You must feel crushedquash said:BornAgain said:
Means I can't hire who I want when I want
This isn't an immigration reform thread.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Someone explain to me
5,262 Views |
73 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by LIB,MR BEARS
The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
blue star for paragraph 3BaylorGuy314 said:
It's pointless. You pay people more but then costs increase to cover it and the purchasing power is the same.
I also think a federal minimum is stupid bc the cost of living in New York or San Fran is quite different than, say, West Texas or BFE, Kansas. Let states set their own like they do now.
The biggest weakness is that it will make us an even more import heavy country, increasing our trade deficit. That will put downward pressure on US wages which the higher minimum wage is meant to cure. It will also lead to a heavy outsourcing of jobs which may cause more damage than good from the increase.
The cynic in me wonders if this is just a public friendly way to increase tax revenues.
ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Buddha Bear said:fadskier said:
why they are for the $15 minimum wage?
Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees
Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...
if my math is correct....
I'm just wondering what employers are doing now that healthcare costs rise 10% per year. By your logic, employers are laying off at least 1 employee per year due to premium increases.
You are correct, but I also add, it's effectively going up closer to 15% due to employee's taking on more of the first dollar expenses by virtue of higher deductibles, coinsurance shares and max out of pocket requirements.
Meanwhile, most hospitals and all of the BUCHAs are getting rich.
BaylorGuy314 said:Lowering benefits. Selecting plans that have higher deductibles to keep premiums lower or covering less cost of the employee.Buddha Bear said:fadskier said:
why they are for the $15 minimum wage?
Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees
Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...
if my math is correct....
I'm just wondering what employers are doing now that healthcare costs rise 10% per year. By your logic, employers are laying off at least 1 employee per year due to premium increases.
Our plan had no significant claims this past year and rose 10%. We were planning on covering 100% of the employees cost (for a single employee) and are now facing the possibility of asking them to pay $30-40/month or pick a less beneficial plan. At some point, these plans are almost useless they cover so little and cost so much.
How many employees do you have and how many of those participate (are insured)?
Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
I explained how Red Lobster eats the increase. Through avenues unavailable to Fred. So maybe Fred should go to his magic money tree and pick some dollars off to pay for his more expensive employees and new equipment. But reality is Fred probably cuts 1/3 of his staff, maybe raises prices some, and tries to survive. I just marvel at the gut punch to a business like Fred's that in the middle of Covid restrictions, customer limitations, and extra costs for facility, customer, and employee safety, we're going to force you to pay your people more.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Are you guys talking about Fred's Fish Fry? Because if you are, I have been relatively certain for many years that it has got to be a front for something else. If they raise prices, they might just lose the two people each day that actually eat there. 
Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
At this point, the minimum wage increase is dead in the water. It is going to need 60 votes to pass.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
Probably for the best. I would only support it in exchange for something meaningful to me; immigration reform for instance. I'd roll with it though, rather than allow the regressives to beat up conservatives endlessly over it since I don't think it really matters that much over time. Markets will do what they do.Booray said:At this point, the minimum wage increase is dead in the water. It is going to need 60 votes to pass.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
No one stops states from setting their own minimum wage.
We've had a federal minimum wage for a long time. I remember the days of $1.60. There are currently 29 states that require more than the federal minimum of $7.25, which has been in effect since 2009.BaylorGuy314 said:
It's pointless. You pay people more but then costs increase to cover it and the purchasing power is the same.
I also think a federal minimum is stupid bc the cost of living in New York or San Fran is quite different than, say, West Texas or BFE, Kansas. Let states set their own like they do now.
The biggest weakness is that it will make us an even more import heavy country, increasing our trade deficit. That will put downward pressure on US wages which the higher minimum wage is meant to cure. It will also lead to a heavy outsourcing of jobs which may cause more damage than good from the increase.
The cynic in me wonders if this is just a public friendly way to increase tax revenues.
Red Lobster vs Fred's Fish may not be the best example, since servers are not given FLSA protection.
