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.
Those laws are rigged by the rich and for the rich. Even I have no clue about them but I believe exactly what the politicians tell me even though the same politicians passed those laws. Next please.
I would appreciate in the future that you don't lie about what I did and did not say.
You are dealing with people who are being dishonest on this issue.
The minimum wage has existed for many years and based on inflation was a much higher income when first introduced. When it was introduced were there massive layoffs, did massive number of businesses close up shop? Did the economy tank? Of course not.
Again, it is one thing to have an economic theory about the impact of a modest minimum wage increase. There is some question as to whether employment goes down slightly or remains the same. There is some debate about how many families get lifted out of poverty after a minimum wage increase, but those are technocratic debates.
The way these posters are reacting you'd think the minimum never existed and has no history and any suggestion of an increase will destroy the American economy. This of course is nonsense and not supported by American history.
This is why a debate can't go any where because they have to remain ignorant of American history with the minimum wage and the economic data that exists about the impact of a modest minimum wage increase.
We are talking about going from $7.25 to $9 or $10 over some period of time. It might have a modest impact on employment, it might not, this is just not definitively known. It could also lift families out of poverty.
What it won't do is destroy businesses or destroy the economy and therefore the strong opposition is irrational.
It is a requirement to pad the salaries of CEOs? So when the top of the company sees that the company is about to go under, it is "contract law" for them to give themselves massive raises? And we wonder why our system is so flawed.
Those laws are rigged by the rich and for the rich. Even I have no clue about them but I believe exactly what the politicians tell me even though the same politicians passed those laws. Next please.
What law limits you from making huge amounts of money a year?
It is a requirement to pad the salaries of CEOs? So when the top of the company sees that the company is about to go under, it is "contract law" for them to give themselves massive raises? And we wonder why our system is so flawed.
its a law to pay someone WHAT YOU AGREE to pay them.. Be it $10 or $10,000,000
When you own the company YOU can pay whatever the hell you want to your employees..
what happens when you begin to hurt your own business because you tried to increase your profits artificially?
So according to you, it's a Bad Thing ("you begin to hurt your own business") and "artificial" when employers try to recover a newly imposed cost, but it's a Good Thing to artificially (legislative mandate, not market forces) increase their costs? Do I have that right? That's your stated position?
Slavery and indentured servitude isn't the only way to exploit workers. Maybe you should read about about the triangle shirtwaist factory fire and tell me why we have regulations to prevent exploitation of workers. The woman that died in that fire weren't slaves, but they were definitely being exploited.
The show me a libertarian country isn't a deflection, it is just proof that your ideology will never exist in reality when it comes to running a country. Though Singapore, that is a first, I usually never hear you guys pick an actual place.
So if I am one of your employees making $15/hour, I walk in your office and ask for $16/hour even all my peers are making $15 and I am no better anybody, what would you do?
The current CEO of Target started with the company as a merchandising trainee at age 25 in 1979. He made President in 1999, and CEO in 2008.
But according to some in this thread, that's impossible, so there's no way it happened.
It is impressive with how he moved up in the company, but he didn't start as a cashier, he started at a level much higher than them which makes sense seeing he was coming out of college.
I actually like how Target runs their company and they tend to treat their employees better than they do at Walmart.
Retail sales as an industry operates on 3-5% margins, as high volumes are where they make the profit totals. Publicly available financial reports will confirm this, and are available from any publicly traded corporation, mandated by law.
That's the point a lot of people have tried in vain to make in this behemoth of a thread. WalMart's 2012 (most accurate data for a whole year) profit margin was $15.77bn/$446.95 = 3.5%. If you increased the wage of every associate making less than $12.50 to that floor, it would raise the average salary of all WalMart employees (average it in to those making more than that) by ~$2 per hour across the board. That's $4,000 extra dollars (on average) per employee as an increase to Cost of Goods Sold. For all American employees, that translates to an extra $6 billion added to CoGS. But since we are mandating this wage increase not just for WalMart, but for every single American business that is part of WalMart's CoGS as well, let's tack on the same increase to their CoGS as WalMart suffered, thereby adding an indirect doubling of the labor increase to the CoGS. So now WalMart's CoGS goes up by $12 billion. I'll be nice and scale that back to $10 billion for fudge factor.
$10 billion added to CoGS sounds like nothing, when you use the dopey liberal meme of "against $446 billion in revenue!!" But WalMart's profit after CoGS, taxes, and all other costs....yeah for that $446 billion, WalMart kept $15.77 billion, which this "no problem, how bad can it be for such a piddly little wage increase" has just chopped by 63%, and left WalMart with an unsustainable 1.3% profit margin.
Tell a shareholder the corporation they are investing in is running on a 1.3% profit margin, and you'll see that stock price head south as people start dumping it.
So now WalMart, and every other similar operation in existence, must make choices to stay above unsustainable profit margins below 3%...raise prices and potentially lose revenue, and/or reduce costs some other way like reducing the number of employees.
Because LOTS OF BUSINESSES run on low profit margins and depend on volume to make money for the shareholders. Do the math. $2 per hour doesn't seem like much, but after doing ALL THE MATH, it's a whole lot more profound and dangerous than it first appears.
That was a well written, informative post that will be flatly ignored by the very people that need to read it most.
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.
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.
