Mitt Romney backs minimum wage hike

[Hotdoger]

" A large french fry costs us on average 2 cents the cardboard holder for the fries costs more that the fries by a little over one cent. So it costs us 5 cents for something we charge you $2.14 for or so. That is a 4200% profit so the prices of food would not need to go up in order to continue to make a profit."

What?
Where do you get the fries alone cost ' a little over 1cent " order?
4200?????
Yea oil, salt, ketchup, transportation, equipment and every thing else is free.......

You have no real idea what food costs really are! .........

 

[caverjamie]

Dean BK example is definitely interesting. I do agree with Hotdoger though that there are other costs that have to be factored in to figure out how much profit is actually being made. Even if all that gets divided out between everything purchased, I would still think the profit would be pretty high with the fries example considering the original cost of materials versus cost of the final product. I don't know how that helps anyone in this example though either - if you raise the minimum wage - it's not like you can force BK to redirect profit to wages rather than just raise prices further. Fast food prices are so cheap relative to "good" food, that people will probably still pay up.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If there was that kind of money making, profit potential in french fries, there'd be french fry shops all over town, on every street corner, "everybody" would be looking to cash in. I don't know if BK, McDonald's, or Wendy's could afford to pay more for labor. The fact is they don't have to. But all these fast food places, just like most all of us would do if we were running a business, will seek to minimize all costs associated with their businesses.

It's a sad day when our economy has degraded to such a level that there are so many people have to settle for such low-paying jobs and then turn to the government to force the employers to artificially raise their standard of living.

 

[MisterChester]

If there was that kind of money making, profit potential in french fries, there'd be french fry shops all over town, on every street corner, "everybody" would be looking to cash in. I don't know if BK, McDonald's, or Wendy's could afford to pay more for labor. The fact is they don't have to. But all these fast food places, just like most all of us would do if we were running a business, will seek to minimize all costs associated with their businesses.

It's a sad day when our economy has degraded to such a level that there are so many people have to settle for such low-paying jobs and then turn to the government to force the employers to artificially raise their standard of living.

Some people can only work minimum wage jobs, and it costs a lot of money to live. They turn to the government to force employers to pay more or they get it from government. We should eliminate the problem of people needing that kind of assistance altogether. If wages had kept with inflation, or pegged to purchasing power, there would be much less of a need for assistance.

That money is going to come from the government or the business owner. If the business owner doesn't, you know the government will. Who should pay? Answer is nobody, it shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the market should weed out the lesser paying jobs if nobody wants to work it. But we don't see that happening.

 

[jamil]

Some people can only work minimum wage jobs, and it costs a lot of money to live. They turn to the government to force employers to pay more or they get it from government. We should eliminate the problem of people needing that kind of assistance altogether. If wages had kept with inflation, or pegged to purchasing power, there would be much less of a need for assistance.

That money is going to come from the government or the business owner. If the business owner doesn't, you know the government will. Who should pay? Answer is nobody, it shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the market should weed out the lesser paying jobs if nobody wants to work it. But we don't see that happening.

When the unemployment rate was 5.5% we didn't have many of these discussions. So why isn't the unemployment rate 5.5% now? Because the economy tanked and people stopped buying ****. Financiers stopped financing ****. Companies stopped reinvesting. Why did it tank? The housing/credit bubble. Why did we have a housing/credit bubble? Because the government guaranteed loans to people who couldn't afford them.

 

[Arthur Dent]

It didn't start because companies ar just sitting on piles of cash.

How do you suggest fixing unemployment and low wages? Wages have remained pretty much stagnant for the middle class for the last forty years and their buying power has decrease due to inflation. Keeping that in mind, how nonsensical is it that companies continue to cut their own throats by not hiring at decent wages to increase their own sales? Are the people who have no money to buy supposed to make the first move and start buying? In which case when it all comes crashing down once more we will start to hear the morons start bleating about people "living beyond their means" all over again. You want people to buy, save, and live within their means but don't seem to be of the mind that perhaps they should be paid enough to be able to do those things. If your only objection is the price of french fries at McDonald's are going to be five cents higher, what's the big deal? You shouldn't be eating there anyway. That food is terrible for you.

 

[Arthur Dent]

When the unemployment rate was 5.5% we didn't have many of these discussions. So why isn't the unemployment rate 5.5% now? Because the economy tanked and people stopped buying ****. Financiers stopped financing ****. Companies stopped reinvesting. Why did it tank? The housing/credit bubble. Why did we have a housing/credit bubble? Because the government guaranteed loans to people who couldn't afford them.