Senators Romney and Cotton are working on something like that. Good for them.curtpenn said:Probably for the best. I would only support it in exchange for something meaningful to me; immigration reform for instance. I'd roll with it though, rather than allow the regressives to beat up conservatives endlessly over it since I don't think it really matters that much over time. Markets will do what they do.Booray said:At this point, the minimum wage increase is dead in the water. It is going to need 60 votes to pass.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
Scratch one fry cook at Red Lobster
From mashed.com. "
According to a cook at Red Lobster, pretty much anything fried at the chain comes pre-frozen before hitting the fryolator. "
Back in the mid-70s, my Baylor room mate managed a Waco Dairy Queen one summer. The quantity of food that was prepackaged/prebreaded for frying was a real eye opener for me then. Let's just say we ate way too much fried food that summer at a ... vanishingly low cost. Can't really imagine all the processing that is typical now.LIB,MR BEARS said:curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
Scratch one fry cook at Red Lobster
From mashed.com. "
According to a cook at Red Lobster, pretty much anything fried at the chain comes pre-frozen before hitting the fryolator. "
Dairy Queen sends in their Dilly Bars from a central location AND they removed the curly-que on top!!! I am no longer a patron. You've got to draw a line somewhere.curtpenn said:Back in the mid-70s, my Baylor room mate managed a Waco Dairy Queen one summer. The quantity of food that was prepackaged/prebreaded for frying was a real eye opener for me then. Let's just say we ate way too much fried food that summer at a ... vanishingly low cost. Can't really imagine all the processing that is typical now.LIB,MR BEARS said:curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out.
Scratch one fry cook at Red Lobster
From mashed.com. "
According to a cook at Red Lobster, pretty much anything fried at the chain comes pre-frozen before hitting the fryolator. "
Servers have to receive tips either direct or via pool allocation to equal minimum wage when added to the $2.13 base. I would imagine in a place like Fred's pooled or direct tips might struggle to hit $15 an hour. The real question on a Fred's situation is does he reach the $500k gross sales threshold for FLSA.Nguyen One Soon said:We've had a federal minimum wage for a long time. I remember the days of $1.60. There are currently 29 states that require more than the federal minimum of $7.25, which has been in effect since 2009.BaylorGuy314 said:
It's pointless. You pay people more but then costs increase to cover it and the purchasing power is the same.
I also think a federal minimum is stupid bc the cost of living in New York or San Fran is quite different than, say, West Texas or BFE, Kansas. Let states set their own like they do now.
The biggest weakness is that it will make us an even more import heavy country, increasing our trade deficit. That will put downward pressure on US wages which the higher minimum wage is meant to cure. It will also lead to a heavy outsourcing of jobs which may cause more damage than good from the increase.
The cynic in me wonders if this is just a public friendly way to increase tax revenues.
Red Lobster vs Fred's Fish may not be the best example, since servers are not given FLSA protection.
I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
ATL Bear said:Servers have to receive tips either direct or via pool allocation to equal minimum wage when added to the $2.13 base. I would imagine in a place like Fred's pooled or direct tips might struggle to hit $15 an hour. The real question on a Fred's situation is does he reach the $500k gross sales threshold for FLSA.Nguyen One Soon said:We've had a federal minimum wage for a long time. I remember the days of $1.60. There are currently 29 states that require more than the federal minimum of $7.25, which has been in effect since 2009.BaylorGuy314 said:
It's pointless. You pay people more but then costs increase to cover it and the purchasing power is the same.
I also think a federal minimum is stupid bc the cost of living in New York or San Fran is quite different than, say, West Texas or BFE, Kansas. Let states set their own like they do now.
The biggest weakness is that it will make us an even more import heavy country, increasing our trade deficit. That will put downward pressure on US wages which the higher minimum wage is meant to cure. It will also lead to a heavy outsourcing of jobs which may cause more damage than good from the increase.
The cynic in me wonders if this is just a public friendly way to increase tax revenues.
Red Lobster vs Fred's Fish may not be the best example, since servers are not given FLSA protection.
I believe the number to reach in the first year is $9.50.
ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
Well good for you. But the important question is this, do you have stone crab claws and can you ship to Waco? Oh wait, your not Fred. Dang it!curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
You can't put pressure on the government that tells you your labor costs are going up 50-100% over an accelerated period. You're stuck with it.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
I've had hundreds of employees across multiple countries, and I've experienced serious wage inflation. And wage inflation is much greater in lower earning nations. I can't recall a 50 to 100% increase in such a short window, and particularly without a corresponding market demand. Fred's fish isn't going to have any more value to the marketplace just because he has to pay his employees more.
Apply the concept that you've been mandated to raise 80% of your employees salaries by 75% over the next 3 years without any new demand for your product or service, and the likelihood of supply costs going up as well. What does that do to current and future staff levels, budget considerations, improvements, capex, and future profitability?
