers to demonstrate how much it would be for a retail store.

    At the end of the day, this isn't just about what a business could do. The idea is about the principle that the government shouldn't dictate price floors because it feels like it.
    Thats great. This isn't what I was responding to. I was responding to Lewk's hypothetical scenario that raising minimum wage would hurt consumers horrendously. I detailed hypothetically how much more per dollar consumers would be spending if retailers raised base pay from $7.25 per hour to $10 per hour based on a hypothetical retail store with data based on an abstraction of the retail store I work at.
    . . .

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Er no you were supposed to believe that his example of a retail store making $10,000 in revenue in one day isn't as far removed from reality as, say, a budget wherein healthcare costs $20 and heating costs $0. Re. profitability the average moderately successful (aka getting by) US retail store probably has a profit margin of something like 1.5%-4% after the ridiculous rents are subtracted. I can't help but wonder how minimum wage laws would influence those rents in the long term.
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    This isn't an appeal to authority. This is "I'm stating an abstraction of my first hand experience because just stating my first hand experience is unethical and goes against the contracts I've signed for my employment". This is also not how an appeal to authority fallacy works.



    Again, it was how much extra a consumer would have to spend in order to keep profits the same for the corporation. Lewk's argument was that consumers would be hurt by the price increases necessary for raising the wages of retail and food industry employees without stating how much that price increase would be, and I came back with a hypothetical scenario based on an abstraction of real world numbers to demonstrate how much it would be for a retail store.



    Thats great. This isn't what I was responding to. I was responding to Lewk's hypothetical scenario that raising minimum wage would hurt consumers horrendously. I detailed hypothetically how much more per dollar consumers would be spending if retailers raised base pay from $7.25 per hour to $10 per hour based on a hypothetical retail store with data based on an abstraction of the retail store I work at.
    Costs don't exist in isolation. My point is the example is nonsense without a firm sense of all the costs. EG, I would be far more interested in the percentages of each cost item and the margins of the whole business.

    Lewk is expressing a basic economic concept, which is often expressed as "there is no free lunch".

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    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.
    You are the one living in a false reality. I used to work fast food - trust me money was NOT only going for essentials. Ever see people on the poor side of town SMOKING? Guess what that COSTS money. Money they could be spending on other things - sure its their choice to spend it on how they want but don't make me listen to some sob story when they are pissing money down their lungs. Not to mention booze, lottery tickets, other entertainment items.

    And lets not forget bank fees that poor people get hit with because they fail to budget properly.

    http://www.timesledger.com/stories/2...-archive5.html

    "Automatic teller machines are a great cost-saver for banks but costly for the public in general and poor people in particular, a survey by a consumer advocacy agency concluded.

    “Our survey documents several types of ATM fees and debit card fees. The fees can add up to hundreds of dollars for consumers over the course of a year,” said Tracy Shelton, an attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group.

    “Sadly, these outrageous fees hit low-income New Yorkers the hardest.”
    "

    Completely avoidable fee that poor folks are paying because of their poor decisions.

    Sorry I'm not buying that "they can't live on X" when so many seem to be able to live AND throw money away.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Costs don't exist in isolation. My point is the example is nonsense without a firm sense of all the costs. EG, I would be far more interested in the percentages of each cost item and the margins of the whole business.

    Lewk is expressing a basic economic concept, which is often expressed as "there is no free lunch".
    Illusions of course is expressing another concept, namely, "There are some lunches that cost 4 cents." Whether or not this is one of those lunches is another matter entirely
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You are the one living in a false reality. I used to work fast food - trust me money was NOT only going for essentials. Ever see people on the poor side of town SMOKING? Guess what that COSTS money. Money they could be spending on other things - sure its their choice to spend it on how they want but don't make me listen to some sob story when they are pissing money down their lungs. Not to mention booze, lottery tickets, other entertainment items.
    I don't whether I should laugh or cry when you live "up" to even my most exaggerated parodies of you
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I don't whether I should laugh or cry when you live "up" to even my most exaggerated parodies of you
    You call them exaggerated parodies but you really do fail to realize that people at ALL income levels spend money unwisely. Many people purchase on impulse (why do you think so much money is spent on marketing?). Do you think most people make sound financial decisions? Yes? No? I'm curious. However if you say "no" then why the hell would you think that poor people are paragons of financial wisdom who don't make mistakes? That's absurd, of course they make poor financial decisions (at least a large majority of them do). So is there a big push by liberals for financial literacy? Oh sure there are some efforts being made but you hear far more attacks on the rich, raising minimum wage and corporate taxation then you do about personal responsibility, budgets and financial responsibility.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I don't whether I should laugh or cry when you live "up" to even my most exaggerated parodies of you
    Lewk's not wrong. Incidence of smoking is higher in fast food and the hospitality industry in general than it is outside when it ought to be 0% if they weren't getting enough to live off.

    If people are choosing to spend their cash on booze and fags and gambling and illegal drugs then that's their decision but don't pretend for a second that every single penny is going to essentials in that case.

