ahem

by Propagandhi711 Fri May 30, 2014 4:46 pm

in the real world, not the one that runs on barcharts:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fast-food-ceo-minimum-wage-172542952.html

by Hellsangel Fri May 30, 2014 4:58 pm

You mean bar charts of the spin master?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri May 30, 2014 5:47 pm

or is an alternate explanation that once people's income level rises above a threshold they stop patronizing crappy restaurants?

by Hellsangel Fri May 30, 2014 7:29 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:or is an alternate explanation that once people's income level rises above a threshold they stop patronizing crappy restaurants?

That would be a possible explanation if you live in an ivory tower in the academic world, Il Professor-ai.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri May 30, 2014 7:36 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:or is an alternate explanation that once people's income level rises above a threshold they stop patronizing crappy restaurants?

That would be a possible explanation if you live in an ivory tower in the academic world, Il Professor-ai.

would that be a possible explanation if people studied the phenomenon rather than taking cheap digs?

They found that eating at full-service restaurants, which involve a range of food choices and sit-down service, followed an expected pattern: as income rose, visits increased. In contrast, eating at fast-food restaurants, characterized by minimal table service and food preparation time, followed a different pattern. Fast-food restaurant visits rose along with annual household income up to $60,000. As income increased beyond that level, fast-food visits decreased.

seriously, i went looking for a study only after you posted your silly dig. the hypothesis i proffered in my original post was my own.

by Hellsangel Fri May 30, 2014 8:00 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:or is an alternate explanation that once people's income level rises above a threshold they stop patronizing crappy restaurants?

That would be a possible explanation if you live in an ivory tower in the academic world, Il Professor-ai.

would that be a possible explanation if people studied the phenomenon rather than taking cheap digs?

They found that eating at full-service restaurants, which involve a range of food choices and sit-down service, followed an expected pattern: as income rose, visits increased. In contrast, eating at fast-food restaurants, characterized by minimal table service and food preparation time, followed a different pattern. Fast-food restaurant visits rose along with annual household income up to $60,000. As income increased beyond that level, fast-food visits decreased.

seriously, i went looking for a study only after you posted your silly dig. the hypothesis i proffered in my original post was my own.

As usual, libby academics like to spin their data:

In conducting the study, Leigh and co-author DaeHwan Kim, specialists in health economics, used data from the 1994 to 1996

Remind me. Wasn't that when the job market was booming? And what was the minimum wage then?

by Idéfix Fri May 30, 2014 9:08 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
As usual, libby academics like to spin their data:
In conducting the study, Leigh and co-author DaeHwan Kim, specialists in health economics, used data from the 1994 to 1996

Remind me. Wasn't that when the job market was booming? And what was the minimum wage then?

Glad you asked. The minimum wage adjusted for inflation peaked in 1968.

ahem MinimumWage_640px

by Hellsangel Fri May 30, 2014 9:13 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
As usual, libby academics like to spin their data:
In conducting the study, Leigh and co-author DaeHwan Kim, specialists in health economics, used data from the 1994 to 1996

Remind me. Wasn't that when the job market was booming? And what was the minimum wage then?
Glad you asked. The minimum wage adjusted for inflation peaked in 1968.

Love the way you spin your data. But then you are the spin master. The unadjusted minimum wage in 96 was about half of what it is now. Have (middle class) people's salaries doubled since then with or without adjusting for inflation?

PS: Except in the idealist socialist's mind, raising the minimum wage will lead businesses to cut back.

by truthbetold Fri May 30, 2014 9:34 pm

One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?

by confuzzled dude Fri May 30, 2014 11:09 pm

truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?

Did people stop eating at McDonalds when they raised prices? Their lunch menu is almost as expensive as the lunch menu in a formal restaurant but I don't think MCD is in losses. If minimum wage increase help 98% of the working force and in turn alleviates burden on tax payers (by not picking up their SNAP bill) why crib about 2% job losses.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri May 30, 2014 11:10 pm

What we need is a law capping the CEO salary (all inclusive) at 100 times the minimum wage.

by truthbetold Sat May 31, 2014 6:26 am

CD

You talk like a union leader who is focused on the 50 cent raise for his union. He does not worry about long term implications or company future or impact on others in society. He is doing his job. The union people deserve the extra 50 cents. He is fighting hard.

