Remember that $70K salary experiment? Here's what happened over a year later

[Endus]

It has already been proven that for every $1.00/hr in wage increase, a business only has to charge $0.10 to offset the increased labor cost. Studies were done in areas that have raised the minimum wage.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, that really depends on the business' structure. Some businesses are heavy on labor costs. But in general, yes, payroll is typically not a huge proportion of a company's total budget.

But yes; it's silly to argue that a $15/hour min wage will make everything cost twice as much when you've got places that already have significantly higher minimum wages and don't see that big a price increase. We don't even have to rely on theory; we have actual real-world examples that it's a baseless claim.

[Kapadons]

It has already been proven that for every $1.00/hr in wage increase, a business only has to charge $0.10 to offset the increased labor cost. Studies were done in areas that have raised the minimum wage.

Maybe for a typical business. But not for restaurants.

That just doesn't seem to add up. 25% labor cost of net sales. Your figure assumes a 10% labor cost.

- - - Updated - - -

To play devil's advocate for a moment, that really depends on the business' structure. Some businesses are heavy on labor costs. But in general, yes, payroll is typically not a huge proportion of a company's total budget.

But yes; it's silly to argue that a $15/hour min wage will make everything cost twice as much when you've got places that already have significantly higher minimum wages and don't see that big a price increase. We don't even have to rely on theory; we have actual real-world examples that it's a baseless claim.

You're really just nitpicking the word "double". You and I have had this discussion before. We both acknowledge that prices will increase, more than likely in a direct correlation to what % they are already running. For some businesses, that increase will be relatively low, for others it will be a sizable chunk.

Personally, I don't see the huge push back to an increase. Everyone bitched when it went from 5.15 to 7.25 and as far as I'm aware, no businesses closed down. The only issue I can see is such a large increase needs to trickle up. People that make 15 an hour now need to make more to cover their increased cost of living.

[Gorgodeus]

Maybe for a typical business. But not for restaurants.

That just doesn't seem to add up. 25% labor cost of net sales. Your figure assumes a 10% labor cost.

I am not assuming anything. It has been proven. In your example,a fast food business goes from ~$7.50/hr to $15.00/hr. They are going to attract better, more productive workers, meaning they do not need quite as many workers. The studies have been done, and what I stated has held true thus far. There is some variance from the 10 cents, depending on the business, but it is pretty small.

[Captain N]

You need to see how much the cost of nuggets are. The most popular item.

20 Nuggets are still the same $5 they were a year ago.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I don't know, hard for me to trust that corporations will simply accept these new requirements and not try to still vacuum the excess up in their favor somehow.

I do agree that a higher wage could potentially bring in better workers but then, doesn't a mandatory wage increase mean even the shitty ones still get the same amount?

It's one of the reasons I quit Walmart. I was getting paid the same as anyone else with little in the way of raises. What raises we'd get, would be consumed by a yearly hike by one dollar meaning no matter how shit or great you were... you were all equal in pay. All the while I was taking on by far the majority of the expectations and work, to the point I was almost supervising without any sort of privileged position; simply because I was the only one really willing to do what I could and make the best of my time there.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm not like my grandfather. I absolutely loathe working for the same as others when I'm putting forth far more effort. Not without some sort of guarantee that it'll pay off minus me becoming corporate stooge. Maybe I don't want them 12 hour days, eh? Still would be nice to be recognized for what I do for them and get a kickback.

Hell, I don't even get desired time off because I made myself invaluable and therefore they need me for every goddamn holiday and weekend. While shit-fuck who does a fraction of the work and is a constant problem for management gets his Saturdays because why not? He's useless anyway.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So you want your BigMac and fries to be 30-40$?
Interesting.

I love the prevailing myth of the 40 dollar BigMac

[Logwyn]

20 Nuggets are still the same $5 they were a year ago.

I think that the 1 dollar drinks here have gone up to 1.50 in the Atlanta area.

[Lumineus]

20 Nuggets are still the same $5 they were a year ago.

Ten years ago. Twenty... even twenty-five years ago, really, they were the same five dollars. This is why McDonald's can't afford to pay its employees, right here. By all rights the 20pc should be twelve bucks by now, at least.

[Theinquisition]

I don't know, hard for me to trust that corporations will simply accept these new requirements and not try to still vacuum the excess up in their favor somehow.

I do agree that a higher wage could potentially bring in better workers but then, doesn't a mandatory wage increase mean even the shitty ones still get the same amount?

It's one of the reasons I quit Walmart. I was getting paid the same as anyone else with little in the way of raises. What raises we'd get, would be consumed by a yearly hike by one dollar meaning no matter how shit or great you were... you were all equal in pay. All the while I was taking on by far the majority of the expectations and work, to the point I was almost supervising without any sort of privileged position; simply because I was the only one really willing to do what I could and make the best of my time there.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm not like my grandfather. I absolutely loathe working for the same as others when I'm putting forth far more effort. Not without some sort of guarantee that it'll pay off minus me becoming corporate stooge. Maybe I don't want them 12 hour days, eh? Still would be nice to be recognized for what I do for them and get a kickback.

