U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-24-2019, 08:49 PM
 
1,357 posts, read 958,845 times
Reputation: 1947

Advertisements

One other point: Yes, it's tough for small businesses to adapt to a sudden large increase. But what about all the large companies whose shareholders are getting rich on the backs of poorly paid contract employees? Back in the olden days, companies would hire all levels of employees directly, and all employees would benefit proportionately. Even the lowliest worker would get a decent wage, benefits, profit-sharing/bonuses, opportunities for advancement, etc. Now only the essential core employees are permanent and all the other services are outsourced to the lowest bidder, meaning a big race to the bottom for big chunks of the workforce while stockholders rake in the big bucks. Is this okay with everyone?

 
Old 01-24-2019, 09:13 PM
 
1,357 posts, read 958,845 times
Reputation: 1947
Here's a heart-breaking article from May 2017 about the damage Shake Shack will suffer because of the minimum wage increase. And yet ... look at their stock history since then. They seem to have recovered nicely.

Quote:
As we detailed earlier, Shake-Shack shares crashed to record lows after the fast-food restaurant as increased labor costs (thanks to Obama's minimum-wage-hikes) crushed margins and caused menu price hikes that slowed demand...

Shack-level operating profit margins decreased 300 basis points to 25.2%, primarily due to increased labor and related expenses resulting from increases in hourly wages that were implemented at the end of fiscal 2016...

And worse, in its outlook, the company stated that "Same-Shack sales growth to be flat to prior year (vs. 2% to 3%), which includes approximately 1.5% to 2% of menu price increases taken at the end of December."
Attached Thumbnails
NYC Restaurants Slash Staff over  Minimum Wage-ss.jpg  
 
Old 01-25-2019, 09:25 AM
 
501 posts, read 172,102 times
Reputation: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup View Post
This actually kinda plays into the D's hands. They can now offer assistance and UBI schemes in exchange for votes. It's kind of sickening when you boil it down. I'm not a supporter of the R ideals such as pro life, discrimination against gays etc but I just have to hold my nose when I vote now...I've worked too hard to have to continue giving tax money to those who vote in people who just give them stuff "for free".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl View Post
Can you give me an example of GOP discriminating against gays?
Forget it Griz, you canít reach people like that.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 09:39 AM
 
326 posts, read 56,413 times
Reputation: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
One other point: Yes, it's tough for small businesses to adapt to a sudden large increase. But what about all the large companies whose shareholders are getting rich on the backs of poorly paid contract employees?
Sooo -- you're somehow discriminating based on the size of the enterprise?

The shareholders of those large companies are widows, orphans, regular people who invest their 401K and IRA money into them, parents who put their retirement savings into them, parents who put their children's college savings into them, public sector employee's defined benefit pension money is invested into them, etc.

Those shareholders are actual people - people who elect the board of directors and charter them with making the company economically successful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
Back in the olden days, companies would hire all levels of employees directly, and all employees would benefit proportionately. Even the lowliest worker would get a decent wage, benefits, profit-sharing/bonuses, opportunities for advancement, etc.
I think you are remembering the past through rose-colored glasses.

Turn on your television and turn to some of the obscure channels that show movies & TV shows from the 1930s, 1940s & 1950s. You'll see that those low end workers to whom you refer do not own automobiles. You'll see they do not own houses or condominiums. You'll see they rarely live in a studio apartment - they are more likely to rent a furnished room in someone else's house.

That is, in those olden days, the standard of living was quite low by modern standards, because their income at that point in time did not support anything more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
Now only the essential core employees are permanent and all the other services are outsourced to the lowest bidder, meaning a big race to the bottom for big chunks of the workforce while stockholders rake in the big bucks.
  • First, stockholders don't rake in big bucks. Over the long term, 5% to 8% return on investment is not big bucks.
  • Second, those earnings are subjected to double taxation: they are taxed first at the corporate level, and then again on the IRS form 1040s of all the shareholders - you know, the widows, orphans, indivdual investers via 401Ks and IRAs, public sector employees' pension funds, etc.
  • Third, competition with all the restaurants down the street force the business to be efficient - and to adapt or die. It is creative destruction -- competition is like salmon swimming upstream; many die along the way, and That Is a Good Thing, because their capital is then redeployed into endeavors with a higher value-add to Society.
  • Fourth, employees earn the value of their marginal product. Every low-end employee at that restaurant knows what they must do to make more money: they must add more value to Society. That is, they must EARN it. They make a choice - either explicitly or implicitly - they make a choice every single day when they get out of bed in the morning. They can continue on the path they are on as a low end employee in a competitive industry, or they can change their lives via any of the well-known and well-understood strategies to make themselves more valuable to society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
Is this okay with everyone?
Yes. Everyone is OK with this.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 10:07 AM
 
5,311 posts, read 2,396,794 times
Reputation: 13591
No. Not "everyone.". Speak for yourself.

