Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[Imperiatom]

1) They don't, 30 years of not a single financial period that ended in a loss tells me that.
2) Its common practice in my industry, its quite labour intensive.

If you say so.

But that's the problem, isn't it? We have your say so against all the evidence. If only you had some evidence as well we could buy what you're sellin'. As it is, you're just not very convincing. Well, I mean, to yourself, sure...

That's the main problem is your evidence is dangerously over generalized of the economy as a whole and when a person of first hand experience and success begs to differ you can't fathom how it might be possible. I don't make a habit of sharing the company accounts with the plebeians.

I guess we must be doing a bad job with luxury cars, house in the country, trips to London and three-four holidays a year. What a terrible small-medium sized business plan:palm: . Oh Did i mention private education for me and my three siblings?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

No i make more profit when i sell less products for the same amount of revenue, since there is less expenditure on stock. Selling more goods with ever narrowing profit margins is not good business practice, it eventually leads to disaster for one's business once the market becomes saturated.

You don't have to raise your prices. Increased purchasing compensates for higher wages.

He isn't wrong. It's a well-recorded economic concept that when the marginal revenue from an additional unit of selling some good is less than the marginal cost of producing or purchasing or storing that additional good, you should stop producing. His expenditure on labour