Minimum wage hikes trigger 'payroll tsunami,' as small businesses cut back

[OlNate]

Just a short note. There's no "subsidizing corporations" involved anywhere. Nothing in law or economics requires an employer to pay employees enough to not require government services. Employees are paid what their efforts contribute to the bottom line. Anything beyond that is at the discretion of the employer.

There's more here I hope to respond to, but I'm in a time crunch so I hope to get back to it later. You make some interesting points.

Alright, Bullseye, I'll wait for you to put together the whole response.

But I will admit to not knowing whether or not there is anything in the law specifically regarding what happens to a company who's employees must rely on social assistance because they are paid too low. Rather, it's my reason for supporting a livable wage for full time employees.

 

[pamak]

The dreaded top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of all federal income taxes. 1% pay 37% ! Maybe you would prefer they pay ALL the taxes in our country...….Jealousy is a terrible thing.

It is called greed, and it is also good for those who do not belong to the top 10%.

What the top 10% pays in federal income taxes is related to the RE-distribution of wealth while the main issue is that .the top 10% should function in an economy where the DI-stribution of the generated wealth is more equitable. This distribution happens before the federal tax kicks in. This is why the argument is that workers should get higher wages and labor cost for big business should increase substantially. Right now, despite what the top 10% pays as a percentage of federal taxes, there is no denial that this top 10% earns profits at a rate much higher than anyone else and the income and wealth gap between the top 10% and he rest of the society continues to grow..

 

[HenryChinaski]

Alright, Bullseye, I'll wait for you to put together the whole response.

But I will admit to not knowing whether or not there is anything in the law specifically regarding what happens to a company who's employees must rely on social assistance because they are paid too low. Rather, it's my reason for supporting a livable wage for full time employees.

Walmart

 

[Objective Voice]

This strikes me as a pre-emptive strike, when faced with the prospects of a slowing economy ...

It's that inverted yield curve, buddy....watch it.

 

[mrdeltoid]

It is called greed, and it is also good for those who do not belong to the top 10%.

What the top 10% pays in federal income taxes is related to the RE-distribution of wealth while the main issue is that .the top 10% should function in an economy where the DI-stribution of the generated wealth is more equitable. This distribution happens before the federal tax kicks in. This is why the argument is that workers should get higher wages and labor cost for big business should increase substantially. Right now, despite what the top 10% pays as a percentage of federal taxes, there is no denial that this top 10% earns profits at a rate much higher than anyone else and the income and wealth gap between the top 10% and he rest of the society continues to grow..

What does raising the minimum wage help? You can see that it will either be passed on to the consumer, or jobs will be cut.

 

[Objective Voice]

You're wrong.

You're not really being honest here. The $15 minimum wage has been in the works in some states since 2011 (if not longer). Furthermore, your linked article makes a very clear point that "extreme wage hikes" have the most significant impact of the cost of labor. Thus, if the wage increase is gradual (and these businesses are adjusting their finances accordingly over time), the impact should be minimal. But again per the OP article, it's not simply the $15 minimum wage that impacting small(er) businesses right now. It's an assortment of increases in overall labor cost (healthcare, lease/rents, utility cost, etc.) with the new minimum wage thrown in.

 

[pamak]

What does raising the minimum wage help? You can see that it will either be passed on to the consumer, or jobs will be cut.

I already explained it in a previous post.

Since the cost passes to all consumers then this will still benefit to some extend those earning minimum wage. In effect, part of the rest of the consumers who do not earn minimum wage will help the wage of those minimum wage workers.

 

[joko104]

No, this is not Trump's fault.

This is the result of decades worth of administrations signing over America's soul to corporations. This is the result of corporate greed, replacing well paid employees with robots and cheap overseas labor, to increase profits. And this is the result of a bunch of dumb assed conservative voters, fighting viciously for the right of the individual to get as rich as they like, irrespective of the cost to others, despite the fact that the majority of these conservatives will never come close to realizing the benefits they have secured for a class of people they will never belong to, who exploit them and laugh at them.

Nah, man, this isn't Trump's fault. It's yours.

So the next campaign promise by the Democratic Party is that they are going to outlaw assembly line efficiency and robot, to return to American car companies forced to build cars by hand assembly, thus completing their destruction of the American automobile industry.

Quote ANY Democrat in Congress or for president advocating outlawing robots?

What has destroyed blue collar wages are the millions and millions of illegal immigrants pouring into the USA upon Democratic Party policies.

 

[joko104]

You're not really being honest here. The $15 minimum wage has been in the works in some states since 2011 (if not longer). Furthermore, your linked article makes a very clear point that "extreme wage hikes" have the most significant impact of the cost of labor. Thus, if the wage increase is gradual (and these businesses are adjusting their finances accordingly over time), the impact should be minimal. But again per the OP article, it's not simply the $15 minimum wage that impacting small(er) businesses right now. It's an assortment of increases in overall labor cost (healthcare, lease/rents, utility cost, etc.) with the new minimum wage thrown in.

Cities with a $15 minimum wage have massive numbers of homeless. Those cities than pile on property taxes and business taxes to pay for the homeless the city creates and invites to their city.