Hell, I don't even get desired time off because I made myself invaluable and therefore they need me for every goddamn holiday and weekend. While shit-fuck who does a fraction of the work and is a constant problem for management gets his Saturdays because why not? He's useless anyway.

I applaud you for being ambitious and realizing that your labor is worth more than what you were being compensated.

Instead of demanding that your employer pay you more, with a gov't gun to their heads, you moved on to a different occupation where your time would be better valued.

[tss]

The bad. All those people are now having kids. I am one who thinks the world is overpopulated now.

If anyone should be having kids it should be people who are stable and contribute to the economy. Of course, the trend is the complete opposite.

Funny how the feel-good "muh overpopulation" crowd never bothers to ask the inconvenient question of who is overpopulating. I'm sure most already know the answer but refuse to even acknowledge the question.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I applaud you for being ambitious and realizing that your labor is worth more than what you were being compensated.

Instead of demanding that your employer pay you more, with a gov't gun to their heads, you moved on to a different occupation where your time would be better valued.

That's just it though, the government hiking wages on everyone does not give me an advantage. It keeps me within the same bracket. Meaning all of my hard work isn't paying out. You know how fucking pissed I'd be if I made 15 USD at a job that I built towards where 10 USD is the starting pay and all the sudden everyone got bumped to 15 USD across the board? Kiss my ass!

Now if they moved me up to 20 USD, cool beans, but most companies won't do that. I'd have to "re-earn" all of my raises that were gone overnight and all so that the assholes at the top could simply figure out a new way by which the excess wealth will simply be funneled to them in the end effectively making my hard work null and void.

That's why I won't ever have the intention of merely working at a low-end job like that again. Fuck it. It's either ridiculously long hours as management or getting screwed over constantly as the core labor force. Not worth it if you have other options.

[Lumineus]

You know how fucking pissed I'd be if I made 15 USD at a job that I built towards where 10 USD is the starting pay and all the sudden everyone got bumped to 15 USD across the board? Kiss my ass!

...

I'd have to "re-earn" all of my raises that were gone overnight and all so that the assholes at the top could simply figure out a new way by which the excess wealth will simply be funneled to them in the end effectively making my hard work null and void.

The former attitude is what informs the latter experience. When labor has no power, management can do whatever it wants, and labor has no power because "I got mine, screw you" is the prevailing attitude.

[Captain N]

The former attitude is what informs the latter experience. When labor has no power, management can do whatever it wants, and labor has no power because "I got mine, screw you" is the prevailing attitude.

As a Union guy that type of attitude really makes me scratch my head. If more people fought for the worker instead of the employer we'd most likely see flourishing across all brackets. Unfortunately many of those "I got mine" types don't realize how very little they have in the grand scheme of things. It's almost sad that they think that raising the lowest levels of employment will hurt them...when in reality it gives them more negotiating power against their employers. Just an anecdote but as Chicago's minimum wage continues to climb towards $13/hour my Union negotiated a new contract with my employers giving us a 13% raise over the next few years. For me personally this raise alone boosted my daily rate of pay from $577 to $588 or to $65.39/hour based on a 9 hour day.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

As a Union guy that type of attitude really makes me scratch my head. If more people fought for the worker instead of the employer we'd most likely see flourishing across all brackets. Unfortunately many of those "I got mine" types don't realize how very little they have in the grand scheme of things. It's almost sad that they think that raising the lowest levels of employment will hurt them...when in reality it gives them more negotiating power against their employers. Just an anecdote but as Chicago's minimum wage continues to climb towards $13/hour my Union negotiated a new contract with my employers giving us a 13% raise over the next few years. For me personally this raise alone boosted my daily rate of pay from $577 to $588 or to $65.39/hour based on a 9 hour day.

No, it gives us less room for negotiation on an individual level. Try to convince me otherwise but I've seen it on the ground floor, both from a union and non-union perspective. Why should I work harder when the base minimum is consistently raised and through this process my employer often simply "melds" my earnings into these raises making them essentially pointless in the first place? It completely removes any real sense of merit from the equation.

I don't mind everyone getting a pay raise to meet the costs of living but it definitely has its negatives and that's because the assholes who run the show will never be satisfied. They will always try to undermine and work around it and it often ends up hurting those of us that work the hardest. Like again, prior pay raises being stuffed into these minimums being uplifted. That is complete and utter horseshit and these fuckless dicks will simply find a way to swallow up the excess wealth anyway making that uptick meaningless in the long run.

Until we somehow deal with the centralization of wealth within this country, we can't really counter the common man's plight.

[Captain N]

No, it gives us less room for negotiation on an individual level. Try to convince me otherwise but I've seen it on the ground floor, both from a union and non-union perspective.

Incorrect. Wage increases have always given more negotiating power to the individual -- It's why lawyers and doctors are not making the minimum wage. The more the bottom rises the more those in skilled trades can push for their own higher wages. Unless you're so bad at your job that you cannot negotiate for wages higher than that of a non-skilled employee this has always been the case throughout history.

