[BayMoWe335]

Econ 101: Minimum Wage creates unemployment and hurts the people it's trying to help.

Stupid idea that never works but sounds great to morons eating this shit up.

[F1Venom]

I have mixed opinions on this. I think the minimum wage needs to rise but then again it would just make things more expensive for the consumer.
And $15/hour for flipping burgers at McDonalds..... LMFAO

[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by DemolitionJim

if this actually happens I'm going to apply there.

part time at $15/hr after work will result in quite a nice chunk of change do fun stuff with.

If I can physically do it, I would love to apply. Heck, I may be future franchisee someday. Most of retired people end up owning franchise. However, micro manage franchisee ended up working 80+hr per week. My next door was a franchisee ofOutb_k, and they literally spent that much hours.

People laugh at 15/hr. 15/hr seems low on some cities, but it is still about how much data input guys makes after undergrad in some cities.

[Devant]

They should be paid in cheeseburgers and special sauce.

[PINeely]

But seriously, who pays for this shit? $15 an hour is double the fast food wage in some places. That's getting passed down to the consumers.

[Uber V8]

^ I hear from the inside that Chase bank is going to implement a similar device to handle most banking inside the branches. A virtual assistant. ATM 2.0 basically.

Also, a few Chilli's restaurant locations have implemented a digital menu that you can pay your bill from as well. It's beginning.

[2011CrazE89]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

^ I hear from the inside that Chase bank is going to implement a similar device to handle most banking inside the branches. A virtual assistant. ATM 2.0 basically.

Also, a few Chilli's restaurant locations have implemented a digital menu that you can pay your bill from as well. It's beginning.

Yep! I went to Chili's last week and paid my bill via the digital menu. Also ordered a drink and extra fries by the push of a button.

[954Stealth]

How about instead of $15 an hour they get free college courses?

Imagine the downstream affect that'd have...

[Devant]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

Econ 101: Minimum Wage creates unemployment and hurts the people it's trying to help.

Stupid idea that never works but sounds great to morons eating this shit up.

If it weren't for minimum wage. The market wage would be pennies an hour. (See how much they pay for child labor in Asia)

The same thing with subsidizing certain commodoties. Milk for example: if the price were not regulated by the gov't the price for 1 gallon would be upwards of $20.

Econ 101 is looking at economic scenarios, ceteris paribus.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

^ I hear from the inside that Chase bank is going to implement a similar device to handle most banking inside the branches. A virtual assistant. ATM 2.0 basically.

Also, a few Chilli's restaurant locations have implemented a digital menu that you can pay your bill from as well. It's beginning.

Originally Posted by 2011CrazE89

Yep! I went to Chili's last week and paid my bill via the digital menu. Also ordered a drink and extra fries by the push of a button.

Wawa.....

I loath the idea of this, but in application.... i like it a lot.

I walk into Wawa, one of 8 terminals are available for me to input my order. Takes me 15 seconds, i grab my order receipt, a drink, never am I more than 3rd person in line to pay. By the time i pay, my sandwich order is ready and i'm gone. Less than 5 min every time.

As a social being, i really don't like this. But with the numbers of either stupid or introverted people working in these positions anyway, this concept is growing on me.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Devant

If it weren't for minimum wage. The market wage would be pennies an hour. (See how much they pay for child labor in Asia)

The same thing with subsidizing certain commodoties. Milk for example: if the price were not regulated by the gov't the price for 1 gallon would be upwards of $20.

Econ 101 is looking at economic scenarios, ceteris paribus.

No and no.

But believe what you want...I don't care and won't respond again. Arguing about it is a waste of time so you're,right

[Devant]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

No and no.

But believe what you want...I don't care and won't respond again. Arguing about it is a waste of time so you're,right

Ok and ok?

Who’s arguing, it’s called discussion. But if you don’t feel confident enough to support your assertions I guess that tells me all I need to know.

Not that it matters, but I am 10 credits shy of receiving my PhD in Economics. I digress even world ranking economists disagree (but not on basic principles)

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

Econ 101: Minimum Wage creates unemployment and hurts the people it's trying to help.

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Myth #2 (Thanks for playing)

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Devant

Ok and ok?

Who’s arguing, it’s called discussion. But if you don’t feel confident enough to support your assertions I guess that tells me all I need to know.

Not that it matters, but I am 10 credits shy of receiving my PhD in Economics. I digress even world ranking economists disagree (but not on basic principles)



http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Myth #2 (Thanks for playing)

Sorry, had to laugh at citing a govt website. I went to U. Of Chicago which Im sure is better than your Econ school because mine is the best. Milton Friedman disagrees.