 

[Bullseye]

You're not really being honest here. The $15 minimum wage has been in the works in some states since 2011 (if not longer). Furthermore, your linked article makes a very clear point that "extreme wage hikes" have the most significant impact of the cost of labor. Thus, if the wage increase is gradual (and these businesses are adjusting their finances accordingly over time), the impact should be minimal. But again per the OP article, it's not simply the $15 minimum wage that impacting small(er) businesses right now. It's an assortment of increases in overall labor cost (healthcare, lease/rents, utility cost, etc.) with the new minimum wage thrown in.

"gradual" or not my reference is accurate. Business owners know from Day One that they're going to be forced to increase wages whether or not the business is doing well or not. Raising MW by 30-40% over a few years is NOT gradual.

 

[OlNate]

So the next campaign promise by the Democratic Party is that they are going to outlaw assembly line efficiency and robot, to return to American car companies forced to build cars by hand assembly, thus completing their destruction of the American automobile industry.

Quote ANY Democrat in Congress or for president advocating outlawing robots?

What has destroyed blue collar wages are the millions and millions of illegal immigrants pouring into the USA upon Democratic Party policies.

Hmm... How do those Mexicans get jobs? Do they all work for the Democratic Party? Or do they work for American business owners, reaping the extended profits derived from procuring cheap labor?

Sorry, man, rather than exonerating business owners, I think you just added a log to the fire.

 

[joko104]

The "poverty line" now likely is what a middle class income was 50 years ago. According to the Democratic Party, anyone who doesn't have at least a 32 inch internet connected TV is desperately poor and the government should buy them at least one and better yet 3. Anyone who can't afford lobster is considered impoverished. Most American "poor" are wealthy compared to most people in the world.

The minimum wage in Mexico was just raised to $5.10 a day and Mexicans have higher income than much of Central and South America. Poor in the USA doesn't mean poor. It means inconvenienced.

 

[joko104]

Hmm... How do those Mexicans get jobs? Do they all work for the Democratic Party? Or do they work for American business owners, reaping the extended profits derived from procuring cheap labor?

Sorry, man, rather than exonerating business owners, I think you just added a log to the fire.

You really like to create strawmen as a diversion, don't you? I didn't "exonerate" business owners at all.

NO Democrat running for Congress nor the Democratic Party calls for E-verify. Rather, they call for counting non-citizens the same as citizens for electoral delegates and giving illegal migrants ID cards to make it easier for them to take Americans jobs by undercutting them and working off the clock for below minimum wage, while protecting them from deportation.

 

[pamak]

The "poverty line" now likely is what a middle class income was 50 years ago. According to the Democratic Party, anyone who doesn't have at least a 32 inch internet connected TV is desperately poor and the government should buy them at least one and better yet 3. Anyone who can't afford lobster is considered impoverished. Most American "poor" are wealthy compared to most people in the world.

The minimum wage in Mexico was just raised to $5.10 a day and Mexicans have higher income than much of Central and South America. Poor in the USA doesn't mean poor. It means inconvenienced.

Even if it is true, only a fool would accept that in the presence of the modern wealth it makes sense to accept the living standards of 50 years ago, so that the top 10% can have even more money saved to invest in new bubbles!

 

[OlNate]

You really like to create strawmen as a diversion, don't you? I didn't "exonerate" business owners at all.

NO Democrat running for Congress nor the Democratic Party calls for E-verify. Rather, they call for counting non-citizens the same as citizens for electoral delegates and giving illegal migrants ID cards to make it easier for them to take Americans jobs by undercutting them and working off the clock for below minimum wage, while protecting them from deportation.

lol...you'll excuse me for the lolz in response to your accusation of attempting to create a diversion, when my response to your previous post was exposing you for creating a diversion. Why do you rant and rave about illegal immigration in a thread about minimum wage, and then get salty with me for commenting in the only possible direction that would actually make your contribution relevant to what we're talking about?

 

[Conservative]

Your victim card is noted.

As is your ignorance of the issue as well as your loyalty to the corrupt Obama Administration. Yes, we only have just begun!

Greg Craig, ex-Obama White House counsel, indicted for alleged false statements | Fox News

 

[Chomsky]

It's that inverted yield curve, buddy....watch it.

I've seen arguments being made that an inverted yield curve is not as negatively predictive, as in times gone by. But I'm surely not comfortable testing that theory!

 

[Objective Voice]

I've seen arguments being made that an inverted yield curve is not as negatively predictive, as in times gone by. But I'm surely not comfortable testing that theory!

Neither are the markets and that's why the free market brainiacs are starting to sound the trumpet of a pending recession and are, thus, freaking out. The finger pointing started months ago first with tariffs (increased cost of materials), then the end to the utility of the Trump tax cuts (re: 1-trick pony) and now the cost of labor (i.e., increasing the minimum wage, high healthcare costs) along with an uptic in operational cost (i.e., increased rents). But you know where the blame will really be laid: "forced" cost of labor (re: state imposed minimum wage). The irony here is it wasn't that long ago when politicians were none too happy to let states (and businesses) dictate such salary increases. Now, the "fake news" of the day is "states are pricing small businesses out of business". When do the excuses and the blame-game end?