I mean if you're going to argue that a place of business is going to hold onto employees who could just go do easier work for more or equal pay I really don't know what to tell you.

[BreakerOfWills]

wages have been artificially suppressed and prices still went up, When the wages go up there is no significant increase in price. At the very least a wage should stay commensurate with inflation.

Raise em till taxpayers dont have to subsidize billionaires profits.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Incorrect. Wage increases have always given more negotiating power to the individual -- It's why lawyers and doctors are not making the minimum wage. The more the bottom rises the more those in skilled trades can push for their own higher wages. Unless you're so bad at your job that you cannot negotiate for wages higher than that of a non-skilled employee this has always been the case throughout history.

I mean if you're going to argue that a place of business is going to hold onto employees who could just go do easier work for more or equal pay I really don't know what to tell you.

So now we're talking about another bracket of worker. In other words, fuck the little people that work at your local stores? Not to mention that doesn't give them more negotiating power anyway. All it does is give room for the idea that now a broader base has a higher income, they're entitled to an increase as well - anyone and everyone to the CEO on-up-high will think similarly of their own incomes. It's an unwinnable situation that keeps going around and around with everybody maintaining similar disparities betwixt one another.

Meanwhile inflation keeps climbing and outpacing our GDP stretching the value of the dollar further.

Why are we trying to put bandages on a gaping wound? That is what I am asking. There is clearly a much deeper problem here within our economic system but we're working around it instead of taking it on directly. Simply hiking up income across the board, over and over and over and over, won't change fuck all. It can actually hurt us in the long run.

[Captain N]

So now we're talking about another bracket of worker. In other words, fuck the little people that work at your local stores? Not to mention that doesn't give them more negotiating power anyway. All it does is give room for the idea that now a broader base has a higher income, they're entitled to an increase as well - anyone and everyone to the CEO on-up-high will think similarly of their own incomes. It's an unwinnable situation that keeps going around and around.

Are we shifting goal posts? Your argument was that people can't negotiate for better wages if the lowest employee gets a raise. Throughout history we've seen that to be the opposite. Are you seriously going to use the small business argument? Small business happens to flourish when the incomes of the people in its vicinity are higher as they can compete with box stores. People with more disposable income are more apt to spend in small businesses than box stores when they can afford it.

Nobody claimed that a CEO can't make more money in fact I addressed this in my initial post about flourishing across all brackets. The "I got mine" attitude is what holds back the working class. Instead of uniting we spend our time arguing that certain individuals should not be making certain wages.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Not really getting it. Sure the Ceo took a paycut and helped some of the workers by upping the salary. Most of the time you won't see a CEO do this. They're just too greedy to bother.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Are we shifting goal posts? Your argument was that people can't negotiate for better wages if the lowest employee gets a raise. Throughout history we've seen that to be the opposite. Are you seriously going to use the small business argument? Small business happens to flourish when the incomes of the people in its vicinity are higher as they can compete with box stores. People with more disposable income are more apt to spend in small businesses than box stores when they can afford it.

Nobody claimed that a CEO can't make more money in fact I addressed this in my initial post about flourishing across all brackets. The "I got mine" attitude is what holds back the working class. Instead of uniting we spend our time arguing that certain individuals should not be making certain wages.

Yes but if inflation and costs of goods rises up with the broad-based increase, then that will still likely not favor small businesses. Have to realize X amount of cents per item increase, across hundreds of grocery items for the common man, can mean a significant hike overall. You guys seem to fail to understand that even small, tiny increases to common goods can be detrimental in a larger sense. I go buy just a bag of apples? Sure, not a big deal. I go to buy what is typically 300-400 dollars worth of groceries? Different picture.

You're also, simultaneously, devaluing the dollar because if everyone from the grocery bagger to the CEO has an increased income then more money must be printed into existence to help drive this movement. Our GDP does have a finite potential; especially as population growth diminishes over time. So if the worth is continuously stretched, then doesn't each dollar thereafter have that much less impact and therefore helping to also negate these raise increases?

Meanwhile all of us know the bulk of it will simply centralize itself yet again. The biggest issue we're facing economically as a people is the fact that too few hold too much. Our government isn't active in breaking up businesses that are arguably a national security threat due to their sheer size while sadly, actually bailing them out despite legally questionable business ethics. Meanwhile small businesses come and go in the blink of an eye with no such considerations and they're the ones that can help, in the long-term, spread wealth through a more natural means.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really getting it. Sure the Ceo took a paycut and helped some of the workers by upping the salary. Most of the time you won't see a CEO do this. They're just too greedy to bother.

Right. If a CEO chooses to do it of his own accord, cool... but if you do it through government mandate do you really think they'll simply accept any loss of disparity? No, they'll get it back somehow, someway, while simultaneously lowering the value of our dollar as more must be flushed into the system to keep up with the increasing costs of doing business.

They're hinging too much on the idea that the CEO or shareholders will simply take the loss, they won't. They're far too greedy for that more often than not.