[Devant]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

Sorry, had to laugh at citing a govt website. I went to U. Of Chicago which Im sure is better than your Econ school because mine is the best. Milton Friedman disagrees.

I think you were right the first time. Better not to respond. I'd be happy to find you the Nobel laureates who agree so you don't feel that this is some conspiracy by the MAN.

Anywho..how's the weather folks? LOL

[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by Devant

Ok and ok?

Who’s arguing, it’s called discussion. But if you don’t feel confident enough to support your assertions I guess that tells me all I need to know.

Not that it matters, but I am 10 credits shy of receiving my PhD in Economics. I digress even world ranking economists disagree (but not on basic principles)



http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm Myth #2 (Thanks for playing)

You and I are about in the similar page. I am about 21 course credit shy of receiving my PhD in Economics. I am not planning to spend a single credit on Labor Economics, nor Economics with Discrimination.


I disagree with DOL's view. I've seen it with my own eyes. Retailers and fast food restaurants are dying to reduce staff per revenue to boost their bottom line eps.
My wife and 1/4 got laid off at one department stores on cost reduction plan around 2009. However, she made tons of money on ESOP/PP and 401(k) that it actually turned out better w/ 99wk unemployment benefit.

Most of companies besides wmt, mcd, cab, and others do not own real estate or reit. They will just simply move out of the city ord. I've seen Dress barn does that. I've seen dollar tree do that for some different reasons. Near double the labor cost sure WILL get them out of the city which impose the 15/hr crap.
Although this sounds like labor econ heavy topic, but this is more of a microecon issue, and it will be soon.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Devant

If it weren't for minimum wage. The market wage would be pennies an hour. (See how much they pay for child labor in Asia)

The same thing with subsidizing certain commodoties. Milk for example: if the price were not regulated by the gov't the price for 1 gallon would be upwards of $20.

If your going to bring economics into this then you need to look at economic scenarios, ceteris paribus.

That's Econ 101

Isn't it impossible to know what a gallon of milk would cost without minimum wage?

And child labor would still be illegal and it's highly unlikely anyone would agree to work for pennies an hour? Unless you're talking about 1,000 pennies an hour.

Unregulated compensation for goods and services levels out. It does fluctuate but only when it's self levying after some kind of external factor unbalances it. When you work in the construction industry, BIDDING on all of your work, you see very clearly that there is a glass floor that people providing quality work will not go below. The same principle is applicable for employee compensation.

Surely you don't think that people who aren't willing to work for current minimum wage would all of a sudden be willing to work for less, do you?

I'll tell you, that when bidding on projects for work, things typically go exceedingly well. ....Unless you're bidding on a government job. Because on a government job, there are all kinds of concessions made for different types of "oppressed" business owners. Women owned, minority owned, veteran owned, etc... Its when the government allows these concessions for these supposed oppressed businesses, people who are working just as hard are left out in the cold in favor of someone else. So the help they give to someone negatively affects someone else.

Check this out. I was bidding on a job for the City of St. Pete main fire station. These are the bid tabulations.




I was the only non minority registered business who bid on this. Not how this works is that the SBE credits you see are only applicable for bidding and awarding purposes. Once awarded, the City will pay their full bid amount. Does this make sense? I'm the second in from the left. An honest, fair bid. Lower than everyone else's, left out in the cold. The only point is that when the government tries to get involved to "level" the playing field, they unlevel it for someone else. The business who could provide the goods and services for the least amount of money could also do it the fastest; didn't get the job.

Same thing happens with minimum wage. You have a business where you employ 10 minimum wage employees. Minimum wage gets raised which increases your payroll to the point that you can't afford 10 employees. Now you have 9 and one guy is out on his ass. That's just an immediate hands on example of the negative effects. The effect on society is worse. Minimum wage creates the idea of sustaining a life, spouse, and 2.5 kids on such a wage. Minimum wage has created the idea that a person earning, err... being paid said wage, should be able to buy a home, car, and an annual vacation to Disney. "We don't have to aspire to more, we just need the minimum wage increased."

I'm in the middle of a government project that is a Davis Bacon Wage Act project. You have to keep track of every hour, every person spends on the job site and they MUST be paid at much or more than what the government determines a fair wage is for their trade. I spend the better part of a day, a whole day, reviewing and researching the minimum wages our installers MUST make per hour on this job. I can tell you that the amount of money spent on creating this davis bacon wage act was one of the most ill funded government projects out there. What business is it of the governments to tell me how much my subcontractors, who BID on this work by the piece, not hour, should be paid to complete the work?