There's just no scenario for businesses that have a heavy reliance upon lower skilled labor to be competitive where you don't have a negative impact. Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
I believe the CBO numbers are that 2.5 million workers will be directly affected. One million will get a raise without doing anything to merit such raise and they will add their new purchasing power to the economy. Yippee, because 1.5 million will have lost their jobs. Not that Democrats care: while young people may vote for Democrats, that only happens IF they vote and generally they do not so the larger impacted cadre was mostly non-voters anyway. But that one million, they may become motivated to vote, so...ATL Bear said:
Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Only one way to know for sure. People thought Henry Ford was crazy when he raised pay 100% in 1914. Of course those relying on lower wage employees will be forced to raise prices, but don't you think it's at least somewhat likely that their customers will experience wage gains to some extent and will be able to afford the increased prices? I think all this really does is raise prices. If everyone is in the same boat, the market will adjust over the 4 year implementation - net result is mostly nil. Again, don't support this, just don't think it's that big a deal. Would like to see data for how many jobs are out there currently paying less than $9.50/hr and what industries are the largest employers. Same data with pay rate by age would be nice, too.ATL Bear said:You can't put pressure on the government that tells you your labor costs are going up 50-100% over an accelerated period. You're stuck with it.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
I've had hundreds of employees across multiple countries, and I've experienced serious wage inflation. And wage inflation is much greater in lower earning nations. I can't recall a 50 to 100% increase in such a short window, and particularly without a corresponding market demand. Fred's fish isn't going to have any more value to the marketplace just because he has to pay his employees more.
Apply the concept that you've been mandated to raise 80% of your employees salaries by 75% over the next 3 years without any new demand for your product or service, and the likelihood of supply costs going up as well. What does that do to current and future staff levels, budget considerations, improvements, capex, and future profitability?
There's just no scenario for businesses that have a heavy reliance upon lower skilled labor to be competitive where you don't have a negative impact. Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
FWIW, over the decades I've been able to raise prices a bit more than my costs went up whenever material costs went up industry wide. Turns out customers are less resistant to price increases when they "know" everyone if faced with rising costs. I think this will apply to labor costs, as well.
We've beat the horse long enough, but I'll say that Ford was able to raise wages because his assembly process required fewer employees and the ones he did employ many were more skilled. Do you know how many car companies there were in the early 20th century? Ford would have been Red Lobster (on steroids) and he drove almost everyone out of business.curtpenn said:Only one way to know for sure. People thought Henry Ford was crazy when he raised pay 100% in 1914. Of course those relying on lower wage employees will be forced to raise prices, but don't you think it's at least somewhat likely that their customers will experience wage gains to some extent and will be able to afford the increased prices? I think all this really does is raise prices. If everyone is in the same boat, the market will adjust over the 4 year implementation - net result is mostly nil. Again, don't support this, just don't think it's that big a deal. Would like to see data for how many jobs are out there currently paying less than $9.50/hr and what industries are the largest employers. Same data with pay rate by age would be nice, too.ATL Bear said:You can't put pressure on the government that tells you your labor costs are going up 50-100% over an accelerated period. You're stuck with it.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
I've had hundreds of employees across multiple countries, and I've experienced serious wage inflation. And wage inflation is much greater in lower earning nations. I can't recall a 50 to 100% increase in such a short window, and particularly without a corresponding market demand. Fred's fish isn't going to have any more value to the marketplace just because he has to pay his employees more.
Apply the concept that you've been mandated to raise 80% of your employees salaries by 75% over the next 3 years without any new demand for your product or service, and the likelihood of supply costs going up as well. What does that do to current and future staff levels, budget considerations, improvements, capex, and future profitability?
There's just no scenario for businesses that have a heavy reliance upon lower skilled labor to be competitive where you don't have a negative impact. Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
FWIW, over the decades I've been able to raise prices a bit more than my costs went up whenever material costs went up industry wide. Turns out customers are less resistant to price increases when they "know" everyone if faced with rising costs. I think this will apply to labor costs, as well.