People could afford their homes. But it's hard to do so when your employer decides a layoff is in order because that stock price wasn't quite high enough.

 

[jamil]

How do you suggest fixing unemployment and low wages? Wages have remained pretty much stagnant for the middle class for the last forty years and their buying power has decrease due to inflation. Keeping that in mind, how nonsensical is it that companies continue to cut their own throats by not hiring at decent wages to increase their own sales? Are the people who have no money to buy supposed to make the first move and start buying? In which case when it all comes crashing down once more we will start to hear the morons start bleating about people "living beyond their means" all over again. You want people to buy, save, and live within their means but don't seem to be of the mind that perhaps they should be paid enough to be able to do those things. If your only objection is the price of french fries at McDonald's are going to be five cents higher, what's the big deal? You shouldn't be eating there anyway. That food is terrible for you.

Considering the typical whining about corporate profits, do you honestly think this is really a good argument?

Are you actually suggesting people weren't living beyond their means? Average unsecured debt was higher than average income! You know what people typically do when they want what they can't afford? They buy it on credit.

So whose responsibility is it to make sure people have high enough wages?

People could afford their homes. But it's hard to do so when your employer decides a layoff is in order because that stock price wasn't quite high enough.

Heh, you're serious? Why do you think they called them toxic loans?

 

[Arthur Dent]

Considering the typical whining about corporate profits, do you honestly think this is really a good argument?

Are you actually suggesting people weren't living beyond their means? Average unsecured debt was higher than average income! You know what people typically do when they want what they can't afford? They buy it on credit.

So whose responsibility is it to make sure people have high enough wages?



Heh, you're serious? Why do you think they called them toxic loans?

It's a valid argument on corporate profits. I don't begrudge them their profits, so long as they earned them and didn't get them by screwing their workers. Feeling beholden to shareholders is what has caused this economy we currently have. Corporations won't hire until demand picks up, people can't buy until they have a job. Who's going to flinch first?

The toxic loans were made by the banks, which the government bailed out with OUR money. Don't tell me you're defending the institutions that caused this.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Some people can only work minimum wage jobs, and it costs a lot of money to live. They turn to the government to force employers to pay more or they get it from government. We should eliminate the problem of people needing that kind of assistance altogether. If wages had kept with inflation, or pegged to purchasing power, there would be much less of a need for assistance.

That money is going to come from the government or the business owner. If the business owner doesn't, you know the government will. Who should pay? Answer is nobody, it shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because the market should weed out the lesser paying jobs if nobody wants to work it. But we don't see that happening.

And if they didnt have cells phones, fancy cars, cable and internet they might be able to afford to live. I have done the math for myself, if two adults in my house work minimum wage jobs at 40 hours a week we can get by if we cut out all the extras like cell phones, cable/internet and extra vehicles. That includes still having a mortgage on a house.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

" A large french fry costs us on average 2 cents the cardboard holder for the fries costs more that the fries by a little over one cent. So it costs us 5 cents for something we charge you $2.14 for or so. That is a 4200% profit so the prices of food would not need to go up in order to continue to make a profit."

What?
Where do you get the fries alone cost ' a little over 1cent " order?
4200?????
Yea oil, salt, ketchup, transportation, equipment and every thing else is free.......

You have no real idea what food costs really are! .........

We did this before. McDonald's could raise wages to $15 an hour and in order to keep the same profits as today a value meal would need to go up less than 30 cents.

 

[firehawk1]

The toxic loans were made by the banks, which the government bailed out with OUR money. Don't tell me you're defending the institutions that caused this.

Wasn't it the government that FORCED the banks to make those loans...

 

[Arthur Dent]

Wasn't it the government that FORCED the banks to make those loans...

No, the government asked them to.

 

[jamil]

It's a valid argument on corporate profits. I don't begrudge them their profits, so long as they earned them and didn't get them by screwing their workers. Feeling beholden to shareholders is what has caused this economy we currently have. Corporations won't hire until demand picks up, people can't buy until they have a job. Who's going to flinch first?

The toxic loans were made by the banks, which the government bailed out with OUR money. Don't tell me you're defending the institutions that caused this.