    EDIT: CDC Source for that claim if you don't believe me. Those who work in "Eating and drinking places" have a far, far, far higher rate of smoking than the rest of the population.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I don't whether I should laugh or cry when you live "up" to even my most exaggerated parodies of you
    He isn't wrong, you know. There are many people who make poor financial decisions, including spending large portions of their income on alcohol and cigarettes. Now, it certainly isn't always the case, but I've done enough work with low income populations to say that it isn't the exception either. Will eliminating these bad decisions suddenly raise them out of poverty? Probably not. Would it be a step in the right direction? Absolutely.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You call them exaggerated parodies but you really do fail to realize that people at ALL income levels spend money unwisely. Many people purchase on impulse (why do you think so much money is spent on marketing?). Do you think most people make sound financial decisions? Yes? No? I'm curious. However if you say "no" then why the hell would you think that poor people are paragons of financial wisdom who don't make mistakes? That's absurd, of course they make poor financial decisions (at least a large majority of them do). So is there a big push by liberals for financial literacy? Oh sure there are some efforts being made but you hear far more attacks on the rich, raising minimum wage and corporate taxation then you do about personal responsibility, budgets and financial responsibility.
    Well said. What makes people better off:

    A: Increasing minimum wage somewhat while taxing those earnings and driving some unemployed?
    B: Cutting any taxes on the poorest?
    C: Getting people better able to live within their means and out of the clutches of loansharks and 5853% APR usurious debt

    Sadly those in debt are so frequently because of a lack of ability to properly budget and then a vicious circle of interest and borrowing. Its easier to attack a straw man than deal with the complex realities though.

    I heard an advert on the radio today for a company trying to promote itself as a responsible lender as opposed to payday lenders or banks. It is offering loans for "1 to 5 years" with "49% APR typical". 49% annual interest on a 5 year loan? Sickening. But people will buy fags and alcohol and cannabis and go out every Saturday night and then resort to payday loansharks and this usury and get into difficulty and drown their sorrows and smoke and go out on Saturday and ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You call them exaggerated parodies but you really do fail to realize that people at ALL income levels spend money unwisely. Many people purchase on impulse (why do you think so much money is spent on marketing?). Do you think most people make sound financial decisions? Yes? No? I'm curious. However if you say "no" then why the hell would you think that poor people are paragons of financial wisdom who don't make mistakes? That's absurd, of course they make poor financial decisions (at least a large majority of them do). So is there a big push by liberals for financial literacy? Oh sure there are some efforts being made but you hear far more attacks on the rich, raising minimum wage and corporate taxation then you do about personal responsibility, budgets and financial responsibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Lewk's not wrong. Incidence of smoking is higher in fast food and the hospitality industry in general than it is outside when it ought to be 0% if they weren't getting enough to live off.

    If people are choosing to spend their cash on booze and fags and gambling and illegal drugs then that's their decision but don't pretend for a second that every single penny is going to essentials in that case.

    EDIT: CDC Source for that claim if you don't believe me. Those who work in "Eating and drinking places" have a far, far, far higher rate of smoking than the rest of the population.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    He isn't wrong, you know. There are many people who make poor financial decisions, including spending large portions of their income on alcohol and cigarettes. Now, it certainly isn't always the case, but I've done enough work with low income populations to say that it isn't the exception either. Will eliminating these bad decisions suddenly raise them out of poverty? Probably not. Would it be a step in the right direction? Absolutely.
    It's funny, usually you guys would be the first to pull out the "ecological fallacy"

    My remark to Lewk was about how he chooses to rabidly focus on the scenario that justifies the maximum amount of righteous condemnation of the working poor. I believe that falls under a separate category of fallacious or misguided reasoning.

    Would you say the cost of supporting a nicotine addiction is as high as the cost of raising three kids as a single uneducated mother?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  13. #73
    I'd say raising 3 kids without smoking, drinking, gambling or taking illegal drugs is a hell of a lot cheaper than raising 3 kids and doing all of the above. I'd also think the former parent is ceteris paribus probably raising their kids better too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's funny, usually you guys would be the first to pull out the "ecological fallacy"

    My remark to Lewk was about how he chooses to rabidly focus on the scenario that justifies the maximum amount of righteous condemnation of the working poor. I believe that falls under a separate category of fallacious or misguided reasoning.

    Would you say the cost of supporting a nicotine addiction is as high as the cost of raising three kids as a single uneducated mother?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...rettes/262627/
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I'd say raising 3 kids without smoking, drinking, gambling or taking illegal drugs is a hell of a lot cheaper than raising 3 kids and doing all of the above. I'd also think the former parent is ceteris paribus probably raising their kids better too.
    Yeah the point is that unless you think all working poor single moms waste their money on cigarettes, booze and gambling you might want to consider that there may be different groups within the larger group of "working poor".
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #76
    Please quote the relevant passage from this article

    Just so we're clear, the data shows the spending of the "poorest 40%" but we all know that the number of minimum wage workers is a small subset of that group.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #77
    The part that claims low-income smokers spend a quarter of their entire income on cigarettes...And another 9% on lottery tickets.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Ever see people on the poor side of town SMOKING?
    You have yet to show how people in this bracket live comfortable debt free lives. It's almost like you are attempting to argue against your original position but bringing up addiction, likely brought on by stressful conditions, and how they end up further in debt via outrageous fees.
    "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."

