Seattle raises minimum wage to $15/hr

[smooth]

Nahhh its more the evil corporations making evil profit thing.

this eat the rich force them to give to others thing is getting rather tiresome from you. Yup real wages and the buying power of that wage has been going down, simple solution, put on your big boy pants, stop whining and go out and make more money.

your inability to understand basic English sentences is far more tiresome

get a fucking grip

the guy I was responding to made a connection between rising minimum wages and small businesses closing shop.

both he and you both admit that small businesses don't usually pay their employees minimum wages.
Logic would tend to dictate that if they are paying their employees more than the minimum wage then they won't be bothered by rising minimum wages...and in fact allowing them to compete against the larger corporations is one reason so many small business organizations have signed on to these kinds of living wage proposals!

All I stated was that small businesses get taken out by large corporations more often than them closing there doors due to wage issues.
that's not a commentary on profit :roll eyes:

the next thing pertains to your "logic"
if wages have been going down then "rising wages" obviously can't account for employees losing their jobs...again, nothing about evil corporations or evil profit. just plain logic. get your head out of your ass.

[G-Man the Visionary]

Their bills consist only of labor costs? themoreyouknow.jpg

And being forced to provide overpriced insurance, and buy overpriced operating insurance, and regulations, etc. themoreYOUknow.jpg

Why do you think I told you TWICE that it's not just about wages for small biz?

So back to second grade math and a review, small restaurant owner makes $40k a year but now has to give an extra $10k to the two ppl he has on min wage. Now he has $20k, Or fires one and raises prices. Then government says he HAS to insure employees, etc. Take another $10k (or more? less?) from owner. Now, employee makes more than owner who has to pay his own insurance and the rent and all the overhead and worst of all, dedicated his life to saving to open that place. Makes wonderful sense.

[The Dark Side of Will]

And being forced to provide overpriced insurance, and buy overpriced operating insurance, and regulations, etc. themoreYOUknow.jpg

Why do you think I told you TWICE that it's not just about wages for small biz?

So back to second grade math and a review, small restaurant owner makes $40k a year but now has to give an extra $10k to the two ppl he has on min wage. Now he has $20k, Or fires one and raises prices. Then government says he HAS to insure employees, etc. Take another $10k (or more? less?) from owner. Now, employee makes more than owner who has to pay his own insurance and the rent and all the overhead and worst of all, dedicated his life to saving to open that place. Makes wonderful sense.

If he understands business, he's going to raise prices (Period). He needs two people to do the work. He has to pay them X. He plugs that into his costing equation, which spits out the prices he has to charge to pay his overhead and meet his profit/revenue targets.

Because EVERY local business against whom he's competing has to do the same, an individual business doesn't suffer. The cost of paying those workers is just passed through to the customers, as it always has been.

He only has problems if he doesn't understand business.

Cliff's: If a business *can* be in the market profitably, they *WILL* be in the market profitably.

[G-Man the Visionary]

in fact allowing them to compete against the larger corporations is one reason so many small business organizations have signed on to these kinds of living wage proposals!

I have an open mind. This makes sense to me. Thank you for the breakdown. The only thing that still separates them is distribution and other costs for franchises vs smalls, etc.

[smooth]

Tidbit on how the national tax and regulatory structure incentivizes companies to ignore the long term and focus on the short term, and in case even PREVENTS companies from focusing on the long term:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveden...-in-the-world/

It is in the interests of enlightened management to pay workers a wage that satisfies them. Companies don't need government interference in order to do this. What they do need is a lack of government rules making it hard to spend money on the right things.

He's not talking about government (de)regulation!

FASB is a private organization. FASB (and "regulation" FASB 142) is a non-governmental body that establishes accounting and reporting standards for the private financial industry.

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act is a law, but it's not a regulatory law. It was implemented to derail frivolous lawsuits. It was brought into existence by Newt Gingrich, and voted into law by basically every conservative over the veto of President Bill Clinton. This was during the heyday of litigation getting out of hand...in this context it was boards not being able to hide their illegal accounting practices adequately enough from prying eyes so they had to do something about it to help cover up their tracks.

Both of those are the furthest examples from government regulation that you couldn't have chosen a worse argument to pin your "private sector will take care of itself" upon!

[Dozyproductions]

And being forced to provide overpriced insurance, and buy overpriced operating insurance, and regulations, etc. themoreYOUknow.jpg

Why do you think I told you TWICE that it's not just about wages for small biz?

