CEO cuts own pay, raises workers' salaries

The current federal MW is $7.25, undercunt. Can you do the math? My calculator says $10.10 would spell a 39% hike.

If you understood economics at all, you would know it is a discipline that teaches us how to make choices and measure trade-offs. I don't necessarily have a problem with those who argue for a higher minimum wage (for political or even "social justice" reasons) if they are intellectually honest and don't deny the negative side-effects. Just say in your opinion the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Others can disagree and explain why. If you have any economics training, you can point out flaws in the methodology of some of the studies done on the subject, assuming you know how to do it in good faith and on a professional level.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

That's what I've been saying all along. If only your dumb-as-shit sidekick IBMoron could understand this.....

Total bullshit. How is McDonalds going to outsource, you fucking mope. They'll go to total robotics before they do that... Originally Posted by WombRaider

You need to calm down, take a deep breath, and think before you post, undercunt. There are various ways McDonalds might outsource. For instance, if the minimum wage goes up in the US, they may increase the number of new restaurants they open in other countries while reducing the number they open here. If so, that would translate into fewer US jobs. And of course, if they go to "total robotics" as a result of rising wage costs, that is by definition a job killer, right?

It may be correct to suggest many service industries are less susceptible to outsourcing than are most manufacturing firms, but they are hardly immune to it.

.

I B Moron Originally Posted by shanm

Yes, U B Moron, shamman. Wages go up, and prices follow, shamman. Anytime there is an increase in the cost of delivering a commodity or service to the market, that cost is passed on to the consumer, shamman. For example, in 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour, and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola -- a non-essential commodity -- costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold. So, despite the mandatory minimum wage increases, that you stupidly claim are the end-all solution, there has been little real change in purchasing power since 1955 shamman.

Yes, U B Moron, shamman. Wages go up, and prices follow, shamman. Anytime there is an increase in the cost of delivering a commodity or service to the market, that cost is passed on to the consumer, shamman. For example, in 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour, and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola -- a non-essential commodity -- costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold. So, despite the mandatory minimum wage increases, that you stupidly claim are the end-all solution, there has been little real change in purchasing power since 1955 shamman.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Simplistic. And wrong.

"More generally, you need to be suspicious of the entire form of the argument. After all, if it were true that producers could just “pass the costs on” to consumers, this would raise the question of (a) why the new tax or regulatory burden bothers producers so much, and (b) why they don’t just raise prices now. The answer, of course, is that the current market price maximizes profits. If you raise prices, you’ll lose customers and make less money. That exact same logic applies if new taxes or fees come into play. What actually happens is a mix of higher prices, lower profit margins, and reduced consumption.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...o-consumers-2/

You can't just 'pass on' the increase to consumers. They won't buy the same amount at an increased price and your business will actually decrease.

Simplistic. And wrong.

"More generally, you need to be suspicious of the entire form of the argument. After all, if it were true that producers could just “pass the costs on” to consumers, this would raise the question of (a) why the new tax or regulatory burden bothers producers so much, and (b) why they don’t just raise prices now. The answer, of course, is that the current market price maximizes profits. If you raise prices, you’ll lose customers and make less money. That exact same logic applies if new taxes or fees come into play. What actually happens is a mix of higher prices, lower profit margins, and reduced consumption.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...o-consumers-2/

You can't just 'pass on' the increase to consumers. They won't buy the same amount at an increased price and your business will actually decrease. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The consumers were mandated a pay raise giving them more dollars which they use to pay for the commodity at the increased price, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So yes, the costs are passed on to the consumer, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Between 1955 and 2015 the value of a Coke to the consumer didn't change, just its price changed, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The consumers were mandated a pay raise giving them more dollars which they use to pay for the commodity at the increased price, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. So yes, the costs are passed on to the consumer, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Where the fuck do you get that? Mandated a pay raise? The consumers? Which consumers? Every consumer everywhere? In the entire world? What school did you get your degree in economics from again? That's right, Hooker U. Get the fuck out of here. You're a fucking punchline. I bet your mom wishes she could have gotten that hanger JUST a bit further in that one time, huh