The problem is MCD's of the world are not in the business of giving away money easily. They will fight tooth and nail for every extra cent they have to pay. They will use every advantage they can find, whether it is morally justifiable or not.

The globalization has given these MNCs more economic options and political atmosphere gives them lot of room to screw their own workers. They will be reluctant to part with that extra cent.

The developed world wage earners are going to see their wages growing very slowly while the globalization allows the developing world people to grab a bigger share of the pie. In this economic transition, MNCs and rich people make out like bandits as they always do.

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 3:43 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?
Did people stop eating at McDonalds when they raised prices? Their lunch menu is almost as expensive as the lunch menu in a formal restaurant but I don't think MCD is in losses. If minimum wage increase help 98% of the working force and in turn alleviates burden on tax payers (by not picking up their SNAP bill) why crib about 2% job losses.

What was the last 'formal' restaurant you ate in, Comrade?

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 5:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?
Did people stop eating at McDonalds when they raised prices? Their lunch menu is almost as expensive as the lunch menu in a formal restaurant but I don't think MCD is in losses. If minimum wage increase help 98% of the working force and in turn alleviates burden on tax payers (by not picking up their SNAP bill) why crib about 2% job losses.

What was the last 'formal' restaurant you ate in, Comrade?

almost every weekday for last 10 years.

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 5:05 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?
Did people stop eating at McDonalds when they raised prices? Their lunch menu is almost as expensive as the lunch menu in a formal restaurant but I don't think MCD is in losses. If minimum wage increase help 98% of the working force and in turn alleviates burden on tax payers (by not picking up their SNAP bill) why crib about 2% job losses.

What was the last 'formal' restaurant you ate in, Comrade?
almost every weekday for last 10 years.

Comrade, I said what not when.

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 5:16 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?
Did people stop eating at McDonalds when they raised prices? Their lunch menu is almost as expensive as the lunch menu in a formal restaurant but I don't think MCD is in losses. If minimum wage increase help 98% of the working force and in turn alleviates burden on tax payers (by not picking up their SNAP bill) why crib about 2% job losses.

What was the last 'formal' restaurant you ate in, Comrade?
almost every weekday for last 10 years.
Comrade, I said what not when.

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 5:40 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

HTH:

http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/

http://hackthemenu.com/mcdonalds/menu-prices/extra-value-meal

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 6:05 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

HTH:

http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/

http://hackthemenu.com/mcdonalds/menu-prices/extra-value-meal

Those are not the combo meal prices.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/03/14/mcdonalds-new-menu-with-a-side-of-inflation/

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 6:09 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

HTH:

http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/

http://hackthemenu.com/mcdonalds/menu-prices/extra-value-meal

Those are not the combo meal prices.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/03/14/mcdonalds-new-menu-with-a-side-of-inflation/

Premium: $4.50-$5.50+
Core: $3.50-$4.50
Extra Value Menu (new): $1.20 to $3.50+
Dollar menu

What is different?

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 6:12 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

HTH:

http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/

http://hackthemenu.com/mcdonalds/menu-prices/extra-value-meal

Those are not the combo meal prices.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/03/14/mcdonalds-new-menu-with-a-side-of-inflation/
Premium: $4.50-$5.50+
Core: $3.50-$4.50
Extra Value Menu (new): $1.20 to $3.50+
Dollar menu

What is different?

Like I said regular combo meal is almost $8, large would push to $9, here in DC area.

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 6:15 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:

Mike’s American Grill; of course that's a bit on expensive side ($16-$20 lunch menu). I was talking about TGIF, Chilli's etc., even buffet at an average Indian restaurant costs about 11-12 bucks, big size combo at MCD would cost what, around $9?

HTH:

http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcdonalds-prices/

http://hackthemenu.com/mcdonalds/menu-prices/extra-value-meal

Those are not the combo meal prices.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/03/14/mcdonalds-new-menu-with-a-side-of-inflation/
Premium: $4.50-$5.50+
Core: $3.50-$4.50
Extra Value Menu (new): $1.20 to $3.50+
Dollar menu

What is different?
Like I said regular combo meal is almost $8, large would push to $9, here in DC area.

