[nep321]

Again, conservatives are being stupid.

Don't they also realize that paying a higher wage means being able to take a HIGHER tax deduction so that they can pay LESS tax? The wage expense deduction would exceed the reduced state tax deduction on their federal return. So it's a net tax benefit.

But that's only looking at it one dimensionally. If the higher wage mandate indeed leads to increased consumer spending (which it surely will), the business would enjoy higher revenues, and possibly pay a bit more in taxes, OR they could choose to hire another person or two to meet the increased consumer demand. So honestly, I think this is good for everyone -- businesses AND consumers AND the state.

Seriously business owners....the negative impact potential is minimal.

IN ADDITION.....

Landlords should be jumping for joy. Landlords typically don't earn most of their income as a result of employing wage-earning employees. Most of their income comes from passive rental activities. And with more inner city tenants having more money in their pockets, landlords can expect more reliable tenants who are more likely to make their rental payments.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by LRPct

3% nothing to sneeze at yes. 3% causing massive business closures and unemployment no. Again, if you cant find 3% youve failed already. 500k GR with 5 FULLTIME employees seems an awfully low average btw.

The bigger liklihood is 3% causing unpleasant countermeasures to cut costs, which in the service sector, likely means either cutting heads, hours, or benefits. You can bet, no matter the pay rate, wages will remain stagnant as a percentage of sales. They have to, in order for the doors to stay open. That means, if each unit costs more, fewer units are used. So yes, I do expect should they cut heads, the 80% of staff retained will like the higher wage, but they will have more work each to do, and they will also know an ex colleague whose position was eliminated.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by bobtn

The bigger liklihood is 3% causing unpleasant countermeasures to cut costs, which in the service sector, likely means either cutting heads, hours, or benefits. You can bet, no matter the pay rate, wages will remain stagnant as a percentage of sales. They have to, in order for the doors to stay open. That means, if each unit costs more, fewer units are used. So yes, I do expect should they cut heads, the 80% of staff retained will like the higher wage, but they will have more work each to do, and they will also know an ex colleague whose position was eliminated.

WRONG.

That only happens if the business owner wants to maintain the profit as a certain percentage of revenues (a.k.a. greed, in many cases). What increasing the minimum wage does, is minimize income inequality, so that people at the low end of the spectrum have more money to spend. Seriously....where do you think all the newly earned $10.10 minimum wage income will go? They aren't just going to stash it all away. They're going to SPEND most of it, which only gives businesses more revenues.

There are many scenarios in which small businesses pay HIGHER than the minimum wage already, so the law won't affect them. Therefore, with all the new consumer spending money out there as a result of OTHER businesses being forced to raise wages, those businesses which already have been paying at least $10.10 would enjoy more customers, not less. It can only get better for them

The money has to go somewhere, period. It will get spent. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy.

Currently, about 80,000 employees earn the minimum wage in CT. Assuming that 75% of them work full time. That's 80,000 x 75% x $1.40 x 52 x 40 = an additional $174 MILLION available for consumer spending in CT. I'm sure businesses would love to have a piece of that potential revenue pie.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by nep321

WRONG.

That only happens if the business owner wants to maintain the profit as a certain percentage of revenues (a.k.a. greed, in many cases). .

That maintenance or improvement of % is standard operating procedure. (The 80,000 jobs should drop 10,000 at the higher rate. Explain to them how this was a good thing.)

My sister works for a large Ct retailer, one who has capped employee hours at lower amounts each year now, for a few years running, to keep its labor cost percentage stagnant. She now grosses less than in 2010, despite having a higher payrate. Shazam! Now she is afraid they may close the store.

There is nothing greedy about not wanting your profits to decline. It is smart business to do so.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by nep321

WRONG.

That only happens if the business owner wants to maintain the profit as a certain percentage of revenues (a.k.a. greed, in many cases). What increasing the minimum wage does, is minimize income inequality, so that people at the low end of the spectrum have more money to spend. Seriously....where do you think all the newly earned $10.10 minimum wage income will go? They aren't just going to stash it all away. They're going to SPEND most of it, which only gives businesses more revenues.