Yes, U B Moron, shamman. Wages go up, and prices follow, shamman. Anytime there is an increase in the cost of delivering a commodity or service to the market, that cost is passed on to the consumer, shamman. For example, in 1955 the first Federal minimum wage was set at 75ȼ per hour, and a six ounce bottle of Coca Cola -- a non-essential commodity -- costs 5ȼ. Today, the Federal minimum wage is set at $7.25, and a twenty ounce Coca Cola costs $1.60. The increase in minimum wage is approximately ten fold, and the increase in the cost of a Coca Cola is also approximately ten fold. So, despite the mandatory minimum wage increases, that you stupidly claim are the end-all solution, there has been little real change in purchasing power since 1955 shamman.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Let me give you an example. By god, I made this as simple as I could, so if you still don't get it you are seriously dumber than a bucket of shit.

Let's keep Coca-cola in this one. They make $10 million/year in this hypothetical situation selling only coca cola bottles priced at $10/bottle. The 10 million is distributed like this: $9 million to corporate and $1 million to a 100,000 workers making a $10/hour minimum wage.
Now let's say the minimum wage rises to $20 an hour. Now the workers are collectively being paid $2 million at minimum wage. To keep the payments to corporate EXACTLY the same ($9 Million) AND pay the workers $2 million, coca cola has to increase their price to only $11/bottle to make $11 million. This is of course, considering that demand for coca-cola won't go down at $11/bottle. Even if it does, there is a certain leeway that will be made by reducing corporate payments and meeting in the middle (try going down to demand 950,000).The people making a higher minimum wage will also be spending, not only on Coca-Cola, but on other products that will stimulate the economy to produce more and grow more. So tell me again how an increase in minimum wage will cause an exactly proportionate increase in "commodity prices"? The point to be taken here is: since min-wage workers account for less (much much less) than 100% of the cost of a commodity, an increase in their costs DOES NOT result in a simultaneous and equal increase in the price of the product.

In your example, you are confusing regular inflation and tying it directly to an increase in minimum wage, which, honestly is hilarious beyond belief. If I put you in front of a bunch of economists right now they would piss their pants laughing at you. That's nothing new to you though, is it?

Where the fuck do you get that? Mandated a pay raise? The consumers? Which consumers? Every consumer everywhere? In the entire world? What school did you get your degree in economics from again? That's right, Hooker U. Get the fuck out of here. You're a fucking punchline. I bet your mom wishes she could have gotten that hanger JUST a bit further in that one time, huh Originally Posted by WombRaider

Suffice it to say that you're a stupid mutha fucker if you cannot comprehend that a government mandated minimum wage is mandated by the fuckin' government, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Notice how Coke is extracting almost exactly the same value -- the price set by the market -- for their product that they asked for in 1955 even though the price is ten times higher, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. A minimum wage contributes to inflated wages and costs, but really doesn't increase the purchasing power of the minimum wage earner in the long run, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Let me give you an example. By god, I made this as simple as I could, so if you still don't get it you are seriously dumber than a bucket of shit.

Let's keep Coca-cola in this one. They make $10 million/year in this hypothetical situation selling only coca cola bottles priced at $10/bottle. The 10 million is distributed like this: $9 million to corporate and $1 million to a 100,000 workers making a $10/hour minimum wage.
Now let's say the minimum wage rises to $20 an hour. Now the workers are collectively being paid $2 million at minimum wage. To keep the payments to corporate EXACTLY the same ($9 Million) AND pay the workers $2 million, coca cola has to increase their price to only $11/bottle to make $11 million. This is of course, considering that demand for coca-cola won't go down at $11/bottle. Even if it does, there is a certain leeway that will be made by reducing corporate payments and meeting in the middle (try going down to demand 950,000).The people making a higher minimum wage will also be spending, not only on Coca-Cola but on other products that will stimulate the economy to produce more and grow more. So tell me again how an increase in minimum wage cause an exactly proportionate increase in "commodity prices"? The point to be taken here is: since min-wage workers account for less (much much less) than 100% of the cost of a commodity, an increase in their costs DOES NOT result in a simultaneous and equal increase in the price of the product.