All we heard from those on the right during the Great Recession was "businesses that fail to plan should be allowed to fail". Seems to me that these small businesses - all of which had ample notice that these minimum wage standards were coming - failed to plan (budget their finances) accordingly and make the adjustment. You can't necessarily plan on a rent increase nor the higher cost of health care unless you're given ample warning about such, but the minimum wage increase - that I'm sure these small business owners were fully aware of well in advance. So, if they didn't plan for this they shouldn't be blaming anyone else for their business failing except themselves.

Now, we can argue the right or wrong of a mandatory minimum wage but if that were the only factor causing these businesses to increase their labor costs, I'd probably be in that camp that says these businesses were put in such a compromising position by their respective state legislators (which is true to a point). But the increased minimum wage isn't the only problem these such businesses are facing. Moreover, the situation doesn't appear to be as dire as the OP article makes it out to be. Seems to me the issue is limited to certain geographical areas (NYC, for example). Until the matter becomes widespread (national), I see it as manageable isolated incidents.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Honestly...I have to remember that $15USD is a little different than $15CAD. It's aggressive, I'll give it that, even for a filthy communist like me...hehe... Were I the decider of all things (I really need to figure out how to get that job), I'd be open to a debate on how much minimum wage should be. Perhaps there should be a different minimum wage for full and part time employees.

But, if you're asking for someone to work for you full time, and they cannot live off of what you're paying them, to where the government needs to offset the gap with social assistance while you enjoy a profit, I'd say there's a problem there. Wouldn't you?

My profit depends on many things.

1. My estimating & bidding expertise.

2. The skill of the people that I hire.

3. The speed and efficiency of the skilled people that I hire.

4. The attitudes of the people that I hire.

5. The safety measures that I have to trust hired people to adhere to.

6. Customer impressions & trust with the workers that I leave in their houses to do the required task. (appearance, communication skills, and politeness)


7. Trusting workers to not take shortcuts in procedures that go against recommended manufacturers installation instructions.

8. Versatility or workers. (framing, sheet rock, finishing, trim work, painting, doors, windows, siding, roofing, plumbing....etc.)


Do you really think that some newbie off the street who can only be trusted unsupervised with sweeping and running for coffee is worth $15.00 an hour.

Or.........should I let him hack up sheet rock that costs $15.00 a sheet.... or destroy $900.00 shower surround?

Most lower paying jobs out there are transitional jobs that were never meant to be a career. They are job market entry points for students making a buck after school hours, or for people making a few extra bucks outside of their regular jobs, or maybe a house wife looking to supplement family income.

Liberals want to make these mundane jobs a career?

 

[Port & Starboard]

If it is not your business to tell the employees how they should react after the initial agreement keep your mouth shut!

If you do not like how they react, or how the government treats business owners, join the rank of the workforce.

See how easy it is to give suggestions?

I love what I do, and I pay very decent to those who are skilled

15.00 an hour to a sweeper?

Sounds like the perfect job for someone like you.

 

[Port & Starboard]

When what you pay is so ****ty your employees eat up my tax dollars in federal aid, you're goddamned right it's my ****ing business.

I pay very decent. There is good money in home rehab's for the worker and the business owner.

Come back to me some day when you have to pay a gopher & coffee runner $15.00 an hour.

Until then......

 

[pamak]

I love what I do, and I pay very decent to those who are skilled

15.00 an hour to a sweeper?

Sounds like the perfect job for someone like you.

I love it when retired government employees talk about how good capitalists they are. You spent most of your life depending on the government. You lived a much more socialist life than me.

$ 15.00 an hour to anybody is nothing in places like CA and NY.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I love it when retired government employees talk about how good capitalists they are. You spent most of your life depending on the government. You lived a much more socialist life than me.

$ 15.00 an hour to anybody is nothing in places like CA and NY.

So?

I never depended on the government. I signed a agreement to let them send me to sea for 16 years long before you were puking your strained peas in your high chair.

 

[pamak]

So?

I never depended on the government. I signed a agreement to let them send me to sea for 16 years long before you were puking your strained peas in your high chair.

The fact that you signed an agreement does not change the fact that your paycheck came from Uncle Sam. And no, I do not try to undervalue your service. I just give you a reality check, so that you can realize that you created wealth and capital using the government as your employer. So, the fact that you try now to play the "capitalist" as a retired for some supplementary income or just because you want to remain active is not very convincing.

 

[Port & Starboard]

The fact that you signed an agreement does not change the fact that your paycheck came from Uncle Sam. And no, I do not try to undervalue your service. I just give you a reality check, so that you can realize that you created wealth and capital using the government as your employer. So, the fact that you try now to play the "capitalist" as a retired for some supplementary income or just because you want to remain active is not very convincing.

The government and I used a mutually agreed upon exchange of money for my services.

In no way was I ever depending on the government. I could have just as easily slid over to a civilian mariner job for 2-3 times the money that I made under Uncle Sam.

People like you will never understand this because you are wrapped up in your own ignorance while constantly convincing yourselves that you know it all.