Post a picture with the prices in the DC area, Comrade.

by truthbetold Sat May 31, 2014 6:38 pm

Ha,

last time I bought a combo meal (sandwich, fries and drink) at MCD, I paid more than $8. But I am talking about CT where we pay top dollar for everything but remain last in growth.

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 6:40 pm

truthbetold wrote:Ha,

last time I bought a combo meal (sandwich, fries and drink) at MCD, I paid more than $8. But I am talking about CT where we pay top dollar for everything but remain last in growth.

OK. I will take a picture next time I'm in McD's. Maybe I'll check it out this weekend.

by truthbetold Sat May 31, 2014 6:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Ha,

last time I bought a combo meal (sandwich, fries and drink) at MCD, I paid more than $8. But I am talking about CT where we pay top dollar for everything but remain last in growth.
OK. I will take a picture next time I'm in McD's. Maybe I'll check it out this weekend.

ha,

You do that. What are we trying to prove here?

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 6:45 pm

truthbetold wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Ha,

last time I bought a combo meal (sandwich, fries and drink) at MCD, I paid more than $8. But I am talking about CT where we pay top dollar for everything but remain last in growth.
OK. I will take a picture next time I'm in McD's. Maybe I'll check it out this weekend.
ha,

You do that. What are we trying to prove here?

Comrade's contention is that McD's prices are not much lower than those at what he calls 'formal' restaurants.

by bw Sat May 31, 2014 7:14 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What we need is a law capping the CEO salary (all inclusive) at 100 times the minimum wage.

haha, dream on!

what i don't understand is the average wage earner talking on behalf of these people and feeling sorry for them!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat May 31, 2014 7:17 pm

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What we need is a law capping the CEO salary (all inclusive) at 100 times the minimum wage.

haha, dream on!

what i don't understand is the average wage earner talking on behalf of these people and feeling sorry for them!

neither do i and some other people i know. hence my signature.

by bw Sat May 31, 2014 7:24 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What we need is a law capping the CEO salary (all inclusive) at 100 times the minimum wage.

haha, dream on!

what i don't understand is the average wage earner talking on behalf of these people and feeling sorry for them!

neither do i and some other people i know. hence my signature.

i don't think we are the idiots.

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 7:45 pm

https://www.chilistogo.com/menu/lunch-combos.aspx

Start Off Fresh

• House Salad
• Bowl of Chili
• Chicken Enchilada Soup
• Southwest Chicken Soup
• Loaded Baked Potato Soup

Then - Pick Your Favorite
$6 Combos
• HALF FLATBREAD - Classic Margherita† with a southwest accent. Or choose Chipotle Chicken† or California Grilled Chicken Flatbread – add 1.49 (†These dishes contain nuts.)
• Southwestern BLT Toasted Sandwich on a toasted pretzel roll.
• Classic Turkey Toasted Sandwich

$7 Combos
• NEW Fresh Mex Bowls - Choose Margarita or Chipotle Chicken† (†This dish contain nuts.)
• Quesadillas - New Santa Fe Chicken or Bacon Ranch Chicken
• Big Mouth® Burger Bites [2]

$8 Combos
• NEW Fajitas [Lunch Portion) - Choose Grilled Chicken or Pork Carnitas (Fresh Guacamole, Rice & Black Beans extra)
• Bacon Avocado Chicken Sandwich (This dish contains nuts.)
• California Turkey Club Toasted Sandwich

by confuzzled dude Sat May 31, 2014 7:55 pm

I know this is not a valid comparison but the point is raising menu price by 50 cents to offset minimum wage hike won't hurt MCD's revenues.

by Hellsangel Sat May 31, 2014 7:58 pm

How much when you add a beverage and tip at Chilli's, Comrade?

by truthbetold Sat May 31, 2014 9:05 pm

CD
Why would MCD change its pay policy as long as it gets adequate supply of labor. Capitalist society does not work based on capital being nice. Its success is depent on efficient use of capital.

The same MCD pays more if labor begins to refuse to work for it.

In north dakota where employment bonanza is going on, pay is going high for all petrol related labor.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat May 31, 2014 9:17 pm

raising the EITC may be a better way to do this than constantly re-fighting the minimum wage battle.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:13 am

truthbetold wrote:CD
Why would MCD change its pay policy as long as it gets adequate supply of labor. Capitalist society does not work based on capital being nice. Its success is depent on efficient use of capital.

