|
VitalSigns posted:This is pretty funny coming from the guy who still can't work out the answer to this question Remember how Papa John's ranted about the evil of obamacare even though full medical coverage for his employees would only add a few cents to each pizza.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
etalian posted:Remember how Papa John's ranted about the evil of obamacare even though full medical coverage for his employees would only add a few cents to each pizza. Worked at a Papa John's when this went down and people were coming in and letting us know how much they really supported Papa John's and of course I try to maintain a professional level of "Well thanks we appreciate that" and then they just kind of stare at you because of course they wanted more validation than that. It left me with a great deal of sympathy for the Chick Filet employee's on the store-worker level. They didn't need that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Worked at a Papa John's when this went down and people were coming in and letting us know how much they really supported Papa John's and of course I try to maintain a professional level of "Well thanks we appreciate that" and then they just kind of stare at you because of course they wanted more validation than that. It left me with a great deal of sympathy for the Chick Filet employee's on the store-worker level. They didn't need that bullshit. "Man I really support Papa John's in not wanting to give you health insurance." ~Something an idiot says to the person about to make their pizza VitalSigns posted:This is pretty funny coming from the guy who still can't work out the answer to this question Note that the OES site they allude to in that study owns loving bones and can give you a pretty good concept of who would benefit from a higher minimum wage at almost any value you'd want to know. One could calculate out in a fairly straightforward manner a good approximation of how many workers take home less than $15 an hour, in what professions, and even by region.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So what you're saying is that competitors will result in highly illegal price fixing if minimum wage goes up. And you're also assuming that when they do fix prices at this higher rate this won't then lead to a decline in demand (you remember that, don't you?) and so still result in lowered profits anyway. And your assuming that these businesses have a sorcerer on staff that can just magic them up some automation on the spot. And the reason they aren't doing any of this now is *mumblemumble*. I just want to be sure I got all your stupid assumptions so please point out any I missed. Yeah, this point doesn't get as much attention in these types of discussions for some reason. Businesses can't just raise their prices and expect consumers to understand that they're only doing cause the mean ole big bad big government left them no choice. To use myself as an example, Carl's Jr./Hardees has an item called the Big Carl (dunno what they call it in the Hardee's version. Big Hardee?), which used to be one of the best bang for your buck burger products in the history of fast food. They used to be $1.99, which helped my starving, half-broke self in my college/drifter days. I used to eat these every day, or every other day. Yes, yes we can talk about how unhealthy such a thing is, and how doing such things has lowered my life span by at least 10 years, but the point is, I didn't starve. Well, over the past few years, they suddenly jacked up the price to something like $4.49. And guess what? Despite the fact that I'm actually doing quite well financially, my Big Carl intake has dropped dramatically. I only eat them like once a month, or even less, usually only for important dates like a family member's graduation or something. The point being is that you can only raise a price so much before it becomes counterproductive, which is such an mundane point that it's odd that it needs to be stated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Actually if you reason it out from first principles, I believe you'll find that profit margin is a universal constant in all economic reference frames, like the speed of light, no matter how you try to regulate the economy or redistribute the wealth, the wily businessman will always funnel it right back into profits leaving the poor somehow worse off than before liberals in government messed with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It will affect profitability some and affect some industries more than others. But generally, over the long term, the majority of wage increases will be absorbed by price increases. Just like any other cost change. But this has never, ever been true. You are completely wrong. The data shows that you are wrong. Every single observable minimum wage increase has shown that statement to be false. Even your most pessimistic sources don't support this idea. In the very worst measurement, a total outlier, a $2.50 increase in wages resulted in a 3% increase in prices. This isn't even close to "the majority" of the increase being absorbed by price increases. I don't know why you keep saying poo poo that is completely and plainly wrong, even according to your own sources, but I wish you would just loving stop