I'm not bitter though.

[Devant]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Isn't it impossible to know what a gallon of milk would cost without minimum wage?

And child labor would still be illegal and it's highly unlikely anyone would agree to work for pennies an hour? Unless you're talking about 1,000 pennies an hour.

Unregulated compensation for goods and services levels out. It does fluctuate but only when it's self levying after some kind of external factor unbalances it. When you work in the construction industry, BIDDING on all of your work, you see very clearly that there is a glass floor that people providing quality work will not go below. The same principle is applicable for employee compensation.

Surely you don't think that people who aren't willing to work for current minimum wage would all of a sudden be willing to work for less, do you?


I'll tell you, that when bidding on projects for work, things typically go exceedingly well. ....Unless you're bidding on a government job. Because on a government job, there are all kinds of concessions made for different types of "oppressed" business owners. Women owned, minority owned, veteran owned, etc... Its when the government allows these concessions for these supposed oppressed businesses, people who are working just as hard are left out in the cold in favor of someone else. So the help they give to someone negatively affects someone else.

Check this out. I was bidding on a job for the City of St. Pete main fire station. These are the bid tabulations.

I was the only non minority registered business who bid on this. Not how this works is that the SBE credits you see are only applicable for bidding and awarding purposes. Once awarded, the City will pay their full bid amount. Does this make sense? I'm the second in from the left. An honest, fair bid. Lower than everyone else's, left out in the cold. The only point is that when the government tries to get involved to "level" the playing field, they unlevel it for someone else. The business who could provide the goods and services for the least amount of money could also do it the fastest, but didn't get the job.

Same thing happens with minimum wage. You have a business where you employ 10 minimum wage employees. Minimum wage gets raised which increases your payroll to the point that you can't afford 10 employees. Now you have 9 and one guy is out on his ass. That's just an immediate hands on example of the negative effects. The effect on society is worse. Minimum wage creates the idea of sustaining a life, spouse, and 2.5 kids on such a wage. Minimum wage has created the idea that a person earning, err... being paid said wage, should be able to buy a home, car, and an annual vacation to Disney. "We don't have to aspire to more, we just need the minimum wage increased."

I'm in the middle of a government project that is a Davis Bacon Wage Act project. You have to keep track of every hour, every person spends on the job site and they MUST be paid at much or more than what the government determines a fair wage is for their trade. I spend the better part of a day, a whole day, reviewing and researching the minimum wages our installers MUST make per hour on this job. I can tell you that the amount of money spent on creating this davis bacon wage act was one of the most ill funded government projects out there. What business is it of the governments to tell me how much my subcontractors, who BID on this work by the piece, not hour, should be paid to complete the work?

I'm not bitter though.

Well this is the dichotomy between economic theory and it's practical application in the market. If the market could only bear pennies an hour in compensation of course no one would waste their time working that job and they would resort to being part of black market economy or just not working.

In Economics there is a form of the Heisenberg principle which states any effort to try to influence one sector of the economy will inevitably shift the values and behavior of all other parts of that economy, so unless you are looking at things in a vacuum (which is impossible) all you can do is predict the most plausible trends based on previous data and history.

Your story of the bid is certainly influenced by political pressures which the Economist in his pure form would not consider, but there it is..influencing and changing all other values.

I think the practice of not going below a floor when bidding in the same industry is a form of self preservation and in a crude sense, price fixing (albeit legally) driven again by what the market will bear. You would not install a floor for X dollars below a certain threshold. Now what happens when a new comer out bids everyone by consistently going below that threshold. Well that becomes a situation that either the market will tolerate (in which case many businesses would cease to be able to do business and would cease to exist) OR the gov't steps in to level the playing field.

Capitalism in its true form would eradicate a middle class and you really would end up with a society comprised of have and have nots.

Funny I have performed many A-133 audits, front and center is the Davis Bacon Act. It really has changed how contractors and sub-contractors calculate their direct labor costs, and more importantly, what they can bury in overhead and pass back as costs to their clients.

[grimlock]

^
Once again Mr. Tonka brings the common sense.

No wonder I agree with BayMoWe

Devant, I have no idea if you are an actual Econ Phd.. but the stuff you say is so far from being correct it stretches plausibility..