ATL Bear said:We've beat the horse long enough, but I'll say that Ford was able to raise wages because his assembly process required fewer employees and the ones he did employ many were more skilled. Do you know how many car companies there were in the early 20th century? Ford would have been Red Lobster (on steroids) and he drove almost everyone out of business.curtpenn said:Only one way to know for sure. People thought Henry Ford was crazy when he raised pay 100% in 1914. Of course those relying on lower wage employees will be forced to raise prices, but don't you think it's at least somewhat likely that their customers will experience wage gains to some extent and will be able to afford the increased prices? I think all this really does is raise prices. If everyone is in the same boat, the market will adjust over the 4 year implementation - net result is mostly nil. Again, don't support this, just don't think it's that big a deal. Would like to see data for how many jobs are out there currently paying less than $9.50/hr and what industries are the largest employers. Same data with pay rate by age would be nice, too.ATL Bear said:You can't put pressure on the government that tells you your labor costs are going up 50-100% over an accelerated period. You're stuck with it.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
I've had hundreds of employees across multiple countries, and I've experienced serious wage inflation. And wage inflation is much greater in lower earning nations. I can't recall a 50 to 100% increase in such a short window, and particularly without a corresponding market demand. Fred's fish isn't going to have any more value to the marketplace just because he has to pay his employees more.
Apply the concept that you've been mandated to raise 80% of your employees salaries by 75% over the next 3 years without any new demand for your product or service, and the likelihood of supply costs going up as well. What does that do to current and future staff levels, budget considerations, improvements, capex, and future profitability?
There's just no scenario for businesses that have a heavy reliance upon lower skilled labor to be competitive where you don't have a negative impact. Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
FWIW, over the decades I've been able to raise prices a bit more than my costs went up whenever material costs went up industry wide. Turns out customers are less resistant to price increases when they "know" everyone if faced with rising costs. I think this will apply to labor costs, as well.
Actually, many credit Ford's raise as the genesis for the middle class as industrialization began in earnest with a concomitant agricultural employment decline. Agree it's apples to oranges, but my point is the sky wouldn't fall if this was implemented over 4 years. I think it mostly affects kids and very young unskilled workers. No idea how many of the those there are.
That's an entire thread on its own for what Ford impacted. Modern industrialization in America, technology for hyper efficiency, urban middle class, industrial unionization, etc. But he paid well because they did well, not because it was mandated.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:We've beat the horse long enough, but I'll say that Ford was able to raise wages because his assembly process required fewer employees and the ones he did employ many were more skilled. Do you know how many car companies there were in the early 20th century? Ford would have been Red Lobster (on steroids) and he drove almost everyone out of business.curtpenn said:Only one way to know for sure. People thought Henry Ford was crazy when he raised pay 100% in 1914. Of course those relying on lower wage employees will be forced to raise prices, but don't you think it's at least somewhat likely that their customers will experience wage gains to some extent and will be able to afford the increased prices? I think all this really does is raise prices. If everyone is in the same boat, the market will adjust over the 4 year implementation - net result is mostly nil. Again, don't support this, just don't think it's that big a deal. Would like to see data for how many jobs are out there currently paying less than $9.50/hr and what industries are the largest employers. Same data with pay rate by age would be nice, too.ATL Bear said:You can't put pressure on the government that tells you your labor costs are going up 50-100% over an accelerated period. You're stuck with it.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:I think you can get a metric ton of tilapia from China for about $600. I can imagine the purchasing advantage in everything from cooking oil and cornmeal to straws and napkins add up to multiple economies of scale advantages. Not to mention greater volume of unit sales to allocate costs over.curtpenn said:Serving fish isn't exactly an assembly line process that lends itself well to economies of scale. You haven't really explained anything; just speculated. Perhaps Asian raised and pre-processed sea food is marginally cheaper, but by the time transport and logistics (and perhaps taste/quality) are factored in, not sure I'm seeing much in the way of economies of scale. Where do see them?ATL Bear said:You really aren't sure how economies of scale apply in this example??curtpenn said:LIB,MR BEARS said:there's thing called "economies of scale".curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Until Fred's, relying on local fish houses who now instead of $9 an hour for some 18 year old fish gutter costs $18 an hour, he has to raise his fish prices which now compounds the price increases Fred has to do since he was forced to give his staff 50-100% raises.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:The same reason this has less impact on a company with higher wages already than one that does not. The market impact also involves pricing (or costing) competitors out of business. Artificially created conditions can do it just as well as natural ones when drastic. The size of increase is a market disrupter. And we aren't even talking about artificially inflated skill value.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:Not sure if serious.curtpenn said:ATL Bear said:
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
I don't know anything about Red Lobster's labor costs or how they might compare to Fred's. Isn't it possible that more people might actually prefer to eat at Fred's if they were better compensated wherever they worked? I see a lot of assumptions and assertions, but very little data.