Of course I don't support companies "screwing their workers". Since you brought that up in the context of minimum wage, should I assume that you think "screwing their workers" means paying them the least that they can. Isn't that what we all try to do? We bargain for the best deal? In economic slumps, it's an employer's market, and salaries tend to stagnate or fall. In expansion years, it's an employee's market, and salaries tend to rise.

And it's not a flinching contest. It's just typical cyclical economic stuff. As I said before, people weren't *****ing so much about minimum wage when the employment rate was 5.5%. Eventually, the economy will get better. It'd get better a lot faster though without a government so eager to stifle it with all the ****ed up policies.

No, the government asked them to.

No, the government gave lenders incentive to give loan money to people who couldn't really afford it. And I'm not defending the lenders. They share in the blame. They were greedy. They took advantage of the government programs and took them further than was intended. They shouldn't have been rewarded for making decisions that would bankrupt them if they weren't bailed out. And we shouldn't have bailed them out.

 

[Clarity]

I haven't seen anyone mention globalism. Everyone is quick to blame greedy business and bad policy -- neither is in short supply. But the real root cause is globalism. Simply put, if you can pay a Bangladeshi $2.00 per day to make shirts, you either (1) do that and lower your costs to compete against the other companies that are doing that, or (2) you promote a "Buy American" policy that few consumers will ascribe to, or (3) you go out of business, or (4) you play the crony capitalism game, and get some special treatment or bailout. Same goes with cars, electronics, etc. Globalism leads to the off-shoring of jobs that used to be middle class jobs, creating more applicants for lower-skilled jobs, which reduces the worker's ability to demand higher wages. Democrat policies have been complicit by offering goodies out of the treasury to buy votes, thereby effectively subsidizing the workforce at Wal-Mart, et al. (see aforementioned crony capitalism). Republicans have done their share too.

The problem with raising the minimum wage is that it will drive more jobs off-shore, push companies to adopt technologies to eliminate workers, and ultimately reduce the number of minimum wage jobs. That puts more people on government programs and unemployment.

The US has the most productive workforce in the world. I say eliminate the corporate tax altogether to incentivize companies to produce here. Focus on the individual tax rates to make up the revenue. Truth is, not that much revenue comes from corporate taxes. Large corporations are very adept a shifting earnings to less taxing jurisdictions. We should encourage companies to earn here.

 

[Lex Concord]

Anyone who wonders why this country "is where it is" economically need only read this thread.

The incredible misunderstanding of basic economic principles exhibited by many of those posting here paints a vivid and frightening picture.

Quick, how do we make more revenue? Hire more people and make more product to increase demand. Or maybe we could just pay people with truckloads of cash...then they'll buy our stuff. Maybe we should, instead, insist on price ceilings for goods. Better yet, let's pull Bernanke out of retirement and finally give him his helicopter (Correction: it seems "Helicopter Ben" is not retired, but has gainful employment at the Brookings Institution).

The wage is a price for labor, which is just another commodity. Only the market - diverse, anonymous, personally interested, and making literally millions of dissociated value judgements each day - can set a price of any value/merit for any commodity.

Any politician, philosopher, or planner who thinks he can pick "the right" price for a commodity, whether corn, pork bellies, crude oil, or a man's labor is, at best, a drunk playing darts.

Pumping the circulation of "money" in the system via the minimum wage would be no more economically beneficial than confiscating the sum of said increased wage directly from the companies forced to pay it and dumping portions of it in various denominations on the streets of our cities. That is to say, no real benefit would be accrued.

The minimum wage is a price floor on the commodity known as labor. Generally speaking (barring other factors in the market in question), price floors lead to surplus. A labor surplus is called unemployment. My kids understand this stuff.

Maybe we should eliminate the minimum wage and move toward something that resembles a free market.

 

[Henry]

Anyone who wonders why this country "is where it is" economically need only read this thread.

The incredible misunderstanding of basic economic principles exhibited by many of those posting here paints a vivid and frightening picture.

Quick, how do we make more revenue? Hire more people and make more product to increase demand. Or maybe we could just pay people with truckloads of cash...then they'll buy our stuff. Maybe we should, instead, insist on price ceilings for goods. Better yet, let's pull Bernanke out of retirement and finally give him his helicopter (Correction: it seems "Helicopter Ben" is not retired, but has gainful employment at the Brookings Institution).