The same MCD pays more if labor begins to refuse to work for it.

In north dakota where employment bonanza is going on, pay is going high for all petrol related labor.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of pundits assertion on min. Wage hike.

by truthbetold Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:30 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:CD
Why would MCD change its pay policy as long as it gets adequate supply of labor. Capitalist society does not work based on capital being nice. Its success is depent on efficient use of capital.

The same MCD pays more if labor begins to refuse to work for it.

In north dakota where employment bonanza is going on, pay is going high for all petrol related labor.
What you are saying is the exact opposite of pundits assertion on min. Wage hike.

Cd

help me understand what the pundits are saying?

by Idéfix Mon Jun 02, 2014 10:40 am

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Remind me. Wasn't that when the job market was booming? And what was the minimum wage then?
Glad you asked. The minimum wage adjusted for inflation peaked in 1968.

Love the way you spin your data.

Nonsense. I did not spin anything. I just answered a question you asked with the appropriate data.

Hellsangel wrote:The unadjusted minimum wage in 96 was about half of what it is now. Have (middle class) people's salaries doubled since then with or without adjusting for inflation?

When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage has stagnated since 1996. And middle class incomes have declined. Between 1950 and 1968, the minimum wage doubled, and middle class incomes almost doubled as well.

ahem Income-Inequality-Chart-032713

Hellsangel wrote:But then you are the spin master.

And you think using labels like "libby" and "spin master" and "professor" for others strengthens your arguments. It doesn't.

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:20 pm

Idéfix wrote:
And you think using labels like "libby" and "spin master" and "professor" for others strengthens your arguments. It doesn't.

No. I do that for amusement.

Anyway some basic math for libby socialists:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2012/12/31/why-raising-the-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/ wrote:Consider a community based pizza parlor selling 100 pies a day for 360 days at $10 each. Total revenue is $360,000. It employs 10 minimum wage workers earning $7 per hour, working 2000 hours a year, making labor costs $140,000. Assume rent, utilities, equipment, depreciation, insurance, supplies, licenses, and food costs come to $170,000 per year, leaving a profit of $50,000 for the owner and his/her family. Raising the minimum wage $1 would raise labor costs by $20,000 (paying more for the same amount of labor) and reduce profit to $30,000. The owner must either move into a smaller house or raise prices, which reduces the demand for pizza, resulting in the loss of a worker. So, the full increase in the wage cost of an increase in the minimum wage comes out of the pockets of customers or the owner’s family, and the one person who loses a job. There was no net gain in income to increase spending in the community served as every dollar the minimum wage workers received came out of someone else’s pocket in the community.

Supporters of raising the minimum cite poorly done studies by agenda driven “research” groups that allege to show that raising the minimum doesn’t harm employment. This defines common sense and is not supported by good academic research. The Law of Demand always works: the higher the price of anything, the less that will be taken, and this includes labor.

by Idéfix Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:41 pm

truthbetold wrote:One theory is that USA wage stagnation is due to globalization.

Wages in scarce labor skill areas such as software professionals, petroleum extraction professionals, medical doctors, and entertainers are all raising. Supply and demand theory is working fine.

One thing globalization is doing is raising wages and living standards of professionals in China and India .

CD, idefax and max should open their horizon and look beyond national boundaries. Globalization is creating jobs and wealth in developing nations. It is also stagnating wages in developed world by providing vast supply of skills outside developed world boundaries. as the brokers of this wealth transfer, the capitalists and MNCs are gaining a share of the newly created wealth. comparisons against old national boundary bound charts may not tell the whole story.

Can such liberals think outside the box?

It is obvious that globalization has a negative impact on middle-class wages in the US. But it is also obvious that globalization is not the only reason for the steady decline of the middle class in America. Technological innovation and changes in public policy are the other major reasons. Globalization and technology are inevitable forces of human progress that American society has to learn to deal with and adapt to. But public policy changes that weaken the position of labor while empowering capital are not similarly inevitable. It is possible to have policies that strengthen the position of labor, invest in public education, invest in public infrastructure, etc. that temper the negative effects on wages of globalization and technology.

by Idéfix Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:54 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
And you think using labels like "libby" and "spin master" and "professor" for others strengthens your arguments. It doesn't.
No. I do that for amusement.

