potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Ohhhh, that question is TOO hard! 
Seattle Minimum Wage not working out...
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
gotta keep it simpleOhhhh, that question is TOO hard!
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
It's called mirroring.
IOW playing to your audience.
IOW playing to your audience.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Plenty of gas stations go out of business.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You didn't stay on topic. Not surprising. So I'll ask the question again. How can two gas stations, practically side by side to each other both manage to stay in business when one charges more than the other? There are plenty of examples of this.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Not enough data to answer the question. Do you deny that price is a factor in people's purchasing decisions? Sometimes the primary factor?
You can start a business and pay people whatever you want, I dont care. It is when you start dictating what other business owners have to do that I object.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
thank you Tesla....
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
your question:
Some people, maybe you, put price as the most important attribute when making a decision. Did you do that when you bought your set of golf clubs? What about your attire when on the course? If you bought the cheapest of everything and are happy with them, then fine but I'll bet you didn't.
Competing on price alone leads to low profit margins and temporary advantages which is why most companies choose not to go that route. Take Walmart, for example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-03-31/walmart-s-first-ever-sales-drop-marks-new-era
The End of an Era At Walmart
Not every milestone is worth celebrating.
For the first time ever -- or at least since the company went public some 45 years ago -- Walmart's revenues shrank from the year before, according to its annual financial filing released Wednesday.
Walmart is clearly having trouble adapting its gigantic stores to the Internet age. To be sure, it is a retail juggernaut that brings in half a trillion dollars (yes, that's right, trillion) in sales every year. And with more than 11,500 stores in 28 countries, there's no way it will disappear anytime soon.
Still, Walmart might have just hit its growth limit.
What this has to do with minimum wage, where everybody has the same wage floor, I don't know. Even so, willingness to work for a minimum wage isn't the most important value when choosing employees. A more enduring attribute of great customer facing companies is to attract and pay a premium for skilled, dependable, clean, conscientious, workers that focus on pleasing customers. This almost always provides an enduring advantage.
could be answered by your reply:
I absolutely do deny that price is the deciding factor in people's choice. For most people, cost is not the deciding factor in consumer choice. Quality, reliability, dependability, cost of ownership, prior relationships all play a role. The consumer dictates where his money goes and that's what differentiates one product or place of business from another.
Some people, maybe you, put price as the most important attribute when making a decision. Did you do that when you bought your set of golf clubs? What about your attire when on the course? If you bought the cheapest of everything and are happy with them, then fine but I'll bet you didn't.
Competing on price alone leads to low profit margins and temporary advantages which is why most companies choose not to go that route. Take Walmart, for example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-03-31/walmart-s-first-ever-sales-drop-marks-new-era
The End of an Era At Walmart
Not every milestone is worth celebrating.
For the first time ever -- or at least since the company went public some 45 years ago -- Walmart's revenues shrank from the year before, according to its annual financial filing released Wednesday.
Walmart is clearly having trouble adapting its gigantic stores to the Internet age. To be sure, it is a retail juggernaut that brings in half a trillion dollars (yes, that's right, trillion) in sales every year. And with more than 11,500 stores in 28 countries, there's no way it will disappear anytime soon.
Still, Walmart might have just hit its growth limit.
What this has to do with minimum wage, where everybody has the same wage floor, I don't know. Even so, willingness to work for a minimum wage isn't the most important value when choosing employees. A more enduring attribute of great customer facing companies is to attract and pay a premium for skilled, dependable, clean, conscientious, workers that focus on pleasing customers. This almost always provides an enduring advantage.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So far, the Seattle minimum-wage increase is doing what it’s supposed to do
What happens when a study shows that a minimum-wage increase is simply having its intended effect? When it’s found to raise the pay of low-wage workers without causing much in the way of the job displacements that critics rail about? Unfortunately, one thing that apparently happens is the findings get misinterpreted (though, as I’ll show, this is partly due to the omission of key statistical information).
The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for all Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.
What happens when a study shows that a minimum-wage increase is simply having its intended effect? When it’s found to raise the pay of low-wage workers without causing much in the way of the job displacements that critics rail about? Unfortunately, one thing that apparently happens is the findings get misinterpreted (though, as I’ll show, this is partly due to the omission of key statistical information).
The study to which I’m referring examines the impact of the first stage of the minimum-wage increase in Seattle. In April 2015, the city raised its minimum wage from around $9.50 to $11, on the way to $15 an hour by 2017 (for employers with 500 or more employees and certain other employers; the minimum wage for most Seattle businesses rose to $10 in April 2015, and $15 will not go into effect for all Seattle businesses until 2021). The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
When the government forces a wage increase there is a wage increase? Fascinating....
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Yeah giving the poorest workers making the least amount of money a raise makes no sense. They obviously don't know how to manage money like the boss does, so it's best to give him a raise instead & he just has to figure out how to work more indigents....win/win. sounds legit
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
Cheaper beer this one guy has it down he gets plenty business and the only thing going for him is cheap beer and cigarettes plus he does cash peoples checks for free. The store across the street is a lot nicer but I would not buy anything but gas from them.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The pay of affected workers went up almost 12 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase for workers in nearby, similar places that weren’t bound by the increase. The study’s authors concluded that the increase raised the pay of affected workers by seven percentage points more than might otherwise have occurred."
"Putting aside for a moment the critical question of whether these changes are actually meaningful in a statistical sense, these outcomes fit comfortably into a view well understood by minimum-wage advocates and increasingly accepted by economists: most increases have their intended effect of lifting the pay of low-wage workers with little in the way of job losses."
"It means that the vast majority of low-wage workers end up with higher earnings. Even if some workers lose some hours of work, their annual income often goes up (which, in fact, is another finding from the study)."
"Minimum-wage opponents who claim that increases will cripple local economies, either overall or even in their low-wage sectors, thus get no help from the Seattle results."
"Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson: “While not a full solution to the issues of low-wage work, [the minimum wage] is a useful instrument of policy that has low social costs and clear benefits.”"
"Here’s what we can conclude: After Seattle raised its minimum wage, low-wage workers’ employment, hours and wages all rose substantially. Neighboring areas that had similar trends in these variables before the increase — and that, by the way, were also bound by the highest state minimum wage in the country when the increase took effect — saw even larger employment and hours gains. In other words, relatively high minimum wages in Seattle and in Washington more broadly have had their intended impact and have been perfectly compatible with a strong economy, one that’s handily beating national averages."
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Whelp, let me be the first to post this in the absence not regretted of NLX
A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.66319016dbd8
On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.
The paper's conclusions contradict years of research on the minimum wage. Many past studies, by contrast, have found that the benefits of increases for low-wage workers exceed the costs in terms of reduced employment -- often by a factor of four or five to one.
A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.66319016dbd8
On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.
The paper's conclusions contradict years of research on the minimum wage. Many past studies, by contrast, have found that the benefits of increases for low-wage workers exceed the costs in terms of reduced employment -- often by a factor of four or five to one.
Keepinit100
New Member
I read that today, interesting study. I'm sure it will be replicated elsewhere in its design, but we'll see. Kinda seems like the fight for 15 has a big hill to climb now tho. Not that folks werent saying this would happen before Seattle went and did it. But what do business owners know?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
business owner here.
i know that paying employees a livable wage and having them stay loyal and productive is a lot better than shitting on them with a shitty wage and having to train new guy after new guy after new guy.
cool new account by the way. i am a bisexual yoga instructor. welcome.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Stopped reading right there. That's a shit site run by the same people that run Info Wars.