Exactly. You want them to live off your taxes, or pay their own? You can't have it both ways.
Eg and other business owners
- Thread starter herdfan429
- Start date
Exactly. You want them to live off your taxes, or pay their own? You can't have it both ways.
I have a guy who works for me who I pay $12/hour plus incentives. He's a skilled carpenter, hangs and finishes drywall, can do light plumbing and electrical work, and all finish carpentry in a house. And we have bureaucrats wanting to legislate $15/hr wages to people who have no skill set whatsoever, and who work at jobs that an iPad could do better.
Good luck with that, you morons. Just pricing yourselves out of a job. But that's the whole point; now they can go on the dole and the rest of us can pay them to "look for jobs" for the rest of their lives.
Good luck with that, you morons. Just pricing yourselves out of a job. But that's the whole point; now they can go on the dole and the rest of us can pay them to "look for jobs" for the rest of their lives.
If they price themselves out of a job, looks like you'll be doing your own carpentry, drywall, plumbing, and electrical work.
An increase to $15 would be substantial for my business. A back of the envelope calculation shows it would impact my payroll by a little over $100,000 per year. With my partner (my brother), that would impact our personal bottom line by $50,000 apiece. We could still make it, but now you are starting to get close to the point where you have to weigh whether the effort and risk is worth the diminished profit. Our business (video lottery) numbers usually fall in the top 10% of VL in the state of WV. But most of these businesses couldn't sustain the increase. This increase would without a doubt cause over half the video lotteries (probably more) to go out of business. That would shift the burden of the programs supported by the video lottery back to the state's general budget and likely spell the end of the Promise Scholarship.
No, I don't think the increase in play would come near what is lost. The majority of my players...the regulars...have incomes way higher than $15 dollars an hour. This is unscientific because I haven't surveyed my players but the majority of money going in are from people who wouldn't be affected by the increase. I believe the bump would be negligible.
For those who don't own their machines it would be instant death of their business. Their margin is too slim. They give 51% of their keep to the state and they give half of the remaining to the operators (machine owners). The retailers have to pay payroll, rent, utilities, insurance, etc. out of their part. This increase would put half of them out of business. In order for the state to continue funding all the programs funded by LVL they would have to increase taxes or cut programs of which Promise Scholarship is one.
I would be less affected because I own my machines, but I had to pay dearly for them as well as for the ten year license bid through the state. My investment was substantial thus my risk is substantial. The increase would have serious consequences on my business, the taxpayers, and the kids who are going to college with the aid of Promise.
For those who don't own their machines it would be instant death of their business. Their margin is too slim. They give 51% of their keep to the state and they give half of the remaining to the operators (machine owners). The retailers have to pay payroll, rent, utilities, insurance, etc. out of their part. This increase would put half of them out of business. In order for the state to continue funding all the programs funded by LVL they would have to increase taxes or cut programs of which Promise Scholarship is one.
I would be less affected because I own my machines, but I had to pay dearly for them as well as for the ten year license bid through the state. My investment was substantial thus my risk is substantial. The increase would have serious consequences on my business, the taxpayers, and the kids who are going to college with the aid of Promise.
How can that be? Increasing minimum wage is only a good thing and has no negative consequences right extra?
Greed doesn't understand the whole "risk to invested capital" part of this as described by GK. He was handed a business started from another family member.
He also doesn't seem to understand the effects of a mandated "inflation" that results from all passed through costs at each level of the economy. In the case of my business, such a forced increase would raise my overall labor cost by almost 20% by the time I factor in taxes, workers comp rates, SS match, etc. No doubt, my suppliers, vendor companies, etc would also be hit with such costs. My COGs would most likely jump at a highly compounded rate, force me to raise my prices to a point that would initially hurt demand overall.
The increase in prices across the economy would result in even less purchasing power for the very people this was intended to help. Again, this minimum wage debate is intended to propagandize small minds who have little idea how the economy works, while also allowing the idiots in the WH and congress the ability to say they collected more in tax revenue, as "proof" the economy is better.
He also doesn't seem to understand the effects of a mandated "inflation" that results from all passed through costs at each level of the economy. In the case of my business, such a forced increase would raise my overall labor cost by almost 20% by the time I factor in taxes, workers comp rates, SS match, etc. No doubt, my suppliers, vendor companies, etc would also be hit with such costs. My COGs would most likely jump at a highly compounded rate, force me to raise my prices to a point that would initially hurt demand overall.