So back to second grade math and a review, small restaurant owner makes $40k a year but now has to give an extra $10k to the two ppl he has on min wage. Now he has $20k, Or fires one and raises prices. Then government says he HAS to insure employees, etc. Take another $10k (or more? less?) from owner. Now, employee makes more than owner who has to pay his own insurance and the rent and all the overhead and worst of all, dedicated his life to saving to open that place. Makes wonderful sense.

Truth. Restaurant ownership isn't a 40 hour work week. Its all day, 7 days a week stress filled mess. Successful restaurants might rake in cash but insrance, rent and employee pay takes up %95< of what the place makes.

[smooth]

Truth. Restaurant ownership isn't a 40 hour work week. Its all day, 7 days a week stress filled mess. Successful restaurants might rake in cash but insrance, rent and employee pay takes up %95< of what the place makes.

No.

Not unless you two are using two different versions of "make," which may very well be the case because no restaurant is only "making" $40,000 per year in gross receipts. Even the smallest restaurant is going to be pulling around $40,000 dollars per month. You don't have to take my word for it, it's a simple math equation to figure out the likely gross sales a small restaurant makes per day/month/year.

Now, it is true that overhead takes a substantial bite out of a small owner's profits but you can't lay that at the wage-earners feet. Their take-home pay is a fractional amount of a small business owner's overhead.

It may be true that a small business owner only "makes" $40K per year in take-home profit. And it would also be true that raises to wage-earners could potentially take a bite out from that profit. But as The Dark Side of Will pointed out, those costs are going to be transferred to customers. As he already stated (and I pointed out earlier in the thread), if it takes two people to run a kitchen it takes two people to run a kitchen regardless of how much they cost per hour.

[The Dark Side of Will]

He's not talking about government (de)regulation!

FASB is a private organization. FASB (and "regulation" FASB 142) is a non-governmental body that establishes accounting and reporting standards for the private financial industry.

Yes, he is.
If you read the second sentence of the Wiki article you're nearly quoting, you'd understand that the SEC requires publicly traded businesses to operate according to FASB rules.

Private Securities Litigation Reform Act is a law, but it's not a regulatory law. It was implemented to derail frivolous lawsuits. It was brought into existence by Newt Gingrich, and voted into law by basically every conservative over the veto of President Bill Clinton. This was during the heyday of litigation getting out of hand...in this context it was boards not being able to hide their illegal accounting practices adequately enough from prying eyes so they had to do something about it to help cover up their tracks.

The article didn't advocate repealing the entire act... just a specific provision of it which allows issuance of "earnings guidance" by CEO's, allowing them to direct the "expectations market".

Both of those are the furthest examples from government regulation that you couldn't have chosen a worse argument to pin your "private sector will take care of itself" upon!

Those are excellent examples, but you just aren't thinking deeply enough about them.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has always told shareholders that he focuses on the long term over the short term. Amazon's doing well and their share price reflects the confidence that speculators have in the company. If Amazon were not doing well, Bezos & his CFO would have to adjust their accounting to reflect a drop in the desirability of what is essentially publicly held debt, which is obviously absurd.

Specific regulation changes can alter the incentives of CEO's to put shareholder return above employee welfare. Some companies do this already, but they do it despite the incentives in front of them, rather than because of it. The regulations incentivize companies to put shareholders ahead of employees. If those incentives weren't in place, the discussion of minimum wage would affect even fewer people than it already does.

As mentioned, local businesses tend to pay more than minimum wage; I posit because they can be more enlightened than big corporations, partly because they don't have corporate profits and overhead to pay.

Cliff's: The focus should be on incentivizing management to make enlightened management decisions rather than distorting the labor market. I think there's a problem, but I also think having a minimum wage is the wrong solution.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Which is why we have millions of children that go to bed each night in this country either hungry or just about hungry.

Millions? Source?

[Dozyproductions]

No.

Not unless you two are using two different versions of "make," which may very well be the case because no restaurant is only "making" $40,000 per year in gross receipts. Even the smallest restaurant is going to be pulling around $40,000 dollars per month. You don't have to take my word for it, it's a simple math equation to figure out the likely gross sales a small restaurant makes per day/month/year.

Now, it is true that overhead takes a substantial bite out of a small owner's profits but you can't lay that at the wage-earners feet. Their take-home pay is a fractional amount of a small business owner's overhead.

It may be true that a small business owner only "makes" $40K per year in take-home profit. And it would also be true that raises to wage-earners could potentially take a bite out from that profit. But as The Dark Side of Will pointed out, those costs are going to be transferred to customers. As he already stated (and I pointed out earlier in the thread), if it takes two people to run a kitchen it takes two people to run a kitchen regardless of how much they cost per hour.

I'm not partaking in the $40K unit. Just agreeing to small business struggle. Restaurant owners don't take away that much from their own businesses. People talk about the HUGE fail rate for restaurants and many of them deserve to fail because of improper management or just plain bad food but those aren't the main or the biggest deciding factors in the failure rate.

[smooth]

Millions? Source?

I didn't realize it was a controversial assertion that we have millions of children going hungry in this country.

USDA conducts a survey every year about food security in the US.
Here is their survey for 2013:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1183208/err-155.pdf

You can skip to pages 9-15, tables 1B-3 if you'd prefer to get to the raw numbers.

Restaurant owners don't take away that much from their own businesses.

Fair enough.

That said, restaurant tip-earners have a lower minimum wage than the rest of the nation. Federal is only a couple dollars. Most of these bills exempt small businesses for a few years longer and specifically tier tip-earners. Seattle's is novel in that it phases them out completely eventually, but it also has small restaurant owners on-board.

[CorvallisBMW]

I think this is a key point right here:

In fact, a few people in this thread would benefit from reading the facts rather than relying on what you called "common sense"

All too often the response to many well thought-out and researched arguments is "No way, that's fucking dumb, just use ur common sense!!", without ever bothering to do their own research or fact-finding. They have falsely affiliated their own personal beliefs with the social convention of "common sense". The two are not equal. For many, they carry a personal belief that they consider to be common sense, in the same way religious people feel their "truth" is common sense. But make no mistake, they are not one in the same.

Furthermore, "common sense" is rarely that. Let's look at a few examples. 1000 years ago it was "common sense" that the earth was flat. 500 years ago it was "common sense" that the earth was the center of the universe. 250 years ago it was "common sense" to own slaves. 100 years ago it was "common sense" to segregate races. 50 years ago it was "common sense" to discriminate against homosexuals... Would any of those be considered common sense today? Anyone who relies on "common sense" to form the basis of an argument has no real argument. They may realize such and just be hoping that no one calls them out on it, or they may be unable to separate their personal beliefs from anecdotal evidence.

The facts in this case do not lie:
States that have raised their minimum wage above and beyond the Federal minimum wage have not seen their economic growth slowed at all compared to states who did not. It's actually been the opposite.

http://time.com/3007429/minimum-wage-job-growth-states/

There are many countries with higher minimum wages than the US that also have much lower rates of unemployment. And, overall, the correlation between the two is negative (albeit only slightly)

http://mattcowgill.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/2011-min-wage-unemp-oecd.png

The extra buying power of citizens who are payed more translates directly in to better sales and higher profits for companies, offsetting any increase in wage costs. Consequently there is no statistically significant change in employment levels or prices.

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/research/minimumwage/sfminimumwage.pdf

If those who argue against raising the minimum wage could provide any facts or evidence to back up those claims, I'd be interested in seeing them. But "common sense" arguments and If/Then statements do not count.

[G-Man the Visionary]

40k was net. Can't even lease a spot for 40k a year. Didn't say the "restaurant" was "making" 40k, reread "owner". You guys knew what I meant.

[BraveUlysses]

And being forced to provide overpriced insurance, and buy overpriced operating insurance, and regulations, etc. themoreYOUknow.jpg

Why do you think I told you TWICE that it's not just about wages for small biz?

So back to second grade math and a review, small restaurant owner makes $40k a year but now has to give an extra $10k to the two ppl he has on min wage. Now he has $20k, Or fires one and raises prices. Then government says he HAS to insure employees, etc. Take another $10k (or more? less?) from owner. Now, employee makes more than owner who has to pay his own insurance and the rent and all the overhead and worst of all, dedicated his life to saving to open that place. Makes wonderful sense.

40k was net. Can't even lease a spot for 40k a year. Didn't say the "restaurant" was "making" 40k, reread "owner". You guys knew what I meant.

You're making up all of this shit as you go. stop posting, start educating yourself.

[G-Man the Visionary]

Common sense in 15 years... "Burgers are $12."