Anyway some basic math for libby socialists:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2012/12/31/why-raising-the-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/ wrote:Consider a community based pizza parlor selling 100 pies a day for 360 days at $10 each. Total revenue is $360,000. It employs 10 minimum wage workers earning $7 per hour, working 2000 hours a year, making labor costs $140,000. Assume rent, utilities, equipment, depreciation, insurance, supplies, licenses, and food costs come to $170,000 per year, leaving a profit of $50,000 for the owner and his/her family. Raising the minimum wage $1 would raise labor costs by $20,000 (paying more for the same amount of labor) and reduce profit to $30,000. The owner must either move into a smaller house or raise prices, which reduces the demand for pizza, resulting in the loss of a worker. So, the full increase in the wage cost of an increase in the minimum wage comes out of the pockets of customers or the owner’s family, and the one person who loses a job. There was no net gain in income to increase spending in the community served as every dollar the minimum wage workers received came out of someone else’s pocket in the community.

Supporters of raising the minimum cite poorly done studies by agenda driven “research” groups that allege to show that raising the minimum doesn’t harm employment. This defines common sense and is not supported by good academic research. The Law of Demand always works: the higher the price of anything, the less that will be taken, and this includes labor.

You may be incapable of spotting it, but what you just copy-pasted hews rather close to the definition of spin. It trivializes the issue with an elementary example designed for those unschooled in the basics of economics and math, and ignores the effect of rising wages on demand. Yet it glibly reassures its near-illiterate target readers that the conclusion it pushes based on the absurdly-trivial-example-built-out-incorrectly is right, and others who have researched the issue are wrong just because their conclusions fly in the face of this "common sense" trivialized example.

by Hellsangel Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:03 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
And you think using labels like "libby" and "spin master" and "professor" for others strengthens your arguments. It doesn't.
No. I do that for amusement.

Anyway some basic math for libby socialists:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelberg/2012/12/31/why-raising-the-minimum-wage-kills-jobs/ wrote:Consider a community based pizza parlor selling 100 pies a day for 360 days at $10 each. Total revenue is $360,000. It employs 10 minimum wage workers earning $7 per hour, working 2000 hours a year, making labor costs $140,000. Assume rent, utilities, equipment, depreciation, insurance, supplies, licenses, and food costs come to $170,000 per year, leaving a profit of $50,000 for the owner and his/her family. Raising the minimum wage $1 would raise labor costs by $20,000 (paying more for the same amount of labor) and reduce profit to $30,000. The owner must either move into a smaller house or raise prices, which reduces the demand for pizza, resulting in the loss of a worker. So, the full increase in the wage cost of an increase in the minimum wage comes out of the pockets of customers or the owner’s family, and the one person who loses a job. There was no net gain in income to increase spending in the community served as every dollar the minimum wage workers received came out of someone else’s pocket in the community.

Supporters of raising the minimum cite poorly done studies by agenda driven “research” groups that allege to show that raising the minimum doesn’t harm employment. This defines common sense and is not supported by good academic research. The Law of Demand always works: the higher the price of anything, the less that will be taken, and this includes labor.
You may be incapable of spotting it, but what you just copy-pasted hews rather close to the definition of spin. It trivializes the issue with an elementary example designed for those unschooled in the basics of economics and math, and ignores the effect of rising wages on demand. Yet it glibly reassures its near-illiterate target readers that the conclusion it pushes based on the absurdly-trivial-example-built-out-incorrectly is right, and others who have researched the issue are wrong just because their conclusions fly in the face of this "common sense" trivialized example.

Of course, you and the researchers you quote know better since it suits your narrative. The near illiterate target readers are the ones who read Forbes regularly I suppose.

by truthbetold Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:20 pm

Why is minimum wage an issue in this election cycle?

common wisdom: mid term - repubs vote in high numbers compared to dems.

So move dem voters, two groups are identified for focus. single women and low wage earners. This is not a secret.

Dems love for low wage earners is election driven.

I do not why Idefax and CD joined the bandwagon.

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:44 pm

on inequality denial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/krugman-on-inequality-denial.html?

by Sponsored content