The wage is a price for labor, which is just another commodity. Only the market - diverse, anonymous, personally interested, and making literally millions of dissociated value judgements each day - can set a price of any value/merit for any commodity.

Any politician, philosopher, or planner who thinks he can pick "the right" price for a commodity, whether corn, pork bellies, crude oil, or a man's labor is, at best, a drunk playing darts.

Pumping the circulation of "money" in the system via the minimum wage would be no more economically beneficial than confiscating the sum of said increased wage directly from the companies forced to pay it and dumping portions of it in various denominations on the streets of our cities. That is to say, no real benefit would be accrued.

The minimum wage is a price floor on the commodity known as labor. Generally speaking (barring other factors in the market in question), price floors lead to surplus. A labor surplus is called unemployment. My kids understand this stuff.

Maybe we should eliminate the minimum wage and move toward something that resembles a free market.

AMEN!

 

[ATOMonkey]

Anyone who wonders why this country "is where it is" economically need only read this thread.

The incredible misunderstanding of basic economic principles exhibited by many of those posting here paints a vivid and frightening picture.

Quick, how do we make more revenue? Hire more people and make more product to increase demand. Or maybe we could just pay people with truckloads of cash...then they'll buy our stuff. Maybe we should, instead, insist on price ceilings for goods. Better yet, let's pull Bernanke out of retirement and finally give him his helicopter (Correction: it seems "Helicopter Ben" is not retired, but has gainful employment at the Brookings Institution).

The wage is a price for labor, which is just another commodity. Only the market - diverse, anonymous, personally interested, and making literally millions of dissociated value judgements each day - can set a price of any value/merit for any commodity.

Any politician, philosopher, or planner who thinks he can pick "the right" price for a commodity, whether corn, pork bellies, crude oil, or a man's labor is, at best, a drunk playing darts.

Pumping the circulation of "money" in the system via the minimum wage would be no more economically beneficial than confiscating the sum of said increased wage directly from the companies forced to pay it and dumping portions of it in various denominations on the streets of our cities. That is to say, no real benefit would be accrued.

The minimum wage is a price floor on the commodity known as labor. Generally speaking (barring other factors in the market in question), price floors lead to surplus. A labor surplus is called unemployment. My kids understand this stuff.

Maybe we should eliminate the minimum wage and move toward something that resembles a free market.

Post of the year material here.

The thing that I find really disturbing is that Keynesians are trying to pin their philosophy on austrians now, to justify the "borrow your way to prosperity" philosophy.

Very few really understand currency either, but that's another thread.

 

[nickf2005]

All this talk about technology replacing human labor... somebody has to develop and maintain that technology that wasn't there before. I bet that's not a minimum wage job.

Just the same as a robot doing an assembly process. No, Joe isn't welding 10 hours a day anymore, but if he would learn a new skill, he could program the robot to do it. However, Joe is gonna complain about losing his job to a robot, so Bob reaps the benefits and gets a $65k/year job.

 

[steveh_131]

Anyone who wonders why this country "is where it is" economically need only read this thread.

The incredible misunderstanding of basic economic principles exhibited by many of those posting here paints a vivid and frightening picture.

Quick, how do we make more revenue? Hire more people and make more product to increase demand. Or maybe we could just pay people with truckloads of cash...then they'll buy our stuff. Maybe we should, instead, insist on price ceilings for goods. Better yet, let's pull Bernanke out of retirement and finally give him his helicopter (Correction: it seems "Helicopter Ben" is not retired, but has gainful employment at the Brookings Institution).

The wage is a price for labor, which is just another commodity. Only the market - diverse, anonymous, personally interested, and making literally millions of dissociated value judgements each day - can set a price of any value/merit for any commodity.

Any politician, philosopher, or planner who thinks he can pick "the right" price for a commodity, whether corn, pork bellies, crude oil, or a man's labor is, at best, a drunk playing darts.

Pumping the circulation of "money" in the system via the minimum wage would be no more economically beneficial than confiscating the sum of said increased wage directly from the companies forced to pay it and dumping portions of it in various denominations on the streets of our cities. That is to say, no real benefit would be accrued.

The minimum wage is a price floor on the commodity known as labor. Generally speaking (barring other factors in the market in question), price floors lead to surplus. A labor surplus is called unemployment. My kids understand this stuff.

Maybe we should eliminate the minimum wage and move toward something that resembles a free market.

Quoting this again so the thick-skulled don't miss it.