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But this has never, ever been true. You are completely wrong. The data shows that you are wrong. Every single observable minimum wage increase has shown that statement to be false. Even your most pessimistic sources don't support this idea. In the very worst measurement, a total outlier, a $2.50 increase in wages resulted in a 3% increase in prices. This isn't even close to "the majority" of the increase being absorbed by price increases. Or maybe you could stop comparing dollar increases in wages to percentage increase in the general price level, which is really stupid. But just for the sake of it, let's use your comparisons here: 3% increase in prices versus what? You keep ignoring how it's nearly impossible to be working full time and poor (less than 5% of full time workers are poor, by the BLS's definition and less than 10% of poor people work and it doesn't rise to over 50% if you include dependents) and how 75% of minimum wage workers are from outside the bottom household income quintile. A 3% increase in prices for everyone, including the 90% of poor people who don't work versus a $2.5 raise for white upper middle class teenagers. Sounds like a great policy, right? You guys are too caught up in this whole myth of the "working poor" who basically don't exist. If you work full time, you're very unlikely to be poor. It just doesn't happen. I know you like to think of the super hardworking poor single mother getting screwed over by big companies, but it's a myth in developed countries. People are poor for other reasons than low pay. There are much better ways to help the poor than through policies which end up handing out half of the money to people from the top 60% of the household income distribution. Or maybe you believe wealth will trickle down from those upper middle class teenagers who receive raises?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
That's quite an impressive mountain of bullshit you managed to pull out of your rear end, I'll give you that. I especially like the complete lack of anything to back any of this up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But this has never, ever been true. You are completely wrong. The data shows that you are wrong. Every single observable minimum wage increase has shown that statement to be false. Even your most pessimistic sources don't support this idea. In the very worst measurement, a total outlier, a $2.50 increase in wages resulted in a 3% increase in prices. This isn't even close to "the majority" of the increase being absorbed by price increases. Oh hey Quark, lying about studies again? Yes and also you don't know how to interpret them. Those numbers can't be directly compared. A study for you to forget next time you come out of the woodwork to say "no evidence exists for ______!!!!" Disinterested posted:How Effective Is the Minimum Wage at Supporting the Poor?Contains supplements VitalSigns posted:Which statement gives you the information you need to estimate how much the price tag on a Spacely Sprocket might increase next year? Heh it's funny you would dig this up. I know what you were trying to do. Here is what I was trying to do: See the above example where Quark compares a percentage of one thing to a dollar amount of another. See how dumb that is? The way to solve it is to take the number equivalent to A in both cases (total dollars of new wages versus total dollars of price increases), and compare those. That comparison tells us what percentage of a minimum wage increase was paid for in prices. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Yeah, this point doesn't get as much attention in these types of discussions for some reason. Businesses can't just raise their prices and expect consumers to understand that they're only doing cause the mean ole big bad big government left them no choice. What about the rampant inflation in McDonald's hamburgers? They cost $.29 fifteen years ago; now they're $1!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
1 in 6 Americans suffering from food insecurity is , of course, a myth made up by the scheming USDA to pad out their food stamps budget. Where are you hiding the money, USDA? USDA posted:
You can tell that so-called "statistics" are all lies because "surveys" and "data" say that households with incomes at 185% of the poverty line are likely to be food insecure, which is impossible because anyone over the federal poverty line cannot be poor. Also, their so-called data mentions single mothers who are of course also made up because as a coddled affluent Finn I've never met one so they must be imaginary creatures like unicorns or child laborers who aren't perpetually smiling. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:See the above example where Quark compares a percentage of one thing to a dollar amount of another. See how dumb that is? The way to solve it is to take the number equivalent to A in both cases (total dollars of new wages versus total dollars of price increases), and compare those. That comparison tells us what percentage of a minimum wage increase was paid for in prices. Unless the minimum wage is $80 an hour, then a $2.50 increase is far more than a 3% increase in wages. If the minimum wage is $80 an hour how do I move to America?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:See the above example where Quark compares a percentage of one thing to a dollar amount of another. See how dumb that is? The way to solve it is to take the number equivalent to A in both cases (total dollars of new wages versus total dollars of price increases), and compare those. That comparison tells us what percentage of a minimum wage increase was paid for in prices. Amazing. You're going to hire a math tutor for your kid, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
As a single household (read: rent controlled apartment) person working full time for slightly more than minimum wage I would like to let you know I hope you get hit by a truck. A glance at my budget shows I can pick from: savings, a car, or discretionary spending. In no single paycheck can these overlap and any emergency depletes my savings or bankrupts me. A really simple spreadsheet and some averaged costs throws all your dumb bullshit out the window. Working poor are a myth? You really earned that red text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
^^^^ Obviously you don't exist, op, back to the ether with you, spirit
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Amazing. Nope. Watch: Tell me what you think is wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