As I speak for myself .

For years ...yes years...the labor laws have made exceptions to wages. Basically telling an employee to sing for their supper thru "tips" to compensate for the subpar wage. I despise the crux of tipping. I respect laborers and understand the a to zed of the taxes, overhead, licensing, regulations, waste, product order, and marketing for a business to run. Add on paying a person to attend to the consumer . It should not be a groveling venture.

And just for the record...it's harmful to slash employees...that's rather messy to clean up ....pathogens.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,371 posts, read 9,474,259 times
Reputation: 9312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
One other point: Yes, it's tough for small businesses to adapt to a sudden large increase. But what about all the large companies whose shareholders are getting rich on the backs of poorly paid contract employees? Back in the olden days, companies would hire all levels of employees directly, and all employees would benefit proportionately. Even the lowliest worker would get a decent wage, benefits, profit-sharing/bonuses, opportunities for advancement, etc. Now only the essential core employees are permanent and all the other services are outsourced to the lowest bidder, meaning a big race to the bottom for big chunks of the workforce while stockholders rake in the big bucks. Is this okay with everyone?
Blame socialism, and administrative overhead.
In the 'old days' the tried and true way to get rich was to skim a portion from a growing business. One can only have 100% of his own labor. But when you can take 1% from 100 employees, you can double your income by doubling your size. So the rule was keep growing, hiring more and selling their labor to get rich.

Now, thanks to crazy taxes, to remain profitable, requires skills of a circus acrobat. And to make matters worse, the tax on labor PENALIZES hiring labor, thus the drive to automate everything.


If voters had half a brain, they'd withdraw consent from socialism ASAP.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 12:17 PM
 
2,423 posts, read 584,787 times
Reputation: 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela View Post
Probably a little bit of both.
I felt it was part of a 'what else do we demand now that we have almost everything'?
But in the end it succeeded mainly because traditional marriage had been reduced to an afterthought rather than the serious and meaningful rite of passage it once was.

I still get a kick when a bride wears white after she's had 2 kids by two baby daddies...neither of whom is the groom!

But we digress.. apologies.
Oddly enough, wasn't it Clinton who signed the DOMA?

Well, we don't want to hurt her feelings or anything, right?
 
Old 01-25-2019, 12:20 PM
 
2,423 posts, read 584,787 times
Reputation: 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I'm kind of shocked you don't know this. Yes, I have republican acquaintances, and they say stuff like the Bible talks about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. What are all these genders? There are two genders, men and women, and what is all this stuff about LGBTQ, snicker, are you kidding me, "identifies as female? Maybe I'll identify as a horse".

I really DON'T know how you don't hear this all the time.
Maybe it's because I live in Liberal Land. I get there are people like that. I know why they are like that. It's because the Bible has a passage against homosexuality. I don't think that way and none of the people I associate with do. I do think it's a minority though, just like the extreme left is a minority, too.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 12:22 PM
 
2,423 posts, read 584,787 times
Reputation: 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
Here's a heart-breaking article from May 2017 about the damage Shake Shack will suffer because of the minimum wage increase. And yet ... look at their stock history since then. They seem to have recovered nicely.
Although I don't agree with your views, I appreciate that you discuss the issue and support what you think as opposed to assassinating the character of the opponent like most liberals seem to do.
 
Old 01-25-2019, 12:25 PM
 
2,423 posts, read 584,787 times
Reputation: 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post


Yes. Everyone is OK with this.
My sister is like him/her. We were going over options for assisted living places for my mom. She spent about 15 minutes of a 20 minute meeting talking about the nonprofit place because it drove her nuts that any business should turn a profit. Some people just hate capitalism. There is no debating with them. You will not convince them of anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top