[Devant]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

You and I are about in the similar page. I am about 21 course credit shy of receiving my PhD in Economics. I am not planning to spend a single credit on Labor Economics, nor Economics with Discrimination.


I disagree with DOL's view. I've seen it with my own eyes. Retailers and fast food restaurants are dying to reduce staff per revenue to boost their bottom line eps.

My wife and 1/4 got laid off at one department stores on cost reduction plan around 2009. However, she made tons of money on ESOP/PP and 401(k) that it actually turned out better w/ 99wk unemployment benefit.

Most of companies besides wmt, mcd, cab, and others do not own real estate or reit. They will just simply move out of the city ord. I've seen Dress barn does that. I've seen dollar tree do that for some different reasons. Near double the labor cost sure WILL get them out of the city which impose the 15/hr crap.

Although this sounds like labor econ heavy topic, but this is more of a microecon issue, and it will be soon.

I think this more a company's reaction to poor cash flow or earning, rather than pressures they face due to wage restrictions. There is definitely no right or wrong and your viewpoint has merit. But that is what is so geat about economics. It is part art and part science.

Are you planning to teach after you get your PhD?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Devant

Well this is the dichotomy between economic theory and it's practical application in the market. If the market could only bear pennies an hour in compensation of course no one would waste their time working that job and they would resort to being part of black market economy or just not working.

In Economics there is a form of the Heisenberg principle which states any effort to try to influence one sector of the economy will inevitably shift the values and behavior of all other parts of that economy, so unless you are looking at things in a vacuum (which is impossible) all you can do is predict the most plausible trends based on previous data and history.

Your story of the bid is certainly influenced by political pressures which the Economist in his pure form would not consider, but there it is..influencing and changing all other values.

I think the practice of not going below a floor when bidding in the same industry is a form of self preservation and in a crude sense, price fixing (albeit legally) driven again by what the market will bear. You would not install a floor for X dollars below a certain threshold. Now what happens when a new comer out bids everyone by consistently going below that threshold. Well that becomes a situation that either the market will tolerate (in which case many businesses would cease to be able to do business and would cease to exist) OR the gov't steps in to level the playing field.

Capitalism in its true form would eradicate a middle class and you really would end up with a society comprised of have and have nots.

Funny I have performed many A-133 audits, front and center is the Davis Bacon Act. It really has changed how contractors and sub-contractors calculate their direct labor costs, and more importantly, what they can bury in overhead and pass back as costs to their clients.

Granted, my experience is based just on that, my personal experience. Davis Bacon may have solved some issues for many trades, but for mine it serves to be bureaucratic BS at it's best. In my county, in FL, they only list one type of flooring installer, a tile setter, and his prevailing wage, according to the GOV, is $15.63/hour. The problem for me is that i use subcontractors who bid on the work for a lump sum. This turns the DBA for me, in to a paperwork aggravation. A must is keep track of how many people are on the job for how long.

Here is the kicker. My installation crew may decide they want to bring 5 helpers with them for this job. But for the amount they bid, and the number of people, and the number of hours they all work would net them an hourly wage lower than the DBA prevailing wage. So once again, the 5th helper gets to sit at home, not making any money for the 3 to 4 weeks the crew will be on the project.

I'm on the fence about your statement in bold, but only have personal theory to argue against it and sometimes that personal theory supports you statement. haha

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by grimlock

^
Once again Mr. Tonka brings the common sense.

No wonder I agree with BayMoWe

Devant, I have no idea if you are an actual Econ Phd.. but the stuff you say is so far from being correct it stretches plausibility..

I think the answer is somewhere in-between the basic common sense i posted and the theory Devant is studying. And to be fair to him, he fully admits there is a very real difference between unmolested pure theory and application of the theories. For as much experience i have in economic practice, i lack any kind of traditional theory and principle. If i had both, maybe i'd be much more of a commercial success.

Friendly discussions only garner more understanding and better ideas, which will always lead to better application.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I think the answer is somewhere in-between the basic common sense i posted and the theory Devant is studying. And to be fair to him, he fully admits there is a very real difference between unmolested pure theory and application of the theories. For as much experience i have in economic practice, i lack any kind of traditional theory and principle. If i had both, maybe i'd be much more of a commercial success.

Friendly discussions only garner more understanding and better ideas, which will always lead to better application.

The only thing I learnt studying econ at the undergraduate level is that it is something I want to have nothing further to do with it - however it had always been my favorite subject.
I'm sure you're more sucessful than most of the econ phds out there..