It doesn't answer the question I asked, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's a PhD level question, Yup it is. *Observes subseqent chain of aggressively ignorant shitposts about why the cost increase will be nbd*. Welp. Radbot posted:the more important point is that labor makes up somewhere between virtually nothing to a significant, much less than 100% chunk of a given product's cost of goods. Meh that's not so much true though. God I hate LTV so much but it's good for illustrating what's going on. In the broadest possible terms, the cost of the product has a labor component and a capital component. Ignore finance. So C1 = L + K But that capital comes from somewhere, right? It is itself a product or a collection of products from other vendors. And its cost also has both labor and capital components. So the cost of the product we started talking about is something like C1 = L1 + (L2 + K2) But K2 is itself a product or a collection of products, which have both labor and capital components to their costs. And on and on. Even the raw materials decompose this way. And it's not even a neat chain, it's a web of dependencies. The caterer that comes out to your dig site, for instance, is both a cost to you and may indirectly incorporate your products into their costs. So the percentage of labor in a given product is not the most relevant figure unless you're talking about raising the minimum wage on just the companies making specifically that product. If you're talking about a change that potentially affects every node in the supply web web that operates in the U.S., which is what doubling the minimum wage (as the OP suggested to his friend) would represent, there's no way to facilely calculate the price effect but you'd be a moron to believe there won't be one, and that it won't be significant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Aren't retail and restaurant businesses the chief employers of domestic minimum wage labor? Manufacturing is either sourced overseas where we don't control the minimum wage or domestically already employs high productivity labor and machinery. And capital assets like land and factories, and fixed costs like rent and taxes don't factor into your little equation there. These may be the reasons why studies done by phd's conclude that even doubling the minimum wage would only increase fast food costs by 14%, or nbd 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aren't retail and restaurant businesses the chief employers of domestic minimum wage labor? Manufacturing is either sourced overseas where we don't control the minimum wage or domestically already employs high productivity labor and machinery. And capital assets like land and factories, and fixed costs like rent and taxes don't factor into your little equation there. Yes, I have repeatedly shown this time and time again when he posts that same drivel using the BLS data he thinks he is referencing and he continues to post the same nonsense almost as if he has a conclusion he is working backwards from and is willing to ignore any and all data that contradicts it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aren't retail and restaurant businesses the chief employers of domestic minimum wage labor? Manufacturing is either sourced overseas where we don't control the minimum wage or domestically already employs high productivity labor and machinery. And capital assets like land and factories, and fixed costs like rent and taxes don't factor into your little equation there. 1) When you raise the wage to $15 you're no longer talking about the people who chiefly employ domestic min wage labor today. You're talking about about 45% of workers in the U.S. and more when you consider ripple effects further up the distribution. 2) That one "study" is the academic equivalent of sophmores smoking up after a meeting of the College Socialists and dismantling world capitalism in spilled guacamole on the back of a cocktail napkin. 3) Trust me, there are plenty of nodes in the distribution web even for imported goods. =(
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yes, I have repeatedly shown this time and time again when he posts that same drivel using the BLS data he thinks he is referencing and he continues to post the same nonsense almost as if he has a conclusion he is working backwards from and is willing to ignore any and all data that contradicts it. Tell me more about mischaracterizing BLS data 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Tell me more about mischaracterizing BLS data Tell me again, do you consider profit to be labor, or capital?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Tell me again, do you consider profit to be labor, or capital? I don't understand what you're asking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aren't retail and restaurant businesses the chief employers of domestic minimum wage labor? Manufacturing is either sourced overseas where we don't control the minimum wage or domestically already employs high productivity labor and machinery. And capital assets like land and factories, and fixed costs like rent and taxes don't factor into your little equation there. It's amusing watching you drift. I earlier said "a big chunk of minimum wage will be paid for with price increases" and you shifted too "even if it's 100% passed on as price increases [totally accepting my argument] it would only raise prices by 14% [almost irrelevant comparison]" and you presented this as if it actually countered my point [but again, it accepted it as a hypothetical]. It doesn't take a phd to understand that minimum wage workers arnt 100% of costs (as evidenced by the fact that I said it earlier).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:2) That one "study" is the academic equivalent of sophmores smoking up after a meeting of the College Socialists and dismantling world capitalism in spilled guacamole on the back of a cocktail napkin. I love this thread. On the one hand, studies by economists using a wealth of historical data on price increases. On the other hand "well I don't know bout that fancy liberal guacamole-eating book learnin', but I can feel price rises a-comin' in my gimpy leg and the way it's acting up says this one'll be a doozy!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:56