In your example, you are confusing regular inflation and tying it directly to an increase in minimum wage, which, honestly is hilarious beyond belief. If I put you in front of a bunch of economists right now they would piss their pants laughing at you. That's nothing new to you though, is it? Originally Posted by shanm

Suffice it to say that you're a stupid mutha fucker if you cannot comprehend that a government mandated minimum wage is mandated by the fuckin' government, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're wasting your time. This guy is dumber than hammered shit. What he's assuming is that minimum wage earners are a large part of the buying public, which they aren't.

"So what happens when the minimum wage is increased? Consider the situation in restaurants that have a middle-income clientele. Restaurant owners, facing a higher wage bill, would like to pass the costs on to their customers. But their customers are people whose incomes have not been affected much, if at all, by the higher minimum wage. So if prices at the restaurants go up, these people will buy less and the restaurants will now lose some profits. They may raise prices a bit, but not much. Whatever they do, the restaurant owners will have to, if you’ll pardon the term, eat some of the increased costs.

The point is that, with the increase of the minimum wage, firms that face higher costs cannot maintain profits simply by raising prices regardless of demand for their products. While the increase of the minimum wage will increase demand for those products purchased by low-income people, it will not yield an equal increase in demand for all products."


http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/...14macewan.html


Get a fucking clue you dumbshit. BTW, I would love to see him piss and shit himself in front of real economists.

Suffice it to say that you're a stupid mutha fucker if you cannot comprehend that a government mandated minimum wage is mandated by the fuckin' government, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Notice how Coke is extracting almost exactly the same value -- the price set by the market -- for their product that they asked for in 1955 even though the price is ten times higher, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. A minimum wage contributes to inflated wages and costs, but really doesn't increase the purchasing power of the minimum wage earner in the long run, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Increasing minimum wage has NOTHING to do with inflation. Any economist will tell you that. Goddamn, you're dumb. Same value? Who gives a shit? You're conflating a lot of different terms that don't have anything to do with one another. Minimum wage earners are roughly numbered at a little under 4 million people. That's less than FIVE percent of the workforce you fucking moron. FIVE!

You're wasting your time. This guy is dumber than hammered shit. . Originally Posted by WombRaider

In addition he is also completely blind. Has no idea who he is replying to in post 68.

Let me give you an example. By god, I made this as simple as I could, so if you still don't get it you are seriously dumber than a bucket of shit.

Let's keep Coca-cola in this one. They make $10 million/year in this hypothetical situation selling only coca cola bottles priced at $10/bottle. The 10 million is distributed like this: $9 million to corporate and $1 million to a 100,000 workers making a $10/hour minimum wage.
Now let's say the minimum wage rises to $20 an hour. Now the workers are collectively being paid $2 million at minimum wage. To keep the payments to corporate EXACTLY the same ($9 Million) AND pay the workers $2 million, coca cola has to increase their price to only $11/bottle to make $11 million. This is of course, considering that demand for coca-cola won't go down at $11/bottle. Even if it does, there is a certain leeway that will be made by reducing corporate payments and meeting in the middle (try going down to demand 950,000).The people making a higher minimum wage will also be spending, not only on Coca-Cola, but on other products that will stimulate the economy to produce more and grow more. So tell me again how an increase in minimum wage will cause an exactly proportionate increase in "commodity prices"? The point to be taken here is: since min-wage workers account for less (much much less) than 100% of the cost of a commodity, an increase in their costs DOES NOT result in a simultaneous and equal increase in the price of the product.