The increase in prices across the economy would result in even less purchasing power for the very people this was intended to help. Again, this minimum wage debate is intended to propagandize small minds who have little idea how the economy works, while also allowing the idiots in the WH and congress the ability to say they collected more in tax revenue, as "proof" the economy is better.
That is honestly the dumbest shi* I have ever heard. How is going to increase when the cost is going to be offset by business passing that on?
Facts, or anything close to them, often befuddle you. No surprise there. I'll give you an example: If a restaurant had to increase the price for their food by 10% in order to pay for increased wages , how bad would that affect you since a $20 meal would then cost $22? Now, if 40 million Americans got a raise, you don't think demand for food at restaurants would go up? A $4 Big Mac goes to $4.40.
For the most part, yes. How much do you think would be saved in safety net programs if the minimum wage was increased to $15 per hour?
If your estimate is correct, then the body that controls your business (the state?) should give you a higher percentage of the take. They'll be able to afford it since they will save lots of money from people dropping off the safety net programs. I don't want anyone hurt with this. I believe it can be arranged.
It would be a cold day in Hades before the state lowered their cut. If anything, the reduced revenue to the state due to lost businesses would cause them to increase their cut. As it stands now the state determines their keep based on per machine averages throughout all machines in the state The higher the in (amount of money wagered) per machine the higher their cut for the state. When the marginal businesses went under that would eliminate the lower averaging machines and increase the overall per machine average on the remaining and drive the states cut up further based on the present structure.
But here's the thing. By lowering my profit margin you've put a business in danger of not being able to weather any unexpected cost. Right after the last rebid for 10 year licenses...something that cost my business around $70,000 for the rebid....the state required a mandatory software upgrade at a cost of $3500 per machine. Now...I have two locations and ten machines. At the stroke of a pen that cost me $35,000 dollars. There goes more businesses. This right after the license rebid to boot.
The operators (companies that own machines and put them in retail establishments) own literally hundreds. After paying millions of dollars for a rebid they were forced to pay millions more for the upgrade. The state gave a reprieve and gave an extension to 2017 to complete the upgrade to allow the cost to be spread out, but the operators still have a lawsuit pending on the issue.
I can't raise the cost of goods and services to offset the increase like most businesses. My cost is preset. I have to eat it. So when you cut my margin dangerously close, any unexpected costs (like the hardware upgrade) could put you under. This causes losses of services and programs. It causes loss of jobs which further erodes the tax base. To continue to provide theses services the state has to increase taxes on an economy that is losing jobs thus increasing the burden even further for those businesses that survive.
So greed, I take it you are paying your workers $13 an hour. So if the minimum wage is say $8 an hour does that mean you raise your guys to $18 an hour? Surely you don't think you can expect them to make custom made cabinets for the same wage their son makes at Burger King working after school makes do you?
I'm not predicting what the state would do, but I'm convinced there is an answer. If I were the state, I'd raise the take for guys like you, since I would be saving money from people dropping out of the safety net. I read an article that stated that for every $1 raised from 7.25-10.10 would decrease the cost of the safety net by 24 cents.
sure greed, say that if it makes you feel better. Even Obama isn't asking for 15 an hour. I already said that 10 would probably be in order if phased in over a few years. I base that on taking the minimum wage from 1983 when Reagan was President. I then put it into an inflation calculator and that would bring the minimum wage back to early 80's levels. There is always a cost trade off. Here is an article defending an increase. In it they admit that a 10 an hour wage would cause some job loss (about 500,000). If we followed your advice and did what you are arguing for it would be a huge mistake. Go ahead and take that position, a position that you and Bernie Saunders advocate. Meanwhile even Obama knows better than that!
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/18/3303201/cbo-minimum-wage/
How is it that when someone who makes less than you gets a raise, that you think everyone should automatically get one? But if someone making more than you gets a raise, you don't automatically think you should get one. None of you conservatives complain about CEO salaries going ballistic, but if a working class man or woman want one, it's the end of the world. Here's the bottom line. However fair you might see it, or not, this nation MUST have a better ability to purchase goods, or we all lose eventually.