Speaking of Red Lobster; who knew? https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/asian-investors-buy-control-red-lobster
Meanwhile, Red Lobster's being supplied by Asian fish houses en masse that previously had a cost advantage but now they're really sitting in a good spot since we artificially inflated US expense. Not to mention Red Lobster, which could invest in the latest cooking technology because they save so much on food
costs, has less staff per customer in the first place so they eat the wage raise and make it up in the other areas.
So now Fred's dishes cost more, his customer service goes down because he can't afford to retain extra wait/service staff, and now not only are his costs more his customers are fleeing. But at least the ones that are left are happy getting $15 an hour until they're putting their applications to Red Lobster because Fred shut his doors.
What food technology is this that only Red Lobster has access too while Fred does not? Isn't Red Lobster going to be faced with the same $15/hr base labor cost? Maybe it's time Fred stepped us his game and invested in equipment that makes his people more efficient. Isn't increasing productivity the basis for wage increases? OTOH, perhaps Fred just needs to improve in other areas to take advantage of being a local provider and not a soulless corporation or franchise.
There's this technology called "par bake".
There's a ton of technologies I know nothing about also that Red Lobster can afford much easier than Fred.
Undergrad concentration in Economics + MBA + decades of small business ownership. I understand economies of scale, but not sure they apply much in your example. Again, I'd like to see real data rather than conjecture re "technologies I know nothing about".
Don't know for sure what the most recent bill looks like, but my understanding is this is to be phased in over 4 years. Pretty sure Fred can figure it out
.
Fortunately for now we don't have to deal with it.
I've competed for decades against much larger companies who "enjoyed economies of scale" when it came to purchasing. OTOH, through sharp and constant pressure on my suppliers and building up a good reputation and personal relationships, I've been able to keep it close. Also, I don't have the stupid high levels of overhead in terms of useless management layers and all of the usual corporate nest feathering.
I've had hundreds of employees across multiple countries, and I've experienced serious wage inflation. And wage inflation is much greater in lower earning nations. I can't recall a 50 to 100% increase in such a short window, and particularly without a corresponding market demand. Fred's fish isn't going to have any more value to the marketplace just because he has to pay his employees more.
Apply the concept that you've been mandated to raise 80% of your employees salaries by 75% over the next 3 years without any new demand for your product or service, and the likelihood of supply costs going up as well. What does that do to current and future staff levels, budget considerations, improvements, capex, and future profitability?
There's just no scenario for businesses that have a heavy reliance upon lower skilled labor to be competitive where you don't have a negative impact. Doesn't mean everyone fails, but job loss, both current and future is a certain outcome.
FWIW, over the decades I've been able to raise prices a bit more than my costs went up whenever material costs went up industry wide. Turns out customers are less resistant to price increases when they "know" everyone if faced with rising costs. I think this will apply to labor costs, as well.
Actually, many credit Ford's raise as the genesis for the middle class as industrialization began in earnest with a concomitant agricultural employment decline. Agree it's apples to oranges, but my point is the sky wouldn't fall if this was implemented over 4 years. I think it mostly affects kids and very young unskilled workers. No idea how many of the those there are.
We compete in a global economy. The easiest areas to chip away at with foreign competition is the less skilled. What can't be digitized or automated can be managed with cheaper labor around the world. Restaurants at least have a proximity requirement for service and production (as do many others), but there are thousands of small and medium sized businesses that have to face the pressures a global economy can produce. So the horizon of comparative for wages and costs doesn't stop at US shores or borders. I don't understand the desire to insert an artificial anti-competitive measure into the market place when it was working just fine without it.
" I don't understand the desire to insert an artificial anti-competitive measure into the market place when it was working just fine without it."
Save that line for multiple uses: tariffs, subsidies, TIFFs, crony regs, set asides, tax breaks, etc.
Save that line for multiple uses: tariffs, subsidies, TIFFs, crony regs, set asides, tax breaks, etc.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Use that line for tariffs, crony regs, TRIFFs, set asides, tax breaks, etc.ATL Bear said:
I don't understand the desire to insert an artificial anti-competitive measure into the market place when it was working just fine without it.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat