Right now the average worker is MEANINGLESS and INCONSEQUENTIAL. You dont mean anything because you are easily replaceable. The employer has all the power when a min wage exists. You have a no skilled job...you automatically get min wage, there isnt even thought involved.
Now if employers had to compete for labor, guess what, wages are going to go up. Also thank feminism for making wages go down by doubling the work force. When women stayed at home to be mothers wages were higher too....smaller workforce...more competition for labor. Right now women are expected to have jobs outside the home...so guess what, each individual worker is worth even less.
And dont even get me started on immigration and amnesty....
Actually, "the problem is that" liberals marvel at their idea of 'mystery hole' economics; just as the tourists at hillside shacks are assured that there are gravity holes that violate the laws of physics, and think they see balls rolling up ramps, gullible liberals flock to the partisan showman urging them to see violations of the laws of economics... "see the city where if you increase the cost of labor, nothing happens except folks purchase MORE more labor" and "our souvenir shops sells below cost because we make it up in volume".The study was done by Nicholas Potter, now a researcher at Washington State University. He said some businesses in Santa Fe did close and some said it hurt their competitiveness. But workers were overwhelmingly positive about the pay hike. And the fear of massive restaurant closures didnít happen, he said, though the cost of eating out did go up some.
ďIt seemed to have helped workers and not hurt business too much,Ē he said.
Potential price increases at restaurants was the biggest negative impact identified by the Berkeley researchers. The cost of eating out went up 2 to 3 percent when the minimum wage rose 25 percent. That means dining out in Seattle could go up as much as 7 percent if the city goes to $15 an hour.
But another Berkeley researcher said there isnít an overwhelmingly negative impact on any type of business where the minimum wage has been raised.
Telling us that the US economy has had the bad idea of MW for 80 years says nothing about how much better it might have been (or might be) for the affected if it had never been established. The longevity of a number of bad economic and fiscal ideas (e.g. tariffs, agricultural subsidies, water and reclamation subsidies, etc.) tells us nothing other than the persistence of public ignorance and/or the power of special vested interests.
The issue is not how well we do in spite of pin-headed prejudices, or whether it affects most people, BUT of what effect it has on those it claims to help, and the consequences to those it does not. Telling us (falsely) that the net result is the same misses the whole point of the controversy - it's as disingenuous as claiming that a new tax that exclusively takes from the poor (and gives a break to the rich) is 'irrelevant' because the net revenue is the same.
THE core ISSUE is not the aggregate effect on an economy (although it may be an issue), but the effect it has on certain trades, people, and income groups.
So....what you're saying is, that without some form of MINIMAL amount being REQUIRED of employers to pay their help, they would gladly pay them less and less in order for themselves to make more???ludin;1064646584]yea well what you forgot was that that 52k is maybe what the owner takes. he has to make a pay check and I doubt he will make 52k a year. he will want a bit more.
First, that was left out in order to dumb this down for some folks. Second, repair costs AREN'T an every year issue, unless they are taking proper care of their equipment. If you have to fix something EVERY YEAR...you're either using it wrong, or you need to get a new one/call in on the warranty.plus that margin that you talk of is being spent to fix or repair things in the restaurant.
Temporary. For, you see, those people getting paid more at the restaurant or going to SPEND more, and when they DO, OTHER people are going to make more. That's what happens in a consumer economy vs a production economy.you also fail to see that some people might not pay $12 dollars for his lunch.
So, the amount they made in profit PRIOR to a rate increase wasn't sufficient all along, and they just wanted an excuse to INCREASE their GM%? You're really not painting a very rosey picture of small business owners, lol.so they will lose some customers. also no business person raises prices to break even. they raise prices above the break even.
so his price would go from 10 to 15 dollars.
Explain.you also forget that he now has increased taxes that he has to pay for. his tax bill just went up.
Well, yeah, it's a simplified scenario.you leave a lot of factors out of your stacked hypothetical.
By all means, come up with your own and present it.