A larger increase in the minimum wage has already been done in this country. Unemployment and inflation were not negatively affected.
If you think you can continue to employee capable skilled guys at the same wage that fast food guys are making then good luck with that.You can bet the house that will force small businessmen like you to increase your costs for salaries even if you pass the cost to the consumers. At some point the cost of the jobs will impact some people and their decision to contract you.You see the problem is not everyone will get a raise. Those on fixed incomes will suffer and many in mid level and entry level positions will not benefit immediately. I don't know your clientele so maybe it won't bite you personally as bad. No doubt that it will have ramifications in society at large. Like my old Economics Prof at Marshall used to say, "there is no such thing as a free lunch, sooner or later someone has to pay the tab"!
EG do you really not understand why people would be pissed if someone working under them, with fewer skills necessary to do their job, got a raise and they didnt?
Greed on refusing to raise prices now or accept $300 less per job in order to offer pay increases to his staff........
Enough said............Fvcking hypocrite. Always has been. Always will be...............
Greed, let's say you have two employees. One makes $8/hr and the other makes $16/hr. The $16/hr guy is your skilled laborer, and the $8/hr guy knows how to sweep the floor and do menial jobs. The government steps in and mandates a wage floor where all workers must make at minimum $15 per hour.
What do you think will happen with your $16/hr guy when the guy he used to make TWICE as much per hour, and doesn't possess any of his skills now makes $1/hr less than he does?
What do you think will happen with your $16/hr guy when the guy he used to make TWICE as much per hour, and doesn't possess any of his skills now makes $1/hr less than he does?
He has the option of continuing to work...or not. Many people have persons above them that make more but don't know or do more, but get paid more. You either continue to work under those conditions...or not.
He also has the option of taking his skill elsewhere. Now that creates a void in the company. Do you really think that most people who are worth more in the market will hire in at 16 an hour when the guys below are making 15?
Last edited:
True, but you totally missed my point. You own a business, so lets make you the example. Say you pay me $16 an hour to build custom made cabinets. You hired your nephew to clean up the shop at $8 an hour. Now the minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour. Meanwhile, across the street a guy moves to town and opens up a company that does the same thing you do. All things constant, your market share may shrink now due to increased competition. Simultaneous with this new development I say to you "hey boss you just gave your sisters boy a huge raise, I want one. You say tough. I say cool, I will take my talent elsewhere. I walk across the street to your new competition and get hired at $22 an hour. You say no big deal. The problem is there are maybe only a limited number of guys who have the skill set to do what you need done. Suddenly market forces force you to pay more to secure the services of an employee who can do the job right. Competition means you have to watch how much you bid your jobs at so your profit margin may go down not only due to an increase in labor but increased competition. You can hire an unskilled guy at the new minimum and face the consequences of putting out an inferior product. This could lead you to eventually go out of business. Get it?
Eg I just read one of your posts. Do you honestly think that 40% of the working population getting a raise would have no impact on the wages of the other 60?
You don't seem to get it. Other than the minimum wage increase, exactly which of your points is not commonplace in most places all the time?
OMG talking to you is like trying to communicate with someone from another planet.Let me try another example. Lets say you are a LPN. If you make 15 an hour and the RN on the floor makes 25 an hour. I can guarantee you that in the real world if you raised the pay of the LPN 23 an hour you better start paying the RN 33 an hour.For whatever reason you can't seem to see the obvious. Say what you will but nobody agrees with you greed except a few socialists like Bernie Saunders. If you raise the minimum wage it will push labor costs upward.There will always be distinctions made that affect pay. Question? Do you make more than your employees? I would think so. So why do you pay yourself more? Is it because you take the risks and fund the business? So would you pay them the same wage you pay yourself?If not why not?I can tell you why, you are worth more to the company.
Last edited:
The only thing I see from you is that you're concerned that wages would go up for working Americans. You don't seem to understand that I want wages to go up for everyone. If raising the minimum wage increases other wages, great. You seem to think it's catastrophic. It's been done before without negative employment and inflation results.
You somehow always forget to mention that while they were on production based pay, they made much more money. Why is that? Senility or stupidity?
SO I am going to go to our operations manager tomorrow and tell him we should pay the guys in the warehouse by the number of boxes he packs and loads.