  19. #79
    BS. Most people start smoking in their early to mid-teens. Are they worried about their job prospects and college savings at that time?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Yeah the point is that unless you think all working poor single moms waste their money on cigarettes, booze and gambling you might want to consider that there may be different groups within the larger group of "working poor".
    No shit Sherlock. And your point is? I suspect the moms not spending over a quarter of their income on smoking, drinking, gambling and taking drugs are probably doing better at providing food, shelter, clothing etc for their kids.

    Or do you think those who get wasted all the time don't breed? That people choose between supporting their addictions and having kids and ne'er the two shall meet?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The part that claims low-income smokers spend a quarter of their entire income on cigarettes...And another 9% on lottery tickets.
    Has anyone in this thread claimed that low-income workers as a group don't spend 25% of their income on cigarettes or 9% on lottery tickets?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Has anyone in this thread claimed that low-income workers as a group don't spend 25% of their income on cigarettes or 9% on lottery tickets?
    Will raising the minimum wage and sending some of those low-income workers unemployed as a result mean that those who don't lose their jobs spend less of fags, booze, gambling, illegal drugs and usury for supporting those habits?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    No shit Sherlock. And your point is? I suspect the moms not spending over a quarter of their income on smoking, drinking, gambling and taking drugs are probably doing better at providing food, shelter, clothing etc for their kids.

    Or do you think those who get wasted all the time don't breed? That people choose between supporting their addictions and having kids and ne'er the two shall meet?
    So explain to me very carefully why one should focus only on the ones who booze and smoke rather than include the ones who don't booze and smoke but who nevertheless remain in a poverty trap. "Better" =/= "good".
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    BS. Most people start smoking in their early to mid-teens. Are they worried about their job prospects and college savings at that time?
    You will notice how I mentioned addiction right? What incentive is their to quit, regardless of when it was first tried, if its one of the few points of stress relief? Especially since the only budget posted so far has these people working 2 jobs and no social life.


    And god I hope you aren't claiming that teens in poverty lead stress free lives
    "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."

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Will raising the minimum wage and sending some of those low-income workers unemployed as a result mean that those who don't lose their jobs spend less of fags, booze, gambling, illegal drugs and usury for supporting those habits?
    Have I in this thread said that the minimum wage should be raised or disagreed that raising minimum wages might increase unemployment among minimum wage workers?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    So explain to me very carefully why one should focus only on the ones who booze and smoke rather than include the ones who don't booze and smoke but who nevertheless remain in a poverty trap. "Better" =/= "good".
    I support many ways of removing the poverty trap including better education, reforming tax and benefits. Higher taxes or higher minimum wages do bugger all to address the poverty trap though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You will notice how I mentioned addiction right? What incentive is their to quit, regardless of when it was first tried, if its one of the few points of stress relief?
    How about - and consider this a crazy notion if you will - not being in debt as a source of stress relief?

    34% of wages for tobacco and gambling alone (not counting illegal drugs, alcohol or compound interest) is higher than the deficit in budget I suspect and is definitely higher than proposed increases in minimum wage. So clearly windmills are being tilted at if you think minimum wage increases will resolve this problem?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I support many ways of removing the poverty trap including better education, reforming tax and benefits. Higher taxes or higher minimum wages do bugger all to address the poverty trap though.
    My remark to Lewk of course was inspired by his bizarre and compulsive refusal to see the problem in its entirety and his preference for ranting about the damn' drug-addicted lotto-playing boozehounds that haunt his nightmares.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  28. #88
    No Lewk was accurately identifying the biggest problem that causes people to get into vicious circles of debt.

    If people who couldn't afford it didn't smoke, drink, gamble, take illegal drugs or borrow to do any of the above do you think there would be a significant difference in the wellbeing of the poorest in society?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Has anyone in this thread claimed that low-income workers as a group don't spend 25% of their income on cigarettes or 9% on lottery tickets?
    This isn't complex logic.

    If its not a living wage then the poor are so destitute they cannot spend money on luxuries.

    Let me break it down.

    Poor people spend money on luxuries.
    People who don't make a living wage can't afford to consistently spend money on luxuries.
    Poor people spend money on luxuries.
    Poor people make a living wage!

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You have yet to show how people in this bracket live comfortable debt free lives. It's almost like you are attempting to argue against your original position but bringing up addiction, likely brought on by stressful conditions, and how they end up further in debt via outrageous fees.
    Live within their means. Done.

Posting Permissions

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