Better for economy: hire 3 at $10/hr or 2 at $15/hr (gallon, salary, radical)

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I never argued otherwise





Its not that hard to believe. We are not all perfectionist or nitpickers(like you seem to be). Also, I dont think there is any business school that could ever be classified as "Liberal". Further more, im not understanding the reference to math as I didnt include any numbers but the generalization of wages increasing year to year based on raises and that the cost to the customer doesnt change, did you mean to say grammar ?

I meant math.

It is mathematically impossible for the price of goods not to go up when its labor cost (wage) goes up, assuming all other conditions remain the same.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

If you had an employee who could have swept floors in addition to his other duties, why would you hire someone to just sweep floors? That simply makes no sense.

Because their skills would be better allocated elsewhere. And many times I am the floor sweeper (as owner)

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

If you had an employee who could have swept floors in addition to his other duties, why would you hire someone to just sweep floors? That simply makes no sense.

Think this way. If you have a machine that costs you $15/hour to rent, would you use that machine to do a job that would only produce $5/hour?

That's the same with properly allocating employees and not wasting their talent and time.

With employees, you have another problem. Say you hire someone to manage your books for $20/hour and she loves managing books. If you have her constantly sweep the floor because you can't afford and are not even allowed to hire people to sweep the floor at lower cost, she would quit. To avoid that issue, often the owners would just sweep the floor themselves; however, the onwer's job is really to grow business, manage the business and get more customers. If the owner is sweeping the floor, who's meeting the customers and managing the business?

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

If it takes a minimum wage increase for an employer to realize they are paying an employee they don't really need they probably should take some economics classes at the local community college.

That's your argument? That's the argument of a 10 year old throwing a tantrum. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then you need to take their valid points seriously.

Again, they will quickly find out that they don't need "x" employees means that they will put all of that work on to the employees that they have left. If they have 3, they are forced to pay a higher min wage, they will get rid of 1 and make those 2 do the job of 3. THAT has already been happening as minimum wages continue to rise. You are no longer just in Sales. You're now also customer service, tech support, and resolution in addition to Sales.

You are no longer just working the register at McDs. You're now making the fries, backing up drive thru orders, stocking everything for everyone and the janitor.

You are no longer just making pizza. You're now taking the orders, making the orders, restocking everything, cleaning the dining area, and making the deliveries.

And your money does not go further because the price of everything is going to go up because that is exactly what employers do. Have you not learned that yet in all of your preaching and carrying on in your haughty ways about "they need a course in Economics"...for GOD'S sake, one of the FIRST THINGS THAT YOU LEARN is that the company/business/employer WILL pass any cost ON TO THE CONSUMER!

How do you NOT know this?

As I said earlier: You keep acting like nothing else changes.

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

FIRST THINGS THAT YOU LEARN is that the company/business/employer WILL pass any cost ON TO THE CONSUMER!

How do you NOT know this?

As I said earlier: You keep acting like nothing else changes.

NO. THEY. WON'T. Why does the concept of competition seem to be missing from every talking point about wages and prices? Companies don't operate in a bubble. They have other companies selling comparable products as them. There are also more costs to running a business than just break-even payroll-related ones. Before companies start trying to double up work on employees, they have got other places they can cut expenses. Employees should be one of the last places a smart company turns to manage expenses.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I meant math.

It is mathematically impossible for the price of goods not to go up when its labor cost (wage) goes up, assuming all other conditions remain the same.

All things tend to not remain the same, kind of my point in the previous post, which you agreed with, so im not really understanding your argument.

That being said, you are wrong, it is not mathematically impossible for prices to stay the same with labor cost going up. Your argument would assume that the cost of labor outweighs profit or cut into profit so much that it would cause changes elsewhere within the business, and that wouldnt always be true. You are arguing absolutism, or better yet, simply the perfect scenario for your argument. That is being argumentative for the heck of it, but this is a political forum, so what can you expect ?

[Cliftonpdx]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

How do you measure what was never created?

I'd hire someone to sweep floors if min. wage were lower, but since it is what is, I just have to add it to the list of duties of the existing help.

Why not add it to the list of duties for existing staff to begin with? Why waste money if you don't have to? Seems wasteful of a business to hire employees they don't need just because the minimum wage is low.

[Cliftonpdx]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I used to work in a factory where the starting wage was $12/hour plus benefit. Those guys operated machines that would require at least high school education but they must also sweep floors, sometimes hours to no end. They were basically wasting time on activities that produced little value rather than focus on operating the machines to make more and better products.

Now if the minimum wage was $0, the company could have hire sweepers at $5/hour to clean the floor. Since that's not an option, the sweeping goes to the existing crew regardless of their pay scale.

That's an awfully bad way to run a business and such a waste of talent. A business should always send an employee to do a job that pays more than his/her wage.

Sort of like we shouldn't send a brain surgeon to sweep the floor. The surgeon should be saving life not cleaning.

If the ones running the machines are wasting time sweeping then you are essentially paying people $12/hr to sweep. Which begs the question, how much money is the business losing while they are sweeping? Is that amount enough to pay someone else to sweep?

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I meant math.

It is mathematically impossible for the price of goods not to go up when its labor cost (wage) goes up, assuming all other conditions remain the same.

That is absolutely not true. In that scenario, assuming that the company isn't just breaking even, you eat the lost margin, more often than not.

I'll keep going back to healthcare -- a labor cost that goes up every year, yet no company passes that through to their customers with lockstep price increases.

The idea that companies just keep passing through all their expenses to customers is a nonsense taking point. It doesn't exist in the real world.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

That's your argument? That's the argument of a 10 year old throwing a tantrum. If you want anyone to take you seriously, then you need to take their valid points seriously. Again, they will quickly find out that they don't need "x" employees means that they will put all of that work on to the employees that they have left. If they have 3, they are forced to pay a higher min wage, they will get rid of 1 and make those 2 do the job of 3. THAT has already been happening as minimum wages continue to rise. You are no longer just in Sales. You're now also customer service, tech support, and resolution in addition to Sales. .

Yes, that's my argument and it's the correct response. No one in their right mind hires more help than they need, that is a fundamental tenet of business. I'm not sure why you don't understand it. If you have so many employees that you can let 1/3 of your workforce go if the minimum wage increases and continue your business as you did before then you were overstaffed and just slow to figure it out.