In your example, you are confusing regular inflation and tying it directly to an increase in minimum wage, which, honestly is hilarious beyond belief. If I put you in front of a bunch of economists right now they would piss their pants laughing at you. That's nothing new to you though, is it? Originally Posted by shanm

Between 1955 and 2015 the value of a Coke to the American consumer didn't change, just its price changed, shamman. In a Central American country, shamman, you can still buy a Coke for a quarter or less. So it's evident that the law of supply and demand is alive and well everywhere but in your pointed, lib-retarded little head, shamman.

You're wasting your time. This guy is dumber than hammered shit. What he's assuming is that minimum wage earners are a large part of the buying public, which they aren't.

"So what happens when the minimum wage is increased? Consider the situation in restaurants that have a middle-income clientele. Restaurant owners, facing a higher wage bill, would like to pass the costs on to their customers. But their customers are people whose incomes have not been affected much, if at all, by the higher minimum wage. So if prices at the restaurants go up, these people will buy less and the restaurants will now lose some profits. They may raise prices a bit, but not much. Whatever they do, the restaurant owners will have to, if you’ll pardon the term, eat some of the increased costs.

The point is that, with the increase of the minimum wage, firms that face higher costs cannot maintain profits simply by raising prices regardless of demand for their products. While the increase of the minimum wage will increase demand for those products purchased by low-income people, it will not yield an equal increase in demand for all products."

http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/...14macewan.html

Get a fucking clue you dumbshit. BTW, I would love to see him piss and shit himself in front of real economists. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're the dumb fuck that won't acknowledge the inflationary domino effect that a mandatory minimum wage has on the whole market, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Increasing minimum wage has NOTHING to do with inflation. Any economist will tell you that. Goddamn, you're dumb. Same value? Who gives a shit? You're conflating a lot of different terms that don't have anything to do with one another. Minimum wage earners are roughly numbered at a little under 4 million people. That's less than FIVE percent of the workforce you fucking moron. FIVE! Originally Posted by WombRaider

And you'd be stupid and lying again, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. The economic term is "Wage Push Inflation", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

In addition he is also completely blind. Has no idea who he is replying to in post 68. Originally Posted by shanm

And as quoted by the "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas @ #69 & #70, shamman.

It's simple supply and demand, not inflation. More money in your hand creates more demand for goods, which in turn drives up the prices of those goods. Has nothing to do with inflation or minimum wage. It happens at every economic level. Using your logic, we should never increase anyone's pay, ever.

PS - got any answers? Or just problems?

It's simple supply and demand, not inflation. More money in your hand creates more demand for goods, which in turn drives up the prices of those goods. Has nothing to do with inflation or minimum wage. It happens at every economic level. Using your logic, we should never increase anyone's pay, ever.

PS - got any answers? Or just problems? Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's inflationary wages that contributed to the inflated price of a Coke in the U.S., you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. For decades, Coke was able to keep its prices low because of technological and marketing innovations, but eventually the cost of labor associated with producing its product and associated with the costs of its supplies forced Coke to increase its price, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Just a reminder, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the economic term is "Wage Push Inflation", and it refers to any increase in price brought on by increased labor costs, i.e., minimum wage requirement.

It's inflationary wages that contributed to the inflated price of a Coke in the U.S., you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. For decades, Coke was able to keep its prices low because of technological and marketing innovations, but eventually the cost of labor associated with producing its product and associated with the costs of its supplies forced Coke to increase its price, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Just a reminder, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the economic term is "Wage Push Inflation", and it refers to any increase in price brought on by increased labor costs, i.e., minimum wage requirement.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Do you have a goddamn answer? The fact that you admit Coke was able to keep the price low, despite wages rising in the meantime, shows you're full of shit when you say it ALWAYS correlates to an increase in price. It doesn't. Not always.

And you still haven't admitted that minimum wage earners make up less than 5 percent of the workforce.