PDA

View Full Version : Low Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $153 Billion A Year



Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 02:06 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/low-wages-cost-taxpayers-153-billion_n_7055202.html


When thousands of low-wage workers across the country protest low pay on Wednesday, they won't only be fighting for the millions of workers who flip our burgers, stock our grocery shelves and take care of our kids. They'll be fighting for a monumental shift in the American economy that could save taxpayers billions of dollars.

Poverty wages cost U.S. taxpayers about $153 billion each year, according to a recent report from the University of California, Berkeley. That's because, when families depend on low-wage jobs to survive, they're forced to rely on government programs like Medicaid and food stamps to make ends meet.

The Berkeley report looks at how much states and the federal government are spending on programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. The report found that the federal government spends about $127.8 billion per year, and states collectively spend about $25 billion per year, on public assistance programs for working families.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is stalled at a paltry $7.25 an hour. A parent working full-time at that rate over the course of the year won't bring in enough money to live above the poverty line for a family of two, which means leaning on government assistance.

So when a company like McDonald's, for instance, pays a worker the minimum wage, you, the taypayer, end up subsidizing her pay. A 2013 analysis from the National Employment Law Project found that the 10 largest fast food companies cost taxpayers about $3.8 billion per year.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FastFoodUPDATE.png?random=1429016335850
Infographic by Alissa Scheller for the Huffington Post

More than half of fast-food workers rely on public assistance, in fact. But that's not the only sector desperate for a raise. The Berkeley report also found that child-care and home-care workers also rely on public assistance to get by.

On April 15, workers across the U.S. are planning to protest for better pay and union representation for low-wage workers. The protests are being organized by Fight for 15, a national labor movement fighting to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Here's a look at what percentage of low-wage workers across the following fields rely on public assistance:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2831340/original.jpg?random=1429016335849p

Many low-wage employers, from Walmart to McDonald's, have announced pay raises in recent months, but workers say it isn't enough. For example, McDonald's plan to raise wages by 10 percent will only affect a small percentage of the company's workers. Most McDonald's workers are employed by franchisees, and the company has said it can't control how those workers are paid.
.....................

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 05:10 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/low-wages-cost-taxpayers-153-billion_n_7055202.html


.....................

Ridiculous...This statement is based on the fact that a family cannot live on one minimum wage salary. I agree with that. So, you do what people who want to take care of their families do. You get a second job, if necessary. These jobs were never intended as household sustaining jobs.

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 05:13 PM
Ridiculous...This statement is based on the fact that a family cannot live on one minimum wage salary. I agree with that. So, you do what people who want to take care of their families do. You get a second job, if necessary. These jobs were never intended as household sustaining jobs.

So... you're defending companies who pass payroll responsibilities onto the tax payers? I got some packets of hot sauce for you to put on those boots that you're licking if you want some. A little flavor might make the experience more pleasurable.

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 05:37 PM
So... you're defending companies who pass payroll responsibilities onto the tax payers? I got some packets of hot sauce for you to put on those boots that you're licking if you want some. A little flavor might make the experience more pleasurable.

I'd rather pay my taxes to those who are making an effort than to those who aren't. At least those working at McDs are making the effort.

More importantly, though, it's not on the company to provide support for a family. It's on the parents. Fast food places have been minimum wage for years. Traditionally they were high school student jobs. Those students were more than happy to be making minimum wage to go out for the weekend, put some gas in the car, get Hobo Joe to buy them some beer.

The companies haven't changed. What has changed is the people who get jobs at those companies. So why should the business fork out more money to its employees?

If I pay a kid down the street 20 bucks to mow my lawn once a week, then his dad decides he wants to start mowing my lawn to make a little extra money, does that mean I should start paying more than $20 because Dad needs to support his family? Or does that mean that Dad better find additional lawns to mow?

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 05:39 PM
So... you're defending companies who pass payroll responsibilities onto the tax payers?

So... you're defending men and women who pass their personal responsibilities onto the tax payers?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 05:47 PM
I'd rather pay my taxes to those who are making an effort than to those who aren't. At least those working at McDs are making the effort.

Or how about McD's paying them, so that taxpayers don't have to? Why should McD's be allowed to dig into our money to supplement their payroll?


More importantly, though, it's not on the company to provide support for a family. It's on the parents. Fast food places have been minimum wage for years. Traditionally they were high school student jobs. Those students were more than happy to be making minimum wage to go out for the weekend, put some gas in the car, get Hobo Joe to buy them some beer.

And the buying power of minimum wage has been steady declining over the past 50 years, as it does not keep up with inflation.


The companies haven't changed. What has changed is the people who get jobs at those companies. So why should the business fork out more money to its employees?

So that we don't have to do it for them. Or do you really feel that bad for these Fortune 50 companies that you're willing to shell out money for them?


If I pay a kid down the street 20 bucks to mow my lawn once a week, then his dad decides he wants to start mowing my lawn to make a little extra money, does that mean I should start paying more than $20 because Dad needs to support his family? Or does that mean that Dad better find additional lawns to mow?

One-time service fee and wage. Two different things.

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 05:50 PM
So... you're defending men and women who pass their personal responsibilities onto the tax payers?

SJ, if you like this post, you just contradicted yourself. You previously praised those who were at least working, instead of not.

That being said, what USN-Retired is saying isn't the case. These people working at Walmart and McDonald's COULD choose not to work at all. But they didn't.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 05:55 PM
So that we don't have to do it for them. Or do you really feel that bad for these Fortune 50 companies that you're willing to shell out money for them?


The Fortune 500 companies will never shell out the money. They will simply pass the cost of higher wages onto the general public. Get ready to pay more for your hamburger.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 05:57 PM
SJ, if you like this post, you just contradicted yourself. You previously praised those who were at least working, instead of not.

That being said, what USN-Retired is saying isn't the case. These people working at Walmart and McDonald's COULD choose not to work at all. But they didn't.

So... you're STILL defending men and women who pass their personal responsibilities onto the tax payers?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 06:06 PM
The Fortune 500 companies will never shell out the money. They will simply pass the cost of higher wages onto the general public. Get ready to pay more for your hamburger.

Minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to $17USD, and burgers still cost the same there. At the end of the day, they can only sell it for what customers are willing to pay. It's called "price elasticity of demand."

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 06:07 PM
So... you're STILL defending men and women who pass their personal responsibilities onto the tax payers?

Nope, you're twisting it to make it look that way.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 06:13 PM
Minimum wage in Australia is equivalent to $17USD, and burgers still cost the same there. At the end of the day, they can only sell it for what customers are willing to pay. It's called "price elasticity of demand."

You are wrong again. Australia is very expensive compared to the US.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 06:25 PM
Nope, you're twisting it to make it look that way.

What did I "twist"?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 06:31 PM
You are wrong again. Australia is very expensive compared to the US.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

Look at the price of a meal at McDonalds, USN. Forty two cent difference in Austrailian dollars (with a 1 USD to 1.31 AUD exchange rate). That's what we're talking about.

Consider the fact that their minumum wage is more than twice what it is in the US, that 18% overall difference in cost of living is far more than made up for.

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 06:33 PM
What did I "twist"?

These people are working for a living. Doing shitty jobs that none of us here would want to do. How are they shifting responsibility to anyone? They're just trying to work.

Ah, but because they're poor... they don't make enough money to earn your respect. I should've remembered.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 06:40 PM
Look at the price of a meal at McDonalds, .

Let's look at the overall economy instead.



Consider the fact that their minumum wage is more than twice what it is in the US, that 18% overall difference in cost of living is far more than made up for.

The local purchasing power in United States is 0.43% lower than in Australia. That's less than one half of one percent. I'd call that difference negligible.

And you can still live cheaper in the US. The local purchasing power in Tampa, Florida is 4.78% higher than in Sydney.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 06:53 PM
These people are working for a living. Doing shitty jobs that none of us here would want to do. How are they shifting responsibility to anyone? They're just trying to work.

Ah, but because they're poor... they don't make enough money to earn your respect. I should've remembered.

You sound so defensive. Are you one of those people who are working at one of those shitty jobs? Are you one of those people who can't pay their bills with their low pay. Attacking me will not really help or change your situation in life. Perhaps you should consider a second job. You spend a lot of time on this forum, so you obviously have enough free time to work at a second job.

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 06:58 PM
You sound so defensive. Are you one of those people who are working at one of those shitty jobs? Are you one of those people who can't pay their bills with their low pay. Attacking me will not really help or change your situation in life. Perhaps you should consider a second job. You spend a lot of time on this forum, so you obviously have enough free time to work at a second job.

I make $60K a year in a cushy office job, bud.

Care to try another response to that?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 07:07 PM
Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the poor, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the rich.

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 07:11 PM
SJ, if you like this post, you just contradicted yourself. You previously praised those who were at least working, instead of not. Not a contradiction. I agree with him saying that you defend those who pass their responsibilities on.


That being said, what USN-Retired is saying isn't the case. These people working at Walmart and McDonald's COULD choose not to work at all. But they didn't.That's right. They chose to work. I'm more than happy to help them. Doesn't mean that they should get more for what they do. Doesn't mean they couldn't get a second job. But, they are working, making an effort, so they deserve the help much more than those who say "I can't live on minimum wage so why bother?"

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 07:14 PM
Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the poor, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the rich.

Not sure what you see as hatred of the poor in this conversation. Are you equating a businesses right to pay employees a legal minimum wage to hatred of the poor?

You make $60k a year in a cushy job. Why don't you give more of your money? Why do you hate the poor?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 07:18 PM
Not a contradiction. I agree with him saying that you defend those who pass their responsibilities on.

He's accusing those workers of passing on the responsibilities to us. He hates poor people; you've known that for years. How can someone who's working a full time job; or whatever hours they can get, passing any responsibility off to anyone else?


That's right. They chose to work. I'm more than happy to help them. Doesn't mean that they should get more for what they do.

Here's the thing... they're going to get it anyway, whether it's from their employer... or you. Why should it be you, not the Waltons, be paying Walmart employees?


Doesn't mean they couldn't get a second job. But, they are working, making an effort, so they deserve the help much more than those who say "I can't live on minimum wage so why bother?"

There are too many people out there that can't even get one job. Holding people to having two is unrealistic.

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 07:19 PM
Not sure what you see as hatred of the poor in this conversation. Are you equating a businesses right to pay employees a legal minimum wage to hatred of the poor?

You make $60k a year in a cushy job. Why don't you give more of your money? Why do you hate the poor?

Holy shit, is the old SJ back? Did you grow out of your epiphany from a year ago?

Rusty Jones
04-14-2015, 07:27 PM
Not sure what you see as hatred of the poor in this conversation. Are you equating a businesses right to pay employees a legal minimum wage to hatred of the poor?

Nope, I'm equating the slamming of the poor and the willingness of people to spend their own tax dollars on entitlement programs to make up for the difference of what employees refuse to pay their employees with hatred of the poor.

You are more than willing to come out of your own pockets in adherence to the belief that Walmart and McDonald's employees don't deserve it from their employers. That's some straight bootlicking shit.


You make $60k a year in a cushy job. Why don't you give more of your money? Why do you hate the poor?

I'm not the one trash talking them. YOU are. And so is USN.

Give them more of my money? I'll do the poor better... I'll vote in ways so that they get more of yours and USN's too.

Rainmaker
04-14-2015, 08:18 PM
Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the poor, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the rich.

Income equality is greatest in the cities with biggest governments and most "progressive" policies.

USN - Retired
04-14-2015, 08:28 PM
I make $60K a year in a cushy office job, bud.

Care to try another response to that?

Given the amount of time that you spend on this forum, that statement of your is not believable. Only an unemployed person could devote as much time to this forum as you do.

MikeKerriii
04-14-2015, 08:35 PM
You are wrong again. Australia is very expensive compared to the US.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

take out the fact that you don't pay the huge health care cost that you do in the US and it is quite a cheep place to live. I was stationed at Woomera for a couple of years

garhkal
04-14-2015, 09:03 PM
Ridiculous...This statement is based on the fact that a family cannot live on one minimum wage salary. I agree with that. So, you do what people who want to take care of their families do. You get a second job, if necessary. These jobs were never intended as household sustaining jobs.

Agreed. I know quite a few people who have 2 or MORE jobs just to support their family.

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 09:23 PM
Holy shit, is the old SJ back? Did you grow out of your epiphany from a year ago?

What does that have to do with thinking businesses should pay higher wages? If I have to pay more taxes, I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean I think that businesses should be held to any standard for what they pay. My tax money is going to be spent anyway. My epiphany had nothing to do with how companies run, hire, etc. It was about government assistance. Must businesses and government be linked in this aspect?

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 09:27 PM
Nope, I'm equating the slamming of the poor and the willingness of people to spend their own tax dollars on entitlement programs to make up for the difference of what employees refuse to pay their employees with hatred of the poor.

You are more than willing to come out of your own pockets in adherence to the belief that Walmart and McDonald's employees don't deserve it from their employers. That's some straight bootlicking shit. What they "deserve" and what they get are two different things. By no means do I believe that a fast food worker or a shelf stocker should be paid enough to be earning the sole income for a family to be able to comfortably live on.