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love this thread. Hey, that guy makes $2400 an hour, you better not disagree with him!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I love this thread. Did you read the working paper that figure came from? edit: Also this thread is still an abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
The funnest part of any economics thread is when people start straight-up denying empiricism by saying they can divine what studies are left-wing and thus wrong but won't explain how.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I don't understand what you're asking. Of course you don't, because you don't understand what you are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Of course you don't, because you don't understand what you are talking about. Alternately, your question doesn't make sense and you should revise it so that it does. Seriously, what are you trying to get at?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
He is pointing out that among the things you left out of Cost = Labor+Capital is profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He is pointing out that among the things you left out of Cost = Labor+Capital is profit. Sure. I mean, we could add a markup to the toy equation and state "the cost to the purchaser of a good is generally markup*(labor + capital)" or something, where the markup decomposes to cover a cost of capital, required return, or whatever else, but how does that contribute anything to the point about how labor costs feed through an interconnected supply chain? edit: * is not + wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure. I mean, we could add a markup to the toy equation and state "the cost to the purchaser of a good is generally markup*(labor + capital)" or something, where the markup decomposes to cover a cost of capital, required return, or whatever else, but how does that contribute anything to the point about how labor costs feed through an interconnected supply chain? No one is saying that costs will not accumulate through supply chain, but that you continually over represent the impact because you habitually 1) underrepresent accumulated costs that have no relationship to labor (your simplified equations are simply not applicable, even as abstraction... they are 100% inaccurate) and 2) overrepresent the impact of minimum wage increase on the labor that contributes to logistics and intermediate supply, as demonstrated by BLS data. This does not even begin to get into the comparison of real purchasing power gained by those impacted by the wage increase vs. the power lost via price increases, which is what people are most concerned with in this thread, and to which at least some evidence has been provided and ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The funnest part of any economics thread is when people start straight-up denying empiricism by saying they can divine what studies are left-wing and thus wrong but won't explain how. To be fair, it is pretty usual for leftists in these threads to vacillate between the two positions of "economics is a bogus science" and "economic surveys show . . . (some really weak effect which bolsters my point)", depending on whether it is ideologically convenient or not. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He is pointing out that among the things you left out of Cost = Labor+Capital is profit. I'm not sure what any of you are saying. All costs are money paid to other humans. Most broadly I'd say "all costs are labor" but with the understanding that labor in this context breaks down to two categories: wages and profit (note the similarity to Marx except Marx simply doesn't clasify profit as productive, I am because it is). Capital doesn't enter it at this level because capital is just past labor. Actually look up numbers I see wages listed at roughly 50% of the economy (although wages in that context are somewhat different than wages in my context for a few reasons that make this number smaller). But anyway, it's safe to say wages represent a very large percentage of costs. 50% or more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
GoLambo posted:As a single household (read: rent controlled apartment) person working full time for slightly more than minimum wage I would like to let you know I hope you get hit by a truck. A glance at my budget shows I can pick from: savings, a car, or discretionary spending. In no single paycheck can these overlap and any emergency depletes my savings or bankrupts me. A really simple spreadsheet and some averaged costs throws all your dumb bullshit out the window. Quoting this to highlight the totality of how it is being ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:To be fair, it is pretty usual for leftists in these threads to vacillate between the two positions of "economics is a bogus science" and "economic surveys show . . . (some really weak effect which bolsters my point)", depending on whether it is ideologically convenient or not. Usual? Can you show your work? I don't get that feeling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How would you go about figuring out what the change in the price of goods would be? I tried using a simple explination to a guy: If a burger costs 100 pennies or 1$, and your labor cost is 10% or 10 pennies, and if you increased wages 100% more, or to 20%/200 pennies, and you passed 100% of the cost to the customer, the price of the burger would now be 110 pennies. His response was: LABOR IS 27% - 30% NORMALLY, AND BURGERS NORMALLY DON'T COST 1$. Sigh...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:40 |
|
|
GoLambo posted:As a single household (read: rent controlled apartment) person working full time for slightly more than minimum wage I would like to let you know I hope you get hit by a truck. A glance at my budget shows I can pick from: savings, a car, or discretionary spending. In no single paycheck can these overlap and any emergency depletes my savings or bankrupts me. A really simple spreadsheet and some averaged costs throws all your dumb bullshit out the window. Preach it, my working poor brother!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:00
|
|