There are many scenarios in which small businesses pay HIGHER than the minimum wage already, so the law won't affect them. Therefore, with all the new consumer spending money out there as a result of OTHER businesses being forced to raise wages, those businesses which already have been paying at least $10.10 would enjoy more customers, not less. It can only get better for them

The money has to go somewhere, period. It will get spent. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy.

Currently, about 80,000 employees earn the minimum wage in CT. Assuming that 75% of them work full time. That's 80,000 x 75% x $1.40 x 52 x 40 = an additional $174 MILLION available for consumer spending in CT. I'm sure businesses would love to have a piece of that potential revenue pie.

But there won't be 80,000 employees. There will be less, as the CBO has indicated. And you aren't factoring in taxes, FICA etc., so the take home will be well less than the extra $1.40/hour.

The only potential upside that I can see is that more people will be paid off the books. Without the government taking its cut, those people may have more take home pay than before, and thus have more disposable income to spend.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by bobtn

That maintenance or improvement of % is standard operating procedure. (The 80,000 jobs should drop 10,000 at the higher rate. Explain to them how this was a good thing.)

My sister works for a large Ct retailer, one who has capped employee hours at lower amounts each year now, for a few years running, to keep its labor cost percentage stagnant. She now grosses less than in 2010, despite having a higher payrate. Shazam! Now she is afraid they may close the store.

There is nothing greedy about not wanting your profits to decline. It is smart business to do so.

That's a theory. And a traditional conservative fear reaction to a new non-conservative law. By your logic, we should reduce the minimum wage, so that those 80,000 people get paid even less, and can't afford anything at all. Businesses would then lose revenues because of reduced consumer spending.

And you can't use one person's experience as evidence. That's called anecdotal evidence. With the passage of any new law, there are always winners and losers. But this law is expected to result in more winners than losers.

Of course there will be negative side effects. Just like a prescription drug that seeks to resolve a problem, it will likely result in minor problems along the way, given that the drug is the correct remedy.

The Republicans have NO solutions. Or solutions that we already tried and didn't work. Austerity doesn't work. Cutting taxes doesn't work. But reducing income inequality DOES work. We did it in the 50's and it worked fabulously well. Back then, the top tax rate was 91% (although no one actually paid that), but the 70% rate did come into play.

When income inequality is reduced, the economy starts MOVING again. The money circulates much better between the middle class and the upper class. Public programs are fully funded, and investments in the middle class are properly made.

The 1950's was a time when the U.S. was more socialist than it is today, and man times were good. We had 37% of the nation's workforce being members of a union. CEO's only earned 20 times what a staff person earned. We had excellent public schools and social safety nets. And private enterprise was doing great. Yet today's Republicans are endorsing extreme austerity measures that have never worked anywhere in the world. Greece being the latest example.

[FairfieldConnecticut]

This is going to ruin the economy even more. CEOs fire employees if they have to pay $8 an hour and they make millions.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by nep321

That's a theory..

My sister and her colleagues paychecks, reduced since 2010, are a reality. She works for a large chain which has announced widespread store closings, with annualized "savings" in the quarter billion range. Since most in retail are part-time, and median income is in the low teens annually, lets say 20k cost with benefits, a quarter billion in savings requires about 12,500 fewer employees. Now even if being liberal 1/3rd of the savings are non personnel stuff, that would be 8,000 fewer jobs.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by bobtn

My sister and her colleagues paychecks, reduced since 2010, are a reality.

Did you even read my post? Clearly not.

Your sister and her colleagues are a tiny portion of the state employee population.

You're using anecdotal evidence to draw broad conclusions on the entire population.

What happens to a few people or a few companies is not necessarily representative of the entire population.

[nep321]

Between 1946 and 1977 were the best times our nation had ever seen. About 37% of the workforce was part of a union. CEO's earned 20 times what a staff person earned. The top tax rate paid was 70%.

Today is one of the worst times our nation had ever seen. About 7% of the workforce is part of a union. CEO's earn 400 times what a staff person earns. The top tax rate paid is 39.6%.

Conclusion: Lower taxes, lower wages and less union membership does not lead to greater economic growth and good times.