I'm not the one trash talking them. YOU are. And so is USN. I'm not trash talking anyone. I'm simply stating that minimum wage jobs aren't intended to support a family. I've also said that I am more than willing for my tax dollars to go to those who are, at least, making an effort by working at a shitty paying job. How is that trash talking?

I will also vote in that way, where they get more of mine, USNs, and yours. I'm not sure where we differ on this point, except for the wages companies pay. And that's not about the poor. That's not about the business. That is about government regulation.

Give them more of my money? I'll do the poor better... I'll vote in ways so that they get more of yours and USN's too.[/QUOTE]

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 09:28 PM
Given the amount of time that you spend on this forum, that statement of your is not believable. Only an unemployed person could devote as much time to this forum as you do.I have a cushy office job and make a similar amount. It's because of the "cushy" job that I have time to devote this much time to it.

sandsjames
04-14-2015, 09:30 PM
take out the fact that you don't pay the huge health care cost that you do in the US and it is quite a cheep place to live. I was stationed at Woomera for a couple of years

How many years ago was that???? Woomera closed down about 15 years ago, right? My step-son just did some work in Australia. His hotel was over 150 a night. He couldn't find a place to eat (including fast food) for under $20...for one person. He was getting a lot of per diem and still found it overpriced.

And don't forget you were getting the allowances as well.

USN - Retired
04-15-2015, 01:15 AM
Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the poor, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the rich.

Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the rich, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the government.

TJMAC77SP
04-15-2015, 01:44 AM
I make $60K a year in a cushy office job, bud.

Care to try another response to that?

Plus you deliver pizzas for under the table right? Are you still driving a cab, I can't remember?

MikeKerriii
04-15-2015, 03:05 AM
How many years ago was that???? Woomera closed down about 15 years ago, right? My step-son just did some work in Australia. His hotel was over 150 a night. He couldn't find a place to eat (including fast food) for under $20...for one person. He was getting a lot of per diem and still found it overpriced.

And don't forget you were getting the allowances as well.

I was there about 18 years ago, but have been back since. 150 buck a night is not expensive for a major city in the US and you can still get a good meal at Happy Jacks ( Burger King) for under 10 dollars US

have ypu tried Manhattan,SF or bBoston ately?

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 11:22 AM
I was there about 18 years ago, but have been back since. 150 buck a night is not expensive for a major city in the US and you can still get a good meal at Happy Jacks ( Burger King) for under 10 dollars US



Exactly, under $10 US. Australians are not buying stuff with US money, though. So is it somewhat affordable for us? Yeah, it's not too bad. But for the Australians, who make Australian dollars, it's pretty damn expensive, even with the "free" health care.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 12:14 PM
Plus you deliver pizzas for under the table right? Are you still driving a cab, I can't remember?

How does this take away my points or support USN's?

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 12:23 PM
Exactly, under $10 US. Australians are not buying stuff with US money, though. So is it somewhat affordable for us? Yeah, it's not too bad. But for the Australians, who make Australian dollars, it's pretty damn expensive, even with the "free" health care.

We strayed away from the point - i.e., that the claim that prices will increase due to minumum wage increases are false. Again, you can only sell items at prices that people are willing to pay.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 01:21 PM
We strayed away from the point - i.e., that the claim that prices will increase due to minumum wage increases are false. Again, you can only sell items at prices that people are willing to pay.

The claim is true. Prices in Australia are higher, much higher, because of where their minimum wage is.

It's true that you can only sell stuff at prices people are willing to pay. If people make more then they are willing to pay more, which means that prices are higher. So an increased minimum wage keeps they buying power for those making minimum wage the same while it decreases the buying power for those with a median income.

If I am a production business and can produce 10 items to sell at $100 a piece or produce 100 items to sell at $10 a piece it is more beneficial for me to produce 10 items as I don't have to staff as many people.

I'm not against businesses paying a higher minimum wage, if they choose. That's entirely up to them. I'm against the government telling them they have to do so.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 01:55 PM
Say you're a small business employer and you have $20K available to pay the two people that work for you. The current minimum wage correlates to $10k each.
Then the government doubles the minimum wage to $20k. Now, How many people can you employ for that $20k?

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 03:24 PM
Say you're a small business employer and you have $20K available to pay the two people that work for you. The current minimum wage correlates to $10k each.
Then the government doubles the minimum wage to $20k. Now, How many people can you employ for that $20k?

Doesn't matter, RM. You know it's up to the employer to make sure that every individual can support their family

USN - Retired
04-15-2015, 03:58 PM
Give them more of my money? I'll do the poor better... I'll vote in ways so that they get more of yours and USN's too.

What "ways" are you talking about? Are you talking about higher taxes for me? My main source of income is my military retirement pay. That certainly doesn't qualify me as rich in this country; nonetheless, by your own admission, you want the government to take more money away from me. Am I not paying enough in taxes to please you? Obviously, your plan (and the Democrat's plan) is to raise taxes for everyone, not just the rich elite members of our society.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 05:03 PM
The claim is true. Prices in Australia are higher, much higher, because of where their minimum wage is.

Are you sure that's why? How?

By the way, average price of a Big Mac is 4.80 USD in the US. It's 4.81 USD in Australia. A whopping one cent. Overall cost of living is roughly 18% higher in Australia as USN's link pointed out. The higher wages more than make up for that in Australia.


It's true that you can only sell stuff at prices people are willing to pay. If people make more then they are willing to pay more, which means that prices are higher.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Take a Big Mac, for example, which is 4.80. Three years ago, I was a GS-7 Step 1. I'm now a GS-11 Step 2. A $22K salary difference. Would I pay $6 for a Big Mac three years ago? Nope. Would I do it now? Nope. Would you? I doubt it. Why expect someone who makes $15 an hour to do it? The only thing more money will do is increase your likelihood of going to Five Guys or Red Robin.


So an increased minimum wage keeps they buying power for those making minimum wage the same while it decreases the buying power for those with a median income.

No, increasing the amount of money in circulation does that.


If I am a production business and can produce 10 items to sell at $100 a piece or produce 100 items to sell at $10 a piece it is more beneficial for me to produce 10 items as I don't have to staff as many people.

I don't understand the point you were trying to make here.


I'm not against businesses paying a higher minimum wage, if they choose. That's entirely up to them. I'm against the government telling them they have to do so.

And in a choice between the government mandating a living wage, and the government making up for it by taxing you... you choose the latter. I've still got that hot sauce if you want it.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 05:39 PM
Are you sure that's why? How? Nope, not sure...I'm not an economist.


By the way, average price of a Big Mac is 4.80 USD in the US. It's 4.81 USD in Australia. A whopping one cent. Overall cost of living is roughly 18% higher in Australia as USN's link pointed out. The higher wages more than make up for that in Australia.Here's a couple links. Open them side by side.
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=United States

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=Australia





Nope, it doesn't work that way. Take a Big Mac, for example, which is 4.80. Three years ago, I was a GS-7 Step 1. I'm now a GS-11 Step 2. A $22K salary difference. Would I pay $6 for a Big Mac three years ago? Nope. Would I do it now? Nope. Would you? I doubt it. Why expect someone who makes $15 an hour to do it? The only thing more money will do is increase your likelihood of going to Five Guys or Red Robin.If they charged $6, people would pay it. People pay close to $5 for gas when it's the only option. They pay $8 for a pack of cigarettes. If a Big Mac is $6, people will pay it, especially if they are making twice as much money. And Five Guys and Red Robin would also increase their prices, meaning the most affordable is still McDonalds.


No, increasing the amount of money in circulation does that. Right. And increasing the amount of money people make puts more money in circulation. You think that someone going from $8 and hour to $15 an hour is going to save that "extra" money?




I don't understand the point you were trying to make here. The point is that I can charge more, as a business, if people are making more money, and don't have to worry about losing any net income.


And in a choice between the government mandating a living wage, and the government making up for it by taxing you... you choose the latter. I've still got that hot sauce if you want it.Yes, I choose the latter. I'm going to be paying taxes, no matter what. My tax rates are not going to change that much. However, with the higher minimum wage mandate comes higher prices, which means that I'm spending more out of pocket than I am by paying more taxes.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 05:43 PM
What I find ironic is the same people who complain about not getting paid enough by places like McDonalds and Walmart are the same ones who shop/eat at those places most.

USN - Retired
04-15-2015, 05:58 PM
If our government continues to mandate higher minimum wages for basic and simple jobs that are repetitive in nature, then business owners will look for ways to automate those jobs. In other words, as the minimum wage rises, eventually a point is reached where it is cheaper for the business owner to purchase some kind of robotic machine to do the job. Factory work can simply be sent overseas.

USN - Retired
04-15-2015, 06:05 PM
By the way, average price of a Big Mac is 4.80 USD in the US. It's 4.81 USD in Australia. A whopping one cent. Overall cost of living is roughly 18% higher in Australia as USN's link pointed out. The higher wages more than make up for that in Australia..

Do you only buy Big Macs and nothing else? You need to look at the overall economy.

Australia has a higher minimum wage than the US yet the overall purchasing power in the United States is about the same as in Australia. The net result is zero.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 06:08 PM
If our government continues to mandate higher minimum wages for basic and simple jobs that are repetitive in nature, then business owners will look for ways to automate those jobs. In other words, as the minimum wage rises, eventually a point is reached where it is cheaper for the business owner to purchase some kind of robotic machine to do the job. Factory work can simply be sent overseas.

Agreed. Look at how many grocery stores already have the "self check-out". If higher wages become mandatory then this process will increase. It'll happen at restaurants, too (fast food). No need for someone taking my order if I can punch it into the computer and swipe my card. So there will be one line open with a person and 3 lines with automation.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 06:21 PM
If they charged $6, people would pay it. People pay close to $5 for gas when it's the only option. They pay $8 for a pack of cigarettes. If a Big Mac is $6, people will pay it, especially if they are making twice as much money. And Five Guys and Red Robin would also increase their prices, meaning the most affordable is still McDonalds.


RJ alluded to price elasticity earlier. Different types of products have different elasticity. What elasticity is, basically, is the amount of change in demand you get for a change in price.

Things like gasoline have a low elasticity...because people need it regardless of the price. So a change in price affects demand very little. Of course, people may stop non-essential travel, so there is some effect, but overall...your essentials have low elasticity. Cigarettes also have a low short term elasticity, I think. People are not going to quit smoking the day the price changes...but maybe over a longer term they might.

Luxury items have high elasticity...so changes in price have a bigger effect on demand.

Food is, of course, an essential, but eating out isn't. I honestly don't know if Fast Food is a highly elastic item or not. I suspect it is...people eat McDonald's because it's cheap and easy, and I think McD would be slow in raising their prices...those prices are already set at maximum profit.

That being said, there is also different profit margins for different products. A typical sit-down restaurant, for example, might have a profit margin of around 5%, while McDonald's has a profit margin of around 15%. I'm told Subway is 20-25%, but something like Red Robin is closer to 5-8%. In contrast, Govt. contract work, we might be happy with 2% in a competitive field, of course we have much smaller risk.

It is, IMO, at least as highly likely a scenario that a raise in minimum wage at McD's would result in them accepting a profit margin of 11 or 12% instead of raising prices and risk losing volume. I'm sure, the analysts have been working that out for some time. Of course, those supporting a minimum wage increase want this scenario. It's far from certain, though, and like with anything economic, there are always unforseen ripple effects.

Another possible scenario I have seen is they add on a "wage fee" or something to try and keep their margins and pass the blame for higher costs on to elected officials...whereas if they just plain raised prices, they would get the blame. In the end, the total cost would more likely drive consumer reaction though, so those fee deals usually only work for a short period of time. So, like taxes on cigarettes might piss people off for a little while, eventually, they might just quit smoking.

A last scenario is the real possibility that this could result in a loss of jobs...because near doubling the minimum wage would increase the incentive for Fast Food joints to invest in self-help kiosks and things like that to reduce their labor. The technology is probably already available, but the investment required, to date, has not been justified. Double the minimum wage and you double the incentive to invest in the technology.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 06:22 PM
I agree with Rusty that the huge corporations can afford to pay it. Because, they have the market share (so many customers) and the supply chain already in place. Huge Corporations are able to set their business terms and at the same time leverage cheap labor.
The profit margin on a hamburger is not very much. But, because McDonald's sells so many, they can afford to only make a few cents on each one.

But, where it breaks down is For a small guy running a restaurant. The amount of work necessary to reach the break even point is tremendous. If you Raise the minimum wage he has to do 1 of 2 things. Take less profit or reduce costs (employees). When a guy is already working 70 hours a week, just to reach break-even point, and with the government raping you in taxes, and burying you in red tape. you eventually decide it ain't worth it and close shop. and this is EXACTLY what the oligarchs want to happen. because, Once, you own enough of the game, you crush your opposition and IT'S MONOPOLY TIME BITCHES!!!.

"And in a choice between the government mandating a living wage, and the government making up for it by taxing you... you choose the latter. I've still got that hot sauce if you want it."

And this false choice, is the entire problem in a nutshell.

A wage for Labor is a price for Labor. Setting a minimum wage in the name of "fairness" is Price fixing (for the labor price). The price for Labor has been devalued because the government is importing millions of third world immigrants and then supplementing them with welfare benefits paid for by the middle class. Take away welfare and stop immigration and the problem will largely go away. But, they don't the problem to go away. This whole Red team/ Blue team Shit show is class warfare and it's communistic in nature.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 06:26 PM
If our government continues to mandate higher minimum wages for basic and simple jobs that are repetitive in nature, then business owners will look for ways to automate those jobs. In other words, as the minimum wage rises, eventually a point is reached where it is cheaper for the business owner to purchase some kind of robotic machine to do the job. Factory work can simply be sent overseas.


Agreed. Look at how many grocery stores already have the "self check-out". If higher wages become mandatory then this process will increase. It'll happen at restaurants, too (fast food). No need for someone taking my order if I can punch it into the computer and swipe my card. So there will be one line open with a person and 3 lines with automation.

Agree...highly likely scenario.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 06:28 PM
The profit margin on a hamburger is not very much. But, because McDonald's sells so many, they can afford to only make a few cents on each one.

The real money is made on the drinks.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 06:29 PM
RJ alluded to price elasticity earlier. Different types of products have different elasticity. What elasticity is, basically, is the amount of change in demand you get for a change in price.

Things like gasoline have a low elasticity...because people need it regardless of the price. So a change in price affects demand very little. Of course, people may stop non-essential travel, so there is some effect, but overall...your essentials have low elasticity. Cigarettes also have a low short term elasticity, I think. People are not going to quit smoking the day the price changes...but maybe over a longer term they might.

Luxury items have high elasticity...so changes in price have a bigger effect on demand.

Food is, of course, an essential, but eating out isn't. I honestly don't know if Fast Food is a highly elastic item or not. I suspect it is...people eat McDonald's because it's cheap and easy, and I think McD would be slow in raising their prices...those prices are already set at maximum profit.

That being said, there is also different profit margins for different products. A typical sit-down restaurant, for example, might have a profit margin of around 5%, while McDonald's has a profit margin of around 15%. I'm told Subway is 20-25%, but something like Red Robin is closer to 5-8%. In contrast, Govt. contract work, we might be happy with 2% in a competitive field, of course we have much smaller risk.

It is, IMO, at least as highly likely a scenario that a raise in minimum wage at McD's would result in them accepting a profit margin of 11 or 12% instead of raising prices and risk losing volume. I'm sure, the analysts have been working that out for some time. Of course, those supporting a minimum wage increase want this scenario. It's far from certain, though, and like with anything economic, there are always unforseen ripple effects.

Another possible scenario I have seen is they add on a "wage fee" or something to try and keep their margins and pass the blame for higher costs on to elected officials...whereas if they just plain raised prices, they would get the blame. In the end, the total cost would more likely drive consumer reaction though, so those fee deals usually only work for a short period of time. So, like taxes on cigarettes might piss people off for a little while, eventually, they might just quit smoking.

A last scenario is the real possibility that this could result in a loss of jobs...because near doubling the minimum wage would increase the incentive for Fast Food joints to invest in self-help kiosks and things like that to reduce their labor. The technology is probably already available, but the investment required, to date, has not been justified. Double the minimum wage and you double the incentive to invest in the technology.

To me, a mandate like this almost seems like a justification for fast food restaurants to "price fix". What keeps the costs down now is that, if one of them keeps them down, then "equal" restaurants must do the same. However, if they are all required to pay more then they are all going to have to raise prices. Even though they can't legally agree on those prices, the amount lost in wage outputs will set those prices all by themselves.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 06:30 PM
I agree with Rusty that the huge corporations can afford to pay it. Because, they have the market share (so many customers) and the supply chain already in place. Huge Corporations are able to set their business terms and at the same time leverage cheap labor.
The profit margin on a hamburger is not very much. But, because McDonald's sells so many, they can afford to only make a few cents on each one. I'm not disputing that they can't afford it. I'm disputing that they should be forced to do so.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 06:35 PM
I'm not disputing that they can't afford it. I'm disputing that they should be forced to do so.

yes, We agree . It's Socialist Bullshit. The whole "fight" is lip service and doesn't amount to a hill of beans, when you outsource you entire manufacturing base to china. ... It's a shit show designed to stir up the poor and make them feel like they won, when they eventually throw them the bone. Both parties are in on this act. We are living in a 1 party dick-tater-ship.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 06:44 PM
To me, a mandate like this almost seems like a justification for fast food restaurants to "price fix". What keeps the costs down now is that, if one of them keeps them down, then "equal" restaurants must do the same. However, if they are all required to pay more then they are all going to have to raise prices. Even though they can't legally agree on those prices, the amount lost in wage outputs will set those prices all by themselves.

There are so many variables involved almost everything is an over-simplification. But, overall, prices are not set based on the cost of production. If it were, all restaurants would have the same profit margin.

The lower the profit margin, the less people produce, though, which in turn could, theoretically drive prices up...but, I seriously don't think we are in any danger of running low supply on Fast Food.

Prices are set on what the market will bear. Would people still buy $6 hamburgers..I'm sure some will. What I'm telling you is that the $4.80 price is set not just because McD's sits up there an thinks "well, that's a fair enough amount of profit for us."...they set that price because they have studied and worked hard and already know that increasing it by another 0.20 will reduce their gross profit, no matter what the reason. They take a 15% profit margin because that is the most they could get. If the most they could get is 11%, they'll take that, too...though perhaps there would be one less McD's in town or something. This is why Subway is the fastest growing Fast Food joint...they currently have huge profit margins, so if you wanna open a fast food joint, why not subway?

Even if their labor costs go up, there is no reason they should raise prices, because they are already at the optimal price the market will bear. Oh, it might change it a little...as volume increases your cost per generally decreases...but as your raise the price, the amount purchased will decrease...so, it is a balancing act that these guys know very well.

But the market is way too competitive for any kind of "price fixing", too, I think.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 06:54 PM
Prices are set on what the market will bear. Would people still buy $6 hamburgers..I'm sure some will. What I'm telling you is that the $4.80 price is set not just because McD's sits up there an thinks "well, that's a fair enough amount of profit for us."...they set that price because they have studied and worked hard and already know that increasing it by another 0.20 will reduce their gross profit, no matter what the reason. So you don't think that the competition created by similar prices at Burger King play a part in that?



But the market is way too competitive for any kind of "price fixing"I disagree with this. If everyone can now afford to pay more, there is no "bottom level" customer they have to worry about. If all of the similar chains also follow this then it's easy to price fix AND have competition. "Ok, we don't go below $6 for our "best" burger. Pretty simple. There is still competition above that $6 mark.

If these corporations are as "greedy" as many claim then, even though the 11% is still good, they'd much rather have the 15%.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 06:58 PM
Prices are set on what the market will bear..

for small companies. Yes. for mega corporations no. McDonalds sales have dropped for 5 consecutive quarters. so, a free market would tell them to lower the prices.

http://ycharts.com/companies/MCD/enterprise_value

yet, McDonald's enterprise worth in 2012 was $61B and today it's $106B..... why? Corporate stock buybacks to artificially drive up the value before the big boy's short it again at a time of their choosing.

It's a rigged game. McDonald's doesn't really give a fuck about selling hamburgers anymore (that's just the cover story)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase

"It is relatively easy for insiders to capture insider-trading like gains through the use of "open market repurchases". Such transactions are legal and generally encouraged by regulators through safe-harbours against insider trading liability"

25% of the previous 4 weeks trading volume is the limit they can legally buy back. when your dealing with billion dollar corporations you can make huge gains.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 06:59 PM
So you don't think that the competition created by similar prices at Burger King play a part in that?

Competition certainly plays a huge role.


I disagree with this. If everyone can now afford to pay more, there is no "bottom level" customer they have to worry about. If all of the similar chains also follow this then it's easy to price fix AND have competition. "Ok, we don't go below $6 for our "best" burger. Pretty simple. There is still competition above that $6 mark.

That's just not how it works. If everybody simply raised their prices to $6, the demand for burgers decreases...people eat at home instead more...whatever it is. People don't have to eat out.


If these corporations are as "greedy" as many claim then, even though the 11% is still good, they'd much rather have the 15%.

Well, sure...they'd also much rather have 20%...so why don't they just price fix up to 20% right now? Because the market will not bear it.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 07:02 PM
for small companies. Yes. for mega corporations no. McDonalds sales have dropped for 5 consecutive quarters.

http://ycharts.com/companies/MCD/enterprise_value

yet, McDonald's enterprise worth in 2012 was $61B and today it's $106B..... why? Corporate stock buybacks to artificially drive up the value before the big boy's short it again at a time of their choosing.

It's a rigged game. McDonald's doesn't really give a fuck about selling hamburgers anymore (that's just the cover story)

Stock prices and company valuation are entirely different shell games.

McDonald's corporate is a franchising operation...they don't sell hamburgers, they sell restaurants. The guy in your town that operates 3 McDonalds is selling hamburgers though, he's a small business.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 07:18 PM
Stock prices and company valuation are entirely different shell games.

McDonald's corporate is a franchising operation...they don't sell hamburgers, they sell restaurants. The guy in your town that operates 3 McDonalds is selling hamburgers though, he's a small business.

Yeah they just sell the brand... which is why they only raised the wage in the 20% or whatever of the company owned stores. it's a Ponzi scheme. just like the rest of our "economy". Corporate America don't give a shit about minimum wage. they'll raise it but, it won't make things better. it's all PR so Obammy can make the Idiocracy think he's fighting on their side.

Rainmaker
04-15-2015, 07:34 PM
The real money is made on the drinks.

A large Ice Tea at Wendy's is $2.69 at that price Rainmaker sticking to beer.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 08:14 PM
Competition certainly plays a huge role.



That's just not how it works. If everybody simply raised their prices to $6, the demand for burgers decreases...people eat at home instead more...whatever it is. People don't have to eat out. And I disagree for this simple reason. The fast food places aren't the only places that raise prices. If minimum wage goes up, prices for EVERYTHING go up. The $6 burger is still the cheapest option because the price of groceries is also inflated.

Which brings us back to the point that increasing the minimum wage keeps the buying power for those currently making minimum wage the same while reducing the buying power of everyone else, because, I promise you, if minimum wage goes to $15 an hour my $24 an hour is still going to be $24 an hour.




Well, sure...they'd also much rather have 20%...so why don't they just price fix up to 20% right now? Because the market will not bear it.Right, but the market will bear the 15%, which has been proven, for many years. So no matter what the wages are, McDs will maintain the 15% which, in turn, means that prices will go up.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 08:26 PM
And I disagree for this simple reason. The fast food places aren't the only places that raise prices. If minimum wage goes up, prices for EVERYTHING go up.

I'm not buying it. Minimum wage labor is one small piece of our economy and does not drive the prices of everything.


The $6 burger is still the cheapest option because the price of groceries is also inflated.


Which brings us back to the point that increasing the minimum wage keeps the buying power for those currently making minimum wage the same while reducing the buying power of everyone else, because, I promise you, if minimum wage goes to $15 an hour my $24 an hour is still going to be $24 an hour.

I disagree with your analysis.


Right, but the market will bear the 15%, which has been proven, for many years. So no matter what the wages are, McDs will maintain the 15% which, in turn, means that prices will go up.

No, man. The market doesn't "bear 15%"...it bears the price of a hamburger. The 15% is what comes out afterwards. Consumers don't care what the profit margin of the company is, just what they are willing to pay for it.

That's like asking, "why do people pay 25% profit margin at Subway, when they can get Red Robin for 6%?...doesn't make sense and this is really bad math.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
04-15-2015, 08:30 PM
Nationalize all fast-food restaurants and create a WG and GS pay scale, with the lowest wage set to a "livable wage." All non-skilled (burger flipper) will start at the lowest WG rate, with all entry-level "skilled" positions (electrician) starting no higher than two WG rates higher than non-skilled entry level WG earners. Also, if one WG person gets a pay increase, then out of fairness, ALL WG workers get an equal, fair increase.


~ Ready for Hillary

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 08:56 PM
No, man. The market doesn't "bear 15%"...it bears the price of a hamburger. The 15% is what comes out afterwards. Consumers don't care what the profit margin of the company is, just what they are willing to pay for it.

That's like asking, "why do people pay 25% profit margin at Subway, when they can get Red Robin for 6%?...doesn't make sense and this is really bad math.I'm not saying the customer cares what the profit margin is. I'm saying the business cares, meaning that if the price of everything goes up (inflation, which seems like where we are mainly disagreeing) on everything, including the labor, that they will want to maintain the 15%. In addition, the stock holders will want to maintain the 15%. If I'm a stock holder and I see they are dropping the profits from 15% to 11% I'm not going to invest as much. That's billions that the company is going to lose. So in addition to the fraction of cost lost by the 4% profit margin reduction, the biggest lump, as brought up by RM, is the investors.

The biggest mistake is thinking that the people/consumer drive the market in our current economy. It just isn't happening. Investors are driving it. Investors are setting the profit margin. Not the prices, but the margin. So if inflation happens, which it will, then the prices must go up.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 08:58 PM
Nationalize all fast-food restaurants and create a WG and GS pay scale, with the lowest wage set to a "livable wage." All non-skilled (burger flipper) will start at the lowest WG rate, with all entry-level "skilled" positions (electrician) starting no higher than two WG rates higher than non-skilled entry level WG earners. Also, if one WG person gets a pay increase, then out of fairness, ALL WG workers get an equal, fair increase.


~ Ready for Hillary

Absolutely, and if you are a GS-6 working at In and Out burger and you move to a McDs as a GS-4, they must still pay you as a GS-6, no matter what the position calls for. Sounds like a great plan. Nothing could go wrong.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 10:04 PM
I'm not saying the customer cares what the profit margin is. I'm saying the business cares, meaning that if the price of everything goes up (inflation, which seems like where we are mainly disagreeing) on everything, including the labor, that they will want to maintain the 15%.

Of course the business cares what the profit margin is...but they do not control it like you think they do. They accept what it is, to a certain degree, after production costs, etc. etc. and subtracted from sales. They don't get to just adjust prices up to maintain their profit margin. Prices do not work that way for most products. If the margins to do not justify the investment, then companies will simply not engage in that particular business. Again, I don't think this is the case for Fast Food.

Again, there are many more variables involved and everything is an oversimplifcation. The amount of margin to generate an investment is also dependent on the risk of the industry. So, we're going to get a little deeper here...but there is say, the prime interest rate...which is currently like 3.25%. There is a risk involved in any investment. Now, if you have a high risk and are still only going to make 3.25%...only a fool would make that investment because you can make 3.25% with no risk by loaning the money at prime rate. I would have to break out my text book to remember the formula for figuring your risk into your potential upside and the prime rate...but, this is something investors do all the time.

Franchises like McD's and Subway have a pretty well proven business plan...they look at the populations, demographics and whatever else...and I don't think McDs every lose money. Opening a local small-business restaurant, however, is a fairly high risk of a business as I remember it. Mostly because people who are good cooks think they can therefore run a successful restaurant and that's always the case.


In addition, the stock holders will want to maintain the 15%. If I'm a stock holder and I see they are dropping the profits from 15% to 11% I'm not going to invest as much. That's billions that the company is going to lose. So in addition to the fraction of cost lost by the 4% profit margin reduction, the biggest lump, as brought up by RM, is the investors.

This is different money. When you invest in McDonald's that is not "profit" money for them...it is operating capital on loan. They still owe you that money as a share of their valuation...sort of. It's not really a loan, what you are actually doing it buying a piece of the ownership of the company. You are then the owner...all you've done is infused your own money into the operating capital of the company, you didn't generate them any profit, they just sold you a piece of hte action because they need the capital to maybe expand or something.

Stock prices are affected by other things, too, though, on the market...speculation, confidence, overall economy trends...so it's not just a simple bank formula for value of the company...but a major theory is that stocks are always priced correctly based on all that is known about everything.


The biggest mistake is thinking that the people/consumer drive the market in our current economy. It just isn't happening. Investors are driving it. Investors are setting the profit margin. Not the prices, but the margin. So if inflation happens, which it will, then the prices must go up.

I have a hunch that similar to the thread...you haven't really studies economics or read any books about it.

Of course, the higher the profit margins the more attractive and investment is. But investors don't get to just say "make the profit margin 15%"...the profit margin is what's left after expenses are taken away from income...and it is what it is. We try to improve it by reducing costs...but prices are primarily market driven. Higher profit margins entice more investors, not the other way around.

But, that a company in an industry with a profit margin of 30% is better than one at 5% is obvious, of course, that will drive their stock prices higher...notwithstanding there is a risk factor in there also.

sandsjames
04-15-2015, 10:24 PM
Of course, the higher the profit margins the more attractive and investment is. But investors don't get to just say "make the profit margin 15%"...the profit margin is what's left after expenses are taken away from income...and it is what it is. We try to improve it by reducing costs...but prices are primarily market driven. Higher profit margins entice more investors, not the other way around.

But, that a company in an industry with a profit margin of 30% is better than one at 5% is obvious, of course, that will drive their stock prices higher...notwithstanding there is a risk factor in there also.

If an investor is investing in a company that is showing a 15% profit margin, then they predict, or announce, and 11%, then they are going to lose investments. No matter whether that's "different" money or not, it's still a loss for the company. So the company is going to do it's best to maintain the confidence of it's investors and that confidence is maintained by consistency. So then it comes down to who the business (and I know we are using McDs, but it can be any business with investors) needs to keep satisfied the most. Losing some of it's customers while maintaining its investors is much preferred over keeping the customers at lower profits while losing investors.

If Subway announced a 15%, that's a big drop, so investors aren't going to be happy. Again, it's not about the actual margin, it's about maintaining that status quo over the long haul.

Which means, if the price of burgers goes up with inflation to maintain the 15%, the company is better off, even if there are fewer customers, in comparison to keeping the price at $4.80 to maintain the customers while dropping profits to 11%.

TJMAC77SP
04-15-2015, 10:24 PM
How does this take away my points or support USN's?

Because evidently 60K per year isn't enough for you so your personal opinion of what hourly wages should be seem a bit skewed.

TJMAC77SP
04-15-2015, 10:27 PM
We strayed away from the point - i.e., that the claim that prices will increase due to minumum wage increases are false. Again, you can only sell items at prices that people are willing to pay.

That is only partially true. Again I am wondering about your MBA. If a business can't raise their prices to offset costs (to include labor costs) they likely will make drastic cutbacks (translation...jobs) or fold completely. It isn't a matter of "well I guess I have to sell this widget for customers will pay for it even it means my effective wage is below the national mean"

TJMAC77SP
04-15-2015, 10:34 PM
Again the point has been made that any definitive statement in support or against raising the minimum wage is far from a one reason argument.

Raising it will crush the economy..........bullshit

Raising it will not hurt businesses.........equal pile of bullshit

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 10:51 PM
If an investor is investing in a company that is showing a 15% profit margin, then they predict, or announce, and 11%, then they are going to lose investments. No matter whether that's "different" money or not, it's still a loss for the company. So the company is going to do it's best to maintain the confidence of it's investors and that confidence is maintained by consistency. So then it comes down to who the business (and I know we are using McDs, but it can be any business with investors) needs to keep satisfied the most. Losing some of it's customers while maintaining its investors is much preferred over keeping the customers at lower profits while losing investors.This is what you're NOT understanding.

Let's say a company is cruising along at 15% margin and suddenly it's labor cost goes up.

You are saying they will simply say "no problem, we'll just raise prices to keep our 15% margin...lose some customers and keep our investors."

However, it doesn't work that way...raising your pices doesn't raise your profit margin. Well, it might raise the margin on a per item basis, but will reduce total profit. Prices are already set at maximum profit, so changing them to something the market is not willing to pay necessarily reduces your profit.

You used the example earlier that you can make 100 items at $10 each or 10 items at $100 each...obviously if those were the same items the second one would probably be more preferable, but it doesn't work that way.

You can sell 100 items at $10 or 0 items at $100. maybe in between...you could sell 3 items at $90, 4 at $70 and 15 at $50, 25 at $30 and 100 at $10 and say 200 at $3.

So...your total sales revenue can be $0, $270, $280, $750, $1000, or $600. Then you figure profit margin, you subtract production costs...which obviously go up the more you make, but generally go down on a per item basis. So, let's say it' costs $60 to make 3 items..$79 to make 4, etc. etc.

When you're done...when your cost of production goes up, due to labor costs, the profits mightl go down...but your maximum sales revenue is still pretty close to same point. It might change a little. Though, this might be more of total profit than profit margin.

What I'm saying, raising the prices to "maintain 15% for the investors, will cost you -25% in decreased sales...or a decrease in total profit. If they could improve their profit simply by raising prices, they already would have raised them. There is no reason they would accept a lower profit now just because minimum wage hasn't gone up yet.

The demand might drop off farther than you can make up for...also, in general, the less you produce, the higher the cost per item to produce. So, thinking you'll just sell less hamburgers at the higher price and maintain your profit margin, doesn't happen. What I'm trying to tell you is that the prices are already set for maximum profit. Not necessarily maximum sales, or maximum profit per item...but maximum total profit. Meaning if the company raised it's price and reduced how many were bought, their profit goes down.

assuming their prices are correctly set when they start...they lose more profit margin by raising prices because there will be a greater fall off of customers than there is increase in profit per item.


If Subway announced a 15%, that's a big drop, so investors aren't going to be happy. Again, it's not about the actual margin, it's about maintaining that status quo over the long haul.

Which means, if the price of burgers goes up with inflation to maintain the 15%, the company is better off, even if there are fewer customers, in comparison to keeping the price at $4.80 to maintain the customers while dropping profits to 11%.

Disclaimer here...we got off on a tangent and using profit margin and total profit a little incorrectly, (in case anyone who knows economics is reading.)

The goal is to maximize total profit, not profit margin necessarily. Although, there is the risk trade-off, etc.

Basically, we aren't able to give an entire year's worth of economics lessons in here...but hopefully you get the gist.

A business sets prices, but is not necessarily in control of them...if they are to set them properly to maximize profit.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 11:05 PM
Again the point has been made that any definitive statement in support or against raising the minimum wage is far from a one reason argument.

Raising it will crush the economy..........bullshit

Raising it will not hurt businesses.........equal pile of bullshit

This is probably the only true post in the thread.

No one can say for certain what will happen...we can speculate, but there are so many variables involved...and by the time we know what they are, the market has already adjusted to them.

I do not believe prices will simply go up to offset the labor costs...that can't happen, not that directly. They could go up in a ripple effect, but it's far more convoluted than that.

I could imagine that some businesses that are labor dependent, with minimum wage work, that are considered luxury items...the industry could disappear entirely. I dunno what business that is...manicures? home cleaning? daycare?

Yet, I think, anytime something drops off...there is an opportunity for something else to fill that need.

Had an interesting discussion in class once about how rent control creates economic loss in cities like New York. However, in the gaps of that economic loss, there is opportunity...people who can find you a rent control apartment and charge you a premium for doing so...were it not for rent control, that business would not exist, but some folks make a lot of money hustling around finding apartments, maintaing contacts, keeping their ear to the haps in different buildings, etc.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 11:08 PM
Because evidently 60K per year isn't enough for you so your personal opinion of what hourly wages should be seem a bit skewed.

I don't know how many timess I have to tell you that a) I'm helping out a friend, and b) I have expensive hobbies to support. Were it not for those two factors, I wouldn't be working another job.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 11:16 PM
That is only partially true. Again I am wondering about your MBA. If a business can't raise their prices to offset costs (to include labor costs) they likely will make drastic cutbacks (translation...jobs) or fold completely. It isn't a matter of "well I guess I have to sell this widget for customers will pay for it even it means my effective wage is below the national mean"

Get an MBA, and you'll be qualified to "worry" about it. Until then...

Have you ever worked in a restaurant before? They don't have more people on shift than they need, and people get sent home when business is slow. In other words, restaurants are generally optimally manned. They're not going to run effectively by cutting jobs.

So then that leads to the possibility of the restaurant folding... which could happen if they decide that the profits aren't good enough. And that's fine, since there are plenty of others that would gladly eat up the sales that McD's decided to forgo in that case.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 11:23 PM
Have you ever worked in a restaurant before? They don't have more people on shift than they need, and people get sent home when business is slow. In other words, restaurants are generally optimally manned. They're not going to run effectively by cutting jobs.


Interesting side note.

This is exactly how McDonald's virtually guarantees their restaurants make money. They have software that continuously knows how many people are on shift at what pay rates...and continuously gets sales data in real time directly from the registers.

Once they hit a certain threshold of labor to sales, it tells the manager to send someone home.

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 11:35 PM
Here's another thing: certain countries, like Germany for example, have labor laws that make it more profitable to make luxury level goods and services. Ford and GM is profitable in the US, whereas Mercedes and BMW are more profitable in Germany.

Might McD's raise prices if minimum wage goes up? It's possible, but I also think it's reasonable to expect an increase in quality to go with it. Yes, that's more cost on top of the higher wages... but if we're going by the arbitrary 15% profit margin, they can work the quality and prices to maintain that margin. Bear in mind that higher volume sales aren't exactly a bad thing either.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 11:37 PM
They're not going to run effectively by cutting jobs.

The way I see that possible happening is...let's say it'll cost you $100K to purchase a kiosk system that can replace a cashier, wtih a 5 year lifespan.

So, with straight-line depreciation, that system is costing you $20K per year...about the same as a $10/hour employee. You would keep your $9/hour employee.

But, when the minimum wage goes up to $15 per hour...that employee is gonna cost you $30K per year, so you're gonna buy the kiosk system.

Of course, that kiosk system is suddenly going to have an increase in demand so it's prices are going to go up to probably $28K per year :-)...even though, making more of them will cost the company less to make each one, but they'll gladly accept the higher profit margin from the economic opportunity that this increase in minimum wage presented.

See folks, ...the potential ripple effects are endless. A raise in minimum wage might be the best thing to happen to business...if you're in the kiosk business, that is.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
04-15-2015, 11:41 PM
Here's a hypothetical situation for a guy living in the Liberal Utopia:


Las Vegas owner of one frozen yogurt shop, "Chilly Willy's," started his sole proprietorship by taking out a $150,000 small business loan, using his home as collateral. He's one year into his business and has averaged 72 hour work weeks to ensure its success. It's a lively town, so he's open 24 hours per day and employs six part-time employees, all averaging $8.00 per hour. After paying his expenses (building lease, utilities, vendor costs, labor, taxes etc), he ends up making about $60,000 per year. That's right, $60,000 for working 72 hours per week, and risking his own home on the store's success.

Now comes along a feel-good mandate to raise his employee wages to $15.00 per hour. He must now raise the cost of his labor from approx. $70,000 per year to approx. $131,000 per year. But wait, he only makes $60,000 per year, so how will he pay for the $61,000 increase? Decrease store hours and staff? Charge more for the "Mega Chilly Willy" with sprinkles? Close the store and make $60,000 as a GS-11, working only 40 hours per week? Sell the store to a millionaire liberal? Rusty, please help!

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 11:45 PM
The way I see that possible happening is...let's say it'll cost you $100K to purchase a kiosk system that can replace a cashier, wtih a 5 year lifespan.

So, with straight-line depreciation, that system is costing you $20K per year...about the same as a $10/hour employee. You would keep your $9/hour employee.

But, when the minimum wage goes up to $15 per hour...that employee is gonna cost you $30K per year, so you're gonna buy the kiosk system.

Of course, that kiosk system is suddenly going to have an increase in demand so it's prices are going to go up to probably $28K per year :-)...even though, making more of them will cost the company less to make each one, but they'll gladly accept the higher profit margin from the economic opportunity that this increase in minimum wage presented.

See folks, ...the potential ripple effects are endless.

They already have this at Wawa, Royal Farms, and a few other places. I have a feeling that McD's and other places are already planning to go to this, regardless of minimum wage increase. Of course, someone still has to jockey the register and hand them their food...

Rusty Jones
04-15-2015, 11:48 PM
Here's a hypothetical situation for a guy living in the Liberal Utopia:


Las Vegas owner of one frozen yogurt shop, "Chilly Willy's," started his sole proprietorship by taking out a $150,000 small business loan, using his home as collateral. He's one year into his business and has averaged 72 hour work weeks to ensure its success. It's a lively town, so he's open 24 hours per day and employs six part-time employees, all averaging $8.00 per hour. After paying his expenses (building lease, utilities, vendor costs, labor, taxes etc), he ends up making about $60,000 per year. That's right, $60,000 for working 72 hours per week, and risking his own home on the store's success.

Now comes along a feel-good mandate to raise his employee wages to $15.00 per hour. He must now raise the cost of his labor from approx. $70,000 per year to approx. $131,000 per year. But wait, he only makes $60,000 per year, so how will he pay for the $61,000 increase? Decrease store hours and staff? Charge more for the "Mega Chilly Willy" with sprinkles? Close the store and make $60,000 as a GS-11, working only 40 hours per week? Sell the store to a millionaire liberal? Rusty, please help!

Break out the the books that itemize all of his costs and we'll talk.

Bos Mutus
04-15-2015, 11:50 PM
They already have this at Wawa, Royal Farms, and a few other places. I have a feeling that McD's and other places are already planning to go to this, regardless of minimum wage increase. Of course, someone still has to jockey the register and hand them their food...

Yes, I have no doubt kiosks are the way of the future, that specific example was to illustrate the greater point. As labor costs go up, it provides greater incentive for any business to invest in labor-replacing technology. When they do it and how pervasive it will be is the question.

No, doesn't totally eliminate people...just cuts them from 10 to 8, maybe. Still 2 jobs....numbers are not real, just illustrative.

Whether that is a good thing or not, depends on whether or not you are one of the 8 or one of the 2.

Let's face it, the aim of the wage increase advocates is to make sur that the 7 dollar increase for those remaining employees is greater than the 8 dollars lost for the employees out of work...so, in this case 7*8=56, but 8*2=16.... so that's 56-16=$40 per hour we got out of the hands of owner into the hands of the working poor.

It's just not that simple though.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2015, 02:18 AM
Get an MBA, and you'll be qualified to "worry" about it. Until then...

Have you ever worked in a restaurant before? They don't have more people on shift than they need, and people get sent home when business is slow. In other words, restaurants are generally optimally manned. They're not going to run effectively by cutting jobs.

So then that leads to the possibility of the restaurant folding... which could happen if they decide that the profits aren't good enough. And that's fine, since there are plenty of others that would gladly eat up the sales that McD's decided to forgo in that case.

I don't worry about anything. I wonder about a lot of things.

In your hypothetical McDonalds closes and overnight another fast food provider fills the void? How does that small example relate to the larger picture that is the US world economy.

I sometimes laugh at RM's posts because I know he is mostly playing a role. You I don't know.

You will never make the argument that raising the minimum wage to $15 is a simple cure for all that wrong with the economy nor will be accomplished without real potential for problems. I realize this is an inconvenient truth but it is nonetheless true.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2015, 02:19 AM
Break out the the books that itemize all of his costs and we'll talk.

That's not even an answer.

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:00 AM
This is what you're NOT understanding.

Let's say a company is cruising along at 15% margin and suddenly it's labor cost goes up.

You are saying they will simply say "no problem, we'll just raise prices to keep our 15% margin...lose some customers and keep our investors."

However, it doesn't work that way...raising your pices doesn't raise your profit margin. Well, it might raise the margin on a per item basis, but will reduce total profit. Prices are already set at maximum profit, so changing them to something the market is not willing to pay necessarily reduces your profit.



Again, you are wrong. If the cost of buying the burgers from the manufacturer goes up, and the price of the employee goes up, then the price to maintain maximum profit will go up. It will be the same relative to what it was prior to the inflation but the actual number will be higher. So, for someone earning minimum wage, it is going to cost the same percentage of their income to survive as it did prior to the raise of the wage.

I can't see why this is so difficult to understand. Would you not describe inflation (which is what we are discussing when we talk about putting more money into circulation) this way?

Ok, try this. I live in a neighborhood where it costs $150k to buy a house, and all the houses around me are priced similarly. All the businesses in the area raise their wages for all the workers. Now, people have more income. Are you telling me that the value/cost of the houses aren't going to go up? That is exactly what is being described with the minimum wage scenario. Does the housing market care that everyone outside of that market didn't get a raise? No, because the people in that market, living in that area, can afford more.

The military BAH system shows you exactly how this will happen. BAH goes up, landlords raise the rent because they know what people can afford. There are still non-military people renting, making the same wages, but the landlords care only about what the primary customer can afford. It doesn't affect the military member. Raising BAH doesn't put anymore money in my pocket because I'm going to have to pay out more. But it does hurt the civilians because their pay doesn't go up, so the house they were paying $1200 for before is now $1500. Landlord doesn't give a shit because he knows if the civilian moves out, there is a military member waiting to take his place.

Now, replace $1200 BAH with current minimum wage and $1500 BAH with increased minimum wage. The price of the burger will go up, the minimum wage worker is no better off, but everyone else ends up suffering.

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:02 AM
Interesting side note.

This is exactly how McDonald's virtually guarantees their restaurants make money. They have software that continuously knows how many people are on shift at what pay rates...and continuously gets sales data in real time directly from the registers.

Once they hit a certain threshold of labor to sales, it tells the manager to send someone home.

So if they raise wages they will send people home more often. Higher wages, fewer hours. Again, it's a wash.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 03:05 AM
So if they raise wages they will send people home more often. Higher wages, fewer hours. Again, it's a wash.

The first probably correct thing you've said.

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:07 AM
The first probably correct thing you've said.

That's the point I've been trying to illustrate the entire time. In my mind that's what I'm typing. I apologize if it doesn't come across that way.

Adding to that, the 8/2 example you used does exactly what those arguing for a higher minimum wage are trying to avoid. It increases the income gap even further because it creates more unemployed.

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:10 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. American manufacturing is the only thing that's going to help the economy in the long run. Even though prices will be higher, it's the only way to keep more people working. It'll be a sacrifice for everyone to begin with, having to pay the higher prices, but in the end it will create more jobs, more tax money, etc.

Unfortunately, people who suggest this generally get labeled as isolationists.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 03:11 AM
That's the point I've been trying to illustrate the entire time. In my mind that's what I'm typing. I apologize if it doesn't come across that way.
Their algorithm would change...because they would still need a certain amount of people to make a certain amount of hamburgers, but it's likely they would cut the person a little tighter, if at all possible....I don't know what the current ratio is but I'd imagine there is some flex built in to account for a late unexpected rush....and they may take more risk there because they're less likely to risk 15 per hour employees doin nothing.

hashtag, time to lean, time to clean

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 03:12 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. American manufacturing is the only thing that's going to help the economy in the long run. Even though prices will be higher, it's the only way to keep more people working. It'll be a sacrifice for everyone to begin with, having to pay the higher prices, but in the end it will create more jobs, more tax money, etc.

Unfortunately, people who suggest this generally get labeled as isolationists.

how do you intend to force manufacturers to stay domestic?

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:13 AM
I may not have a good understanding of this, as you seem to think, but I'll say this. There are people much more educated on the subject than both you and I who have the same argument.

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 03:15 AM
how do you intend to force manufacturers to stay domestic?

Can't force it. It's going to take the people of the country making sacrifices. That's the only way. If I start buying American Made, and others do the same, then it will lead to more people starting manufacturing in the States. Not an easy undertaking and we'll probably never see it again, unfortunately, which is why we are going to continue on our current path until the inevitable (50 years or 500 years from now) failure of our economic system happens.

Off to bed...

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 03:26 AM
Can't force it. It's going to take the people of the country making sacrifices. That's the only way. If I start buying American Made, and others do the same, then it will lead to more people starting manufacturing in the States. Not an easy undertaking and we'll probably never see it again, unfortunately, which is why we are going to continue on our current path until the inevitable (50 years or 500 years from now) failure of our economic system happens.

Off to bed...

Good night

garhkal
04-16-2015, 08:19 AM
Funny how people focus so much on their hatred for the rich, that they don't notice how they're being robbed by the government.

Or that they think the govt's robbing of them is ok, but the rich doing it is wrong..



Nope, it doesn't work that way. Take a Big Mac, for example, which is 4.80. Three years ago, I was a GS-7 Step 1. I'm now a GS-11 Step 2. A $22K salary difference. Would I pay $6 for a Big Mac three years ago? Nope. Would I do it now? Nope. Would you? I doubt it. Why expect someone who makes $15 an hour to do it? The only thing more money will do is increase your likelihood of going to Five Guys or Red Robin.

Heck i balk at paying 6 bucks for a meal deal. Let alone for a burger itself! Well from a fast food joint that is.


Things like gasoline have a low elasticity...because people need it regardless of the price. So a change in price affects demand very little. Of course, people may stop non-essential travel, so there is some effect, but overall...your essentials have low elasticity. Cigarettes also have a low short term elasticity, I think. People are not going to quit smoking the day the price changes...but maybe over a longer term they might.


I know several who have quit cause the prices got too outrageous (like in NY City, or in England). But in general i agree, the more an item is "Needed" the more likely someone is to pay for it regardless of what it costs.


Food is, of course, an essential, but eating out isn't. I honestly don't know if Fast Food is a highly elastic item or not. I suspect it is...people eat McDonald's because it's cheap and easy, and I think McD would be slow in raising their prices...those prices are already set at maximum profit.


For me, whether its cheap or not, its rare for me to eat out at a FF joint these days. Mostly cause i prefer eating healthier at home.


A large Ice Tea at Wendy's is $2.69 at that price Rainmaker sticking to beer.

That's why if i DO eat out, like say when i drive cross country for a convention, or going the 1.5 hrs drive from Reynoldsburg to Wheeling for my 7 week or so Smoke stock up, i get the FOOD from a fast food joint (dollar menu usually) and the Soda either i bring (kept in a cooler) or buy from somewhere like Speedway or BP.


The military BAH system shows you exactly how this will happen. BAH goes up, landlords raise the rent because they know what people can afford. There are still non-military people renting, making the same wages, but the landlords care only about what the primary customer can afford. It doesn't affect the military member. Raising BAH doesn't put anymore money in my pocket because I'm going to have to pay out more. But it does hurt the civilians because their pay doesn't go up, so the house they were paying $1200 for before is now $1500. Landlord doesn't give a shit because he knows if the civilian moves out, there is a military member waiting to take his place.

Exactly Sandjames. When i was overseas we ALWAYS saw that with OHA, a lot more so than stateside with BAH.

E3 gets room in the exact same building as an E7, he is paying HIS bah rate, where the E7 is paying HIS bah rate.

INGUARD
04-16-2015, 09:48 AM
These people are working for a living. Doing shitty jobs that none of us here would want to do. How are they shifting responsibility to anyone? They're just trying to work.

Ah, but because they're poor... they don't make enough money to earn your respect. I should've remembered.

I grew up dirt poor and on welfare and my mother is still on welfare to this day in New York City. My sibling finished high school at 20 years of age and chooses to work a $10 an hour job at WholeFoods and has to support a family of five. His wife rarely works part-time and he blames the "man". He is almost 38 years of age and never took my advice for advancement.

I wanted to get out of the Bronx, so I studied hard and went to college. I served in the Marines and now an officer in the US Army making over six figures and a master's degree. I get calls and e-mails various times over the year, requesting assistance.

Now, I do not mind a reasonable increase in the minimum wage that is consistent with inflation but many have stated that minimum wage jobs (non-skilled) are not intended to pay the same as skilled labor or to support families. I use to receive the minimum wage when I was 16-19 making 3.35 an hour.

Now, there has been backlash with the wage increases. Employees who have received wage increases to 15 dollars are hour have lost hours that does not meet a 40 hour work week. Also, fringe benefits, such as free meals and discounts were cut to these workers.

Here is an article about businesses suffering due to the wage increase.

Personally, if services are going to cost me more (e.g. expensive hamburgers and food overall), then you will get what you deserve.

Nobody thinks about the big picture in this example and personally, the government should not supplement a family. It is their responsibility, not the taxpayer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2015, 03:57 PM
I grew up dirt poor and on welfare and my mother is still on welfare to this day in New York City. My sibling finished high school at 20 years of age and chooses to work a $10 an hour job at WholeFoods and has to support a family of five. His wife rarely works part-time and he blames the "man". He is almost 38 years of age and never took my advice for advancement.

I wanted to get out of the Bronx, so I studied hard and went to college. I served in the Marines and now an officer in the US Army making over six figures and a master's degree. I get calls and e-mails various times over the year, requesting assistance.

Now, I do not mind a reasonable increase in the minimum wage that is consistent with inflation but many have stated that minimum wage jobs (non-skilled) are not intended to pay the same as skilled labor or to support families. I use to receive the minimum wage when I was 16-19 making 3.35 an hour.

Now, there has been backlash with the wage increases. Employees who have received wage increases to 15 dollars are hour have lost hours that does not meet a 40 hour work week. Also, fringe benefits, such as free meals and discounts were cut to these workers.

Here is an article about businesses suffering due to the wage increase.

Personally, if services are going to cost me more (e.g. expensive hamburgers and food overall), then you will get what you deserve.

Nobody thinks about the big picture in this example and personally, the government should not supplement a family. It is their responsibility, not the taxpayer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

You have touched on a subject that has long been the elephant in the room. Of course as with most issues this isn't a universal portrayal but at what point do those (such as yourself) say 'enough' to those who made different decisions (or no decision) in their life?

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 03:57 PM
Again, you are wrong. If the cost of buying the burgers from the manufacturer goes up, and the price of the employee goes up, then the price to maintain maximum profit will go up. It will be the same relative to what it was prior to the inflation but the actual number will be higher. So, for someone earning minimum wage, it is going to cost the same percentage of their income to survive as it did prior to the raise of the wage.

I can't see why this is so difficult to understand. Would you not describe inflation (which is what we are discussing when we talk about putting more money into circulation) this way?

Raising the minimum wage does not "put more money into circulation"...it, in theory, moves the money that is already in circulation from the rest. owner to the employees...there is still the same amount of money in circulation.

Yes, prices go up as a result of inflation, but this isn't what we're talking about, we're talking about a shift in the money.


Ok, try this. I live in a neighborhood where it costs $150k to buy a house, and all the houses around me are priced similarly. All the businesses in the area raise their wages for all the workers. Now, people have more income. Are you telling me that the value/cost of the houses aren't going to go up? That is exactly what is being described with the minimum wage scenario. Does the housing market care that everyone outside of that market didn't get a raise? No, because the people in that market, living in that area, can afford more.

I don't think raising the minimum wage is the same as all the businesses raising all the wages.


The military BAH system shows you exactly how this will happen. BAH goes up, landlords raise the rent because they know what people can afford. There are still non-military people renting, making the same wages, but the landlords care only about what the primary customer can afford. It doesn't affect the military member. Raising BAH doesn't put anymore money in my pocket because I'm going to have to pay out more. But it does hurt the civilians because their pay doesn't go up, so the house they were paying $1200 for before is now $1500. Landlord doesn't give a shit because he knows if the civilian moves out, there is a military member waiting to take his place.

Seems like we've had this conversation before. This scenario might play out in a small town where the military population is a very large part of the market...but in a normal market, this won't happen.

Same as above...sure, if your entire or most of your town is minimum wage workers or working for less than $15 per hour, and you're not part of a greater metropolitan community (small town all by itself)..., then a raise to $15 is likely to have an impact on your community. I'm sure those places exist.


Now, replace $1200 BAH with current minimum wage and $1500 BAH with increased minimum wage. The price of the burger will go up, the minimum wage worker is no better off, but everyone else ends up suffering.



Exactly Sandjames. When i was overseas we ALWAYS saw that with OHA, a lot more so than stateside with BAH.

E3 gets room in the exact same building as an E7, he is paying HIS bah rate, where the E7 is paying HIS bah rate.

Yes, the reason why you see this overseas is because OHA does not work the same as BAH.

OHA you get paid ONLY for th rent you are paying. So, if you are an E7 and your max OHA is $1300, but you rent an apartment for $900...you only get paid $900. But if you rent one for $1300, you get $1300. So, in the OHA scenario it literally makes no difference to the E7. Landlords who cater to the military know this, as well. I know that in Germany, at least, the landlord had to negotiate the rent directly with the housing office, or the housing office had to approve it, at least. So, they were looking out for the govt's interest...they also would be wise to the disparity between E3 and E7 above.

Now, what some wily E7s might do if they wanted to rent that $900 apartment anyway...was negotiate in utility costs...So, say, I'll pay you $1200 for this $900 apartment, but you have to include electric, cable, and gas. I'll pay the water because I have to pay at least one utility to get the utility allowance, which is a flat rate, so I get the whole thing even though I'm only paying the smallest utility. So, in that case, you might find an E7 paying "more" for the same apartment, but he isn't really.

That's not to say the difference above doesn't happen...just saying in Germany they had controls for it and at least looked out for "fair rent." Other overseas places I've been that wasn't the case.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 04:22 PM
Here is an article about businesses suffering due to the wage increase.

Personally, if services are going to cost me more (e.g. expensive hamburgers and food overall), then you will get what you deserve.

Nobody thinks about the big picture in this example and personally, the government should not supplement a family. It is their responsibility, not the taxpayer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/16/we-are-seeing-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

Funny thing is...your linked article doesn't claim businesses are suffering.

It does "predict" that a rise in the price of labor will result in a drop in the demand...something I agree with, as well.

He was also "called out" on his article and does some backpedaling here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/18/the-rumpus-over-seattles-15-minimum-wage-and-restaurant-closures/


Did those specific Seattle restaurants close because of the minimum wage rise? No, and neither I nor the original source said they did.

He also notes that minimum wage jobs have actually increased and unemployment fallen...but figures that is as a result of the general US economy is improving.

IOW, he provides no evidence of businesses suffering as a result of minimum wage increases, but sort of thinks there are probably some that haven't opened on account of the minimum wage. That might be true...just don't think it's the smoking gun to support any point on this...mostly he is speculating like the rest of us.

UncaRastus
04-16-2015, 04:37 PM
Way back when, the food items were placed behind glass windows. The customer put money or a special token into a slot, pulled the window open, and took out the food item.

These fast food places were called 'Automats'.

Now, with the oncoming robotic rush ...

Have robotic burger flippers. Have an assembly line that has a robotic burger stuffer to make special orders, as well as regular orders. The special orders can be placed by punching in the special request at a touch screen.

To keep RM happy, install a few machine guns that become active when the glass window is broken by someone wanting to take food for free.

Have Rosie the Robot there to clean up after the thief is shot down.

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 04:41 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. American manufacturing is the only thing that's going to help the economy in the long run. Even though prices will be higher, it's the only way to keep more people working. It'll be a sacrifice for everyone to begin with, having to pay the higher prices, but in the end it will create more jobs, more tax money, etc.

Unfortunately, people who suggest this generally get labeled as isolationists.

For a country of 300 Million, America has very very little manufacturing base left. Now, that I can afford it. I try to make a conscious effort to try and buy American made products. But, it's virtually impossible. because we don't make hardly anything anymore. even most of the stuff stamped "Made in the USA, is them just screw-drivering junk together from components made in China. The only thing we manufacturer and export is debt. Print money to buy stocks and artificially inflate and then strategically short the market) Anything else these charlatans politicians (of either party) say is just lip service. The USA is being turned into a banana republic by design.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 04:52 PM
[QUOTE=Rainmaker;353469] even most of the stuff stamped "Made in the USA, "

...is made in a town named Usa, Japan. They just like to write in all CAPS.

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Rainmaker;353469] even most of the stuff stamped "Made in the USA, "

...is made in a town named Usa, Japan. They just like to write in all CAPS.

My sources tell me SNOPES can not be trusted...

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 05:06 PM
My sources tell me SNOPES can not be trusted...

Sorry...I should have used an emoticon smiley to indicate a tongue-in-cheek tone in my post. http://forums.militarytimes.com/images/smilies/yo.gif

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:14 PM
Sorry...I should have used an emoticon smiley to indicate a tongue-in-cheek tone in my post. http://forums.militarytimes.com/images/smilies/yo.gif

You can't just be in the illuminati the illuminati has to be in you..

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 05:28 PM
You can't just be in the illuminati the illuminati has to be in you..

Father Mike, is that you?

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:37 PM
Father Mike, is that you?

Well "Someone's" done a really good job of enriching themselves while destroying every major American City and giving away the store to Communist fucking China. This shit was intentional and if your Political Correctness blinds you to the point that you can't see that, then quite frankly you're part of the problem.

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:39 PM
You have touched on a subject that has long been the elephant in the room. Of course as with most issues this isn't a universal portrayal but at what point do those (such as yourself) say 'enough' to those who made different decisions (or no decision) in their life?

Compassion becomes a vice when you demand others to pay for it.

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:45 PM
Sorry...I should have used an emoticon smiley to indicate a tongue-in-cheek tone in my post. http://forums.militarytimes.com/images/smilies/yo.gif

This is SPARTA ..No emojis allowed Bitches ...

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:53 PM
Way back when, the food items were placed behind glass windows. The customer put money or a special token into a slot, pulled the window open, and took out the food item.

These fast food places were called 'Automats'.

Now, with the oncoming robotic rush ...

Have robotic burger flippers. Have an assembly line that has a robotic burger stuffer to make special orders, as well as regular orders. The special orders can be placed by punching in the special request at a touch screen.

To keep RM happy, install a few machine guns that become active when the glass window is broken by someone wanting to take food for free.

Have Rosie the Robot there to clean up after the thief is shot down.

That's really a great concept and Kind of sounds like the "pop ups" they used to have in Panama for a different type of "fast food". they usually had an armed guard outside as well

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 05:53 PM
:)
This is SPARTA ..No emojis allowed Bitches ...

;):cool:

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 05:58 PM
:)

;):cool:

I was trying to get along with you... But, those Emojis bring out the worst in Rainmaker... I had no choice. the gloves had to come off.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 06:10 PM
That's really a great concept and Kind of sounds like the "pop ups" they used to have in Panama for a different type of "fast food". they usually had an armed guard outside as well

Do you mean the "push button" hotels?

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 06:24 PM
Do you mean the "push button" hotels?

yeah, i'd forgotten the correct name.... It's a great idea and could really stimulate the economy. Rainmaker's often wondered how much .gov red tape you'd have to go through to get the zoning permits to buy up a couple storage units and set up shop here?

MikeKerriii
04-16-2015, 07:58 PM
Well "Someone's" done a really good job of enriching themselves while destroying every major American City and giving away the store to Communist fucking China. This shit was intentional and if your Political Correctness blinds you to the point that you can't see that, then quite frankly you're part of the problem.

;)You are confusing the imaginary Illuminati with the real Republican party:D

Rainmaker
04-16-2015, 09:36 PM
;)You are confusing the imaginary Illuminati with the real Republican party:D

Yes, We Agree... It's Bush's fault... and those are very nice set of Emojis you got there "Mike"....So, Is this your way of trying to admit to us that you are really a woman?

garhkal
04-16-2015, 10:22 PM
You have touched on a subject that has long been the elephant in the room. Of course as with most issues this isn't a universal portrayal but at what point do those (such as yourself) say 'enough' to those who made different decisions (or no decision) in their life?

Exactly. IMO if more people stepped up and STOPPED bailing out a family member cause of their poor decisions/lack of making one, then maybe they would stop MAKING said bad decisions.


OHA you get paid ONLY for th rent you are paying. So, if you are an E7 and your max OHA is $1300, but you rent an apartment for $900...you only get paid $900. But if you rent one for $1300, you get $1300. So, in the OHA scenario it literally makes no difference to the E7. Landlords who cater to the military know this, as well. I know that in Germany, at least, the landlord had to negotiate the rent directly with the housing office, or the housing office had to approve it, at least. So, they were looking out for the govt's interest...they also would be wise to the disparity between E3 and E7 above.


Not based on my experience in London, Bahrain or Guam. In all 3 places rent charged was equal to your OHA rate. Heck most rental agencies i went to, had a print out of the latest and greatest OHA rates, and the first question they asked was "What is your paygrade". The rent was then tied TO that rate.
No negotiations, no housing office having to 'approve' or negotiate etc..


That's not to say the difference above doesn't happen...just saying in Germany they had controls for it and at least looked out for "fair rent." Other overseas places I've been that wasn't the case.

Sounds more like the folks in Germany were more on the ball then.


For a country of 300 Million, America has very very little manufacturing base left. Now, that I can afford it. I try to make a conscious effort to try and buy American made products. But, it's virtually impossible. because we don't make hardly anything anymore. even most of the stuff stamped "Made in the USA, is them just screw-drivering junk together from components made in China. The only thing we manufacturer and export is debt. Print money to buy stocks and artificially inflate and then strategically short the market) Anything else these charlatans politicians (of either party) say is just lip service. The USA is being turned into a banana republic by design.

It does seem more and more like most of what is "Made in the USA" is just putting together parts all from overseas.

Rollyn01
04-16-2015, 11:11 PM
Yes, We Agree... It's Bush's fault... and those are very nice set of Emojis you got there "Mike"....So, Is this your way of trying to admit to us that you are really a woman?

To hear Bill O'Really tell it, it's not Bush's fault on the policies he made that still affect us today. Then again, it's not Obama's fault that his policies can't get passed due to congressional impedance. Oh well, back to more important things... like that LACE report. I was trying to get an estimate on a TOW missile setup for the bunker but the NSA intercepted the email and now I'm on their watch list.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2015, 11:36 PM
"It's Bush's fault" should be declared a corollary of Godwin's Law.

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 01:46 AM
To hear Bill O'Really tell it, it's not Bush's fault on the policies he made that still affect us today. Then again, it's not Obama's fault that his policies can't get passed due to congressional impedance. Oh well, back to more important things... like that LACE report. I was trying to get an estimate on a TOW missile setup for the bunker but the NSA intercepted the email and now I'm on their watch list.

Oh'Really is a big time Shill. There's no difference between the last four POTUS on the only thing that really matters to them. which is extracting as much loot from the carcass of the American Republic as possible. contrary to popular belief the Bush's and Barry are both progressives...Compassionate conservatism was just a cutesy name for socialism.

Obama and Bush are cousins as are as Obama and Cheney.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/obama-and-bush-are-cousins/comment-page-1/?_r=0

Obama Mamma just so happened to be working for Little Timmy Geithner's Daddy at the "Non profit" Ford Foundation in Indonesia.

https://philanthropy.com/article/Ford-Foundation-Links-Parents/194535

Of course it's all just a "coincidence" and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"..... Oh yeah and by the way, Rollyn didn't you see the latest annotations I made on the ultraviolet, black light-reactive, blue invisible ink, blast door map?

INGUARD
04-17-2015, 02:33 AM
Funny thing is...your linked article doesn't claim businesses are suffering.

It does "predict" that a rise in the price of labor will result in a drop in the demand...something I agree with, as well.

He was also "called out" on his article and does some backpedaling here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/18/the-rumpus-over-seattles-15-minimum-wage-and-restaurant-closures/



He also notes that minimum wage jobs have actually increased and unemployment fallen...but figures that is as a result of the general US economy is improving.

IOW, he provides no evidence of businesses suffering as a result of minimum wage increases, but sort of thinks there are probably some that haven't opened on account of the minimum wage. That might be true...just don't think it's the smoking gun to support any point on this...mostly he is speculating like the rest of us.

Did you read this in the article? Because that was my point.

While attending an event at a SeaTac hotel last week, I met two women who receive the $15/hour minimum wage. SeaTac has implemented the new law on Jan. 1. I met the women while they were working. One was a waitress and the other was cleaning the hallway.
“Are you happy with the $15 wage?” I asked the full-time cleaning lady.
“It sounds good, but it’s not good,” the woman said.
“Why?” I asked.
“I lost my 401k, health insurance, paid holiday, and vacation,” she responded. “No more free food,” she added.
The hotel used to feed her. Now, she has to bring her own food. Also, no overtime, she said. She used to work extra hours and received overtime pay.
What else? I asked.
“I have to pay for parking,” she said.
I then asked the part-time waitress, who was part of the catering staff.
“Yes, I’ve got $15 an hour, but all my tips are now much less,” she said. Before the new wage law was implemented, her hourly wage was $7. But her tips added to more than $15 an hour. Yes, she used to receive free food and parking. Now, she has to bring her own food and pay for parking.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/03/we-can-predict-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

The point is that raising the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of people receiving a living wage that will reduce government benefits. Wait and see. And I have lived in Germany and now in Korea and their social welfare programs are no where like ours and good for them.

INGUARD
04-17-2015, 02:41 AM
Oh'Really is a big time Shill. There's no difference between the last four POTUS on the only thing that really matters to them. which is extracting as much loot from the carcass of the American Republic as possible. contrary to popular belief the Bush's and Barry are both progressives...Compassionate conservatism was just a cutesy name for socialism.

Obama and Bush are cousins as are as Obama and Cheney.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/obama-and-bush-are-cousins/comment-page-1/?_r=0

Obama Mamma just so happened to be working for Little Timmy Geithner's Daddy at the "Non profit" Ford Foundation in Indonesia.

https://philanthropy.com/article/Ford-Foundation-Links-Parents/194535

Of course it's all just a "coincidence" and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"..... Oh yeah and by the way, Rollyn did you see the latest annotations I made on the ultraviolet, black light-reactive, blue invisible ink blast door map?

IMO, O'Reilly tells it like it is without the fluff of political correctness. Again, go live some months in the South Bronx and engage the indigenous people and just see for yourself. Social handouts are killing this country. And do not get me wrong, I do not want our poor to live in a way that will cause a French Revolution but when I have relatives that are working poor and receive robust benefits in the form of food stamps and faked SSI checks and have better cars, TVs, cell-phones and internet speeds than I, it just makes you wonder.

MikeKerriii
04-17-2015, 04:50 AM
Yes, We Agree... It's Bush's fault... and those are very nice set of Emojis you got there "Mike"....So, Is this your way of trying to admit to us that you are really a woman? Your getting delusional again troll

MikeKerriii
04-17-2015, 04:54 AM
IMO, O'Reilly tells it like it is without the fluff of political correctness. Again, go live some months in the South Bronx and engage the indigenous people and just see for yourself. Social handouts are killing this country. And do not get me wrong, I do not want our poor to live in a way that will cause a French Revolution but when I have relatives that are working poor and receive robust benefits in the form of food stamps and faked SSI checks and have better cars, TVs, cell-phones and internet speeds than I, it just makes you wonder.

He also simply lies on a regular basis like his saving a camera in a war zone. The warzone was a non-violent riot a thousand miles from the nearest war and the cameraman calls Bill a liar.

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 05:02 AM
IMO, O'Reilly tells it like it is without the fluff of political correctness. Again, go live some months in the South Bronx and engage the indigenous people and just see for yourself. Social handouts are killing this country. And do not get me wrong, I do not want our poor to live in a way that will cause a French Revolution but when I have relatives that are working poor and receive robust benefits in the form of food stamps and faked SSI checks and have better cars, TVs, cell-phones and internet speeds than I, it just makes you wonder.

O'Reilly is a court jester. He will only take his "conservative" act so far. For example, He showed his true colors when debating the subject of guns being taken away from law abiding citizens fleeing in the Aftermath of Katrina. He said this was justified because the Mayor (READ Government) had lost control of the city. Suspension of the writ of Habeas corpus is the only right in the constitution that can be suspended and only temporarily during an armed insurrection. So, "conservative" O'Reilly supports disarming law-abiding people in order to keep them safe from roving gangs of thugs, because the government can't protect them..... Typical Progressive Logic. I could give you other examples. but, you get my point.

The South Bronx has just GOT to be doing great by now.... didn't you know Barrack Hussein Obama is the first African American President of the United States?

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 05:06 AM
Your getting delusional again troll

Drinkity Drink Drink...

Bos Mutus
04-17-2015, 06:56 AM
Did you read this in the article? Because that was my point.

While attending an event at a SeaTac hotel last week, I met two women who receive the $15/hour minimum wage. SeaTac has implemented the new law on Jan. 1. I met the women while they were working. One was a waitress and the other was cleaning the hallway.
“Are you happy with the $15 wage?” I asked the full-time cleaning lady.
“It sounds good, but it’s not good,” the woman said.
“Why?” I asked.
“I lost my 401k, health insurance, paid holiday, and vacation,” she responded. “No more free food,” she added.
The hotel used to feed her. Now, she has to bring her own food. Also, no overtime, she said. She used to work extra hours and received overtime pay.
What else? I asked.
“I have to pay for parking,” she said.
I then asked the part-time waitress, who was part of the catering staff.
“Yes, I’ve got $15 an hour, but all my tips are now much less,” she said. Before the new wage law was implemented, her hourly wage was $7. But her tips added to more than $15 an hour. Yes, she used to receive free food and parking. Now, she has to bring her own food and pay for parking.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/03/we-can-predict-the-effects-of-seattles-15-an-hour-minimum-wage/

The point is that raising the minimum wage is not going to solve the problem of people receiving a living wage that will reduce government benefits. Wait and see. And I have lived in Germany and now in Korea and their social welfare programs are no where like ours and good for them.

Well that explains our confusion.

First, no I didn't read that quote in the article you linked, because that quote from a different article that you now linked.

Second, when you said "Here is an article showing how businesses are suffering..." I expected the article to explain how businesses are suffering, which the article didn't do... and now it seems your real point was not how business is suffering, but how "some employees don't like the raise"...and to prove that he found two.

All in all, this author has very little point...he even says:


Between January and December of 2014, while Seatac’s business owners (and their customers) were absorbing the cost of paying minimum wage employees $15, unemployment decreased 17.46%, falling from 6.3% to 5.2%. It turns out that you CAN increase the minimum wage (even in large increments) and increase overall employment at the same time.His original point was that as the price of labor goes up, the demand for it will go down. I agree with that, it's basic economics. Unfortunately for him, the data did not prove his point so he goes on to try to explain why his "predicition" might still hold true (that unemployment will rise) even though the data seems to indicate it not true (unemployment fell)...basically, he says, well it didn't rise as much as it woul have otherwise...which he has no proof for other than his basic point.

He goes on to blather about the greater economic trends and Sea-Tac being a very small piece of a bigger thing...also true, though...just does nothing to prove his one and only point that as price goes up demand goes down.

garhkal
04-17-2015, 07:07 AM
"It's Bush's fault" should be declared a corollary of Godwin's Law.

Especially since Obama had both the house and senate in DEM hands for what, 5 years while he was in office to undo all what 'bush' did.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2015, 12:27 PM
...when I have relatives that are working poor and receive robust benefits in the form of food stamps and faked SSI checks and have better cars, TVs, cell-phones and internet speeds than I, it just makes you wonder.


Usually, when people say shit like this, it's gross exaggeration; or, if they actually believe this, then it's not through any actual experience with poor people, even if they claim they have any. Or... the more likely scenario, they're not looking at the bigger picture.

I live in Norfolk, VA - a city where, with some exceptions, you're either in the military, retired military, or on public assistance. I can say with certainty that anything that anyone on public assistance has that's better than mine, I can afford it myself; I just choose not to buy it. Hell, I used a pre-paid "dumb" phone for example. Why? Because all I use my cell phone for is talking and texting. I don't need to be on facebook or anything else 24/7. In other words, me not having a smart phone has nothing to do with my ability to afford one.

Someone on welfare having a better TV than mine? I'm sure there are plenty. My living room TV is about five years old. Better TV's have come out since then, and they're probably even cheaper than mine was when it was still on the store shelves. If someone on food stamps has a TV that shits the bed next week; what are are they going to do - not have a TV? No, they're going to head to Walmart and get a new one. And it's going to be newer than my TV. And you know something else? When my TV shits the bed, I'm going to head there myself and get a new one. As for now, my time hasn't come yet. Theirs probably has.

You also need to consider this... at least, in a town like mine, MOST younger (and many older) single men in the military are fucking idiots. They've got a good job with good pay, and in many military cities - like Norfolk - military members tend to be the most well-off people in town.

They know this, and many get the notion that the poor local women are going to be falling at their feet, seeing them as their saviors from their socio-economic situation (i.e., "Captain Save-A-Ho"). Little do they know that these local poor women have plenty of experience with these douchebags, and can see them coming from a mile away. That poor woman with her Michael Kors purse, iPhone, and other shit? Some idiot in the military likely bought those things for her. And that same women is likely getting her brains fucked out by some shiftless no-job-having dude who does nothing but lay up in her house (and other women's houses) all day, playing X-Box. They're not buying this stuff with welfare money. Suckers with money are simply buying this stuff FOR them.

I would think that you, growing up in NY, would know this shit. Though, it's possible that you've been in the military your whole adult life, and might have been around that life as an adult.

sandsjames
04-17-2015, 01:26 PM
He also simply lies on a regular basis like his saving a camera in a war zone. The warzone was a non-violent riot a thousand miles from the nearest war and the cameraman calls Bill a liar.


I've got 2 ribbons and two devices on my ribbon rack, as well as documentation on travel vouchers as being in a "war zone" so I was in a war zone, even though I was never in an area actually close to a war (Kuwait in 2009 was pretty darn safe).

Do I think O'Reilly exaggerated on his claim? Yes, indeed he did. But I also guarantee that the area he was in during that time frame was much more dangerous than the thousands of U.S. military who have received haz duty pay in places like Kuwait, Saudi, Oman, etc.

That said, he's part of the media, so there is no doubt he's a liar, just like the rest of them.

Stalwart
04-17-2015, 02:35 PM
Especially since Obama had both the house and senate in DEM hands for what, 5 years while he was in office to undo all what 'bush' did.

The House was under a Democrat majority for the first 2 years of President Obama's administration; the Senate for the first 6.

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 02:42 PM
Hell, I used a pre-paid "dumb" phone for example. Why? Because all I use my cell phone for is talking and texting. I don't need to be on facebook or anything else 24/7. In other words, me not having a smart phone has nothing to do with my ability to afford one.

.

Playa always use a throw-down phone and changes it out regularly.....It's much safer that way. Rainmaker keep mines hidden in a recycling bin underneaf a bunch of crushed up beer cans out in the garage. Nomsayin?

MikeKerriii
04-17-2015, 04:17 PM
I've got 2 ribbons and two devices on my ribbon rack, as well as documentation on travel vouchers as being in a "war zone" so I was in a war zone, even though I was never in an area actually close to a war (Kuwait in 2009 was pretty darn safe).

Do I think O'Reilly exaggerated on his claim? Yes, indeed he did. But I also guarantee that the area he was in during that time frame was much more dangerous than the thousands of U.S. military who have received haz duty pay in places like Kuwait, Saudi, Oman, etc.

That said, he's part of the media, so there is no doubt he's a liar, just like the rest of them.

The difference is that I doubt you brag about non-existent act of bravery in a non-existent war zone

sandsjames
04-17-2015, 04:27 PM
The difference is that I doubt you brag about non-existent act of bravery in a non-existent war zone

Ok. So what's that point? Was he a trusted news source? Was he running for office? He's the host of what equates to a reality show, designed to get ratings. I care about him being truthful the exact same amount as I care about Brian Williams being truthful.

It matters about as much as the story on CNN right now about the ESPN chick telling the junk yard worker to lose some weight. Who gives a damn what any of these "news" people say or do?

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 05:38 PM
Ok. So what's that point? Was he a trusted news source? Was he running for office? He's the host of what equates to a reality show, designed to get ratings. I care about him being truthful the exact same amount as I care about Brian Williams being truthful.
It matters about as much as the story on CNN right now about the ESPN chick telling the junk yard worker to lose some weight. Who gives a damn what any of these "news" people say or do?

I'd say No. So, who do you consider a trusted news source?

It matters, because members of the Media have a Moral Responsibility to tell the truth.Ever heard the term Journalistic integrity? It's this old fashioned concept that goes something like this..... An independent media is necessary to ensure that the public is ACCURATELY and fully informed of the inner workings of the government. Which is necessary to make sure that it serves them instead of ruling over them.

sandsjames
04-17-2015, 06:42 PM
I'd say No. So, who do you consider a trusted news source?

It matters, because members of the Media have a Moral Responsibility to tell the truth.Ever heard the term Journalistic integrity? It's this old fashioned concept that goes something like this..... An independent media is necessary to ensure that the public is ACCURATELY and fully informed of the inner workings of the government. Which is necessary to make sure that it serves them instead of ruling over them.


There are no trusted news sources anymore.

garhkal
04-17-2015, 08:55 PM
They know this, and many get the notion that the poor local women are going to be falling at their feet, seeing them as their saviors from their socio-economic situation (i.e., "Captain Save-A-Ho"). Little do they know that these local poor women have plenty of experience with these douchebags, and can see them coming from a mile away. That poor woman with her Michael Kors purse, iPhone, and other shit? Some idiot in the military likely bought those things for her. And that same women is likely getting her brains fucked out by some shiftless no-job-having dude who does nothing but lay up in her house (and other women's houses) all day, playing X-Box. They're not buying this stuff with welfare money. Suckers with money are simply buying this stuff FOR them.

I would think that you, growing up in NY, would know this shit. Though, it's possible that you've been in the military your whole adult life, and might have been around that life as an adult.

Very true Rusty. When i was stationed there, i saw MANY a fellow navy man get into that trap.

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 09:13 PM
There are no trusted news sources anymore.

You mean to say you don't trust the tax dodging "progressive" Hi Yella- racist hypocrite Melissa Harris- Perry and her tampon earrings either??!!

sandsjames
04-17-2015, 09:39 PM
You mean to say you don't trust the tax dodging "progressive" Hi Yella- racist hypocrite Melissa Harris- Perry and her tampon earrings either??!!

Have no idea who she is so, no.

MikeKerriii
04-17-2015, 11:47 PM
You mean to say you don't trust the tax dodging "progressive" Hi Yella- racist hypocrite Melissa Harris- Perry and her tampon earrings either??!!

Hi Y***?
You really are openly racist pond scum aren't you

TJMAC77SP
04-18-2015, 12:48 AM
Who else misses Bruwin?

garhkal
04-18-2015, 10:02 PM
I trust Fox more than i trust CNN/HLN/MSNBC

Rainmaker
04-19-2015, 04:37 AM
Hi Y***?
You really are openly racist pond scum aren't you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

Rollyn01
04-19-2015, 09:07 PM
Oh'Really is a big time Shill. There's no difference between the last four POTUS on the only thing that really matters to them. which is extracting as much loot from the carcass of the American Republic as possible. contrary to popular belief the Bush's and Barry are both progressives...Compassionate conservatism was just a cutesy name for socialism.

Obama and Bush are cousins as are as Obama and Cheney.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/obama-and-bush-are-cousins/comment-page-1/?_r=0

Obama Mamma just so happened to be working for Little Timmy Geithner's Daddy at the "Non profit" Ford Foundation in Indonesia.

https://philanthropy.com/article/Ford-Foundation-Links-Parents/194535

Of course it's all just a "coincidence" and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist"..... Oh yeah and by the way, Rollyn didn't you see the latest annotations I made on the ultraviolet, black light-reactive, blue invisible ink, blast door map?

Been busy shopping for a Howitzer. Got it on sale $1200. Anywho, I checked the list and most of that is taken care of. I am wondering about why we need "lots and lots" of C.S. gas. I mean, the signs already says "Scout on watch at 300 meters (750 with scope). Cross the line and you will be dropped." Wouldn't gassing people be a waste of time, not to mention a waste of space to stock that shit? Aside from that, I've updated to list to green on everything else and changed the load plan because it was garbage (like a madman drew it up). Only things missing are the antiaircraft gun (still waiting) and you haven't told me anything on when the hell is the det cord is coming.

As for the articles linked, all I can really do is shake my head. Fuck it. I'm reinforcing the blast doors to keep the bullshit out, maybe the vents too. I hear bullshit is sneaky like that.

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2015, 01:29 AM
You guys ever watch Talladega Nights? The scene where they are discussing "Baby Jesus"? Anyone else think it went about 7 minutes too long to where the joke fell completely flat?

sandsjames
04-20-2015, 11:45 AM
You guys ever watch Talladega Nights? The scene where they are discussing "Baby Jesus"? Anyone else think it went about 7 minutes too long to where the joke fell completely flat?

I think that's pretty much the purpose, just like most scenes in Family Guy that just deep carrying on.

Did you bring that up for a reason?

INGUARD
04-20-2015, 11:56 AM
Had any watch Paul Tudor Jones II on TED Talks?

I found his brief on rethinking capitalism fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJSK4viVMs

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2015, 04:17 PM
I think that's pretty much the purpose, just like most scenes in Family Guy that just deep carrying on.

Did you bring that up for a reason?

Something must have tripped that feeling.

Rainmaker
04-20-2015, 07:43 PM
Had any watch Paul Tudor Jones II on TED Talks?

I found his brief on rethinking capitalism fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJSK4viVMs

Was fascinating and sounds good. But, Whenever A Social Fabian hedge fund manager (that's made billions insider trading ) starts talking about "Rethinking Capitalism", that's a pretty sure sign that the shit's about to Crash again. It's time for the Shemittah.

We don't need to Rethink Capitalism. What We need is to actually start practicing capitalism again..

Having Too big to Fail Banks and Corporations is not practicing Capitalism. It's practicing crony Capitalism, which is just another form of socialism

They're going to crash the system and then tell us that Capitalism's the problem and they need even more control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JhwQ17mLjo

TED is a cult.

INGUARD
04-26-2015, 03:06 AM
Usually, when people say shit like this, it's gross exaggeration; or, if they actually believe this, then it's not through any actual experience with poor people, even if they claim they have any. Or... the more likely scenario, they're not looking at the bigger picture.

I live in Norfolk, VA - a city where, with some exceptions, you're either in the military, retired military, or on public assistance. I can say with certainty that anything that anyone on public assistance has that's better than mine, I can afford it myself; I just choose not to buy it. Hell, I used a pre-paid "dumb" phone for example. Why? Because all I use my cell phone for is talking and texting. I don't need to be on facebook or anything else 24/7. In other words, me not having a smart phone has nothing to do with my ability to afford one.

Someone on welfare having a better TV than mine? I'm sure there are plenty. My living room TV is about five years old. Better TV's have come out since then, and they're probably even cheaper than mine was when it was still on the store shelves. If someone on food stamps has a TV that shits the bed next week; what are are they going to do - not have a TV? No, they're going to head to Walmart and get a new one. And it's going to be newer than my TV. And you know something else? When my TV shits the bed, I'm going to head there myself and get a new one. As for now, my time hasn't come yet. Theirs probably has.

You also need to consider this... at least, in a town like mine, MOST younger (and many older) single men in the military are fucking idiots. They've got a good job with good pay, and in many military cities - like Norfolk - military members tend to be the most well-off people in town.

They know this, and many get the notion that the poor local women are going to be falling at their feet, seeing them as their saviors from their socio-economic situation (i.e., "Captain Save-A-Ho"). Little do they know that these local poor women have plenty of experience with these douchebags, and can see them coming from a mile away. That poor woman with her Michael Kors purse, iPhone, and other shit? Some idiot in the military likely bought those things for her. And that same women is likely getting her brains fucked out by some shiftless no-job-having dude who does nothing but lay up in her house (and other women's houses) all day, playing X-Box. They're not buying this stuff with welfare money. Suckers with money are simply buying this stuff FOR them.

I would think that you, growing up in NY, would know this shit. Though, it's possible that you've been in the military your whole adult life, and might have been around that life as an adult.

It is not a gross exaggeration when I have seen it myself. It is not shit but facts.

And yes, in my case, it could come down to me making personal choices in regards to purchases.

But, again, in my observations, some of these friends, acquaintances or relatives have placed themselves in extreme debt. They use the little credit they are afforded and purchases way beyond their means and they ask for financial assistance from relatives to get them out of a jam. Some do not even use the subsidies they are given to their advantage.

They are afforded section 8 and welfare based on their income but they never report the boyfriend living with her, making a living wage. Whenever the social worker has an appointment to visit, the boyfriend is told to remove everything that shows he is living there and do not come back until told. I even over heard conversations, tricks to game the system and I voice my opinion in disdain. But unfortunately, the weak checks and balances don't work.

You may disagree however you want, but my eyes and own experiences have provided my opinion. And yes, I have spent the majority of my adult live serving in the military but I spent my mid-20s and 30s working as a civilian in New York City (and lived some of these years in the South Bronx), so again, I speak from experience. Do not compare the rickity dink Norfork to New York City; especially if you have not lived there. And I been stationed in Quantico, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Colorado and seen the back woods poor too and there is a difference.

INGUARD
04-26-2015, 03:16 AM
TED is a cult.

Yea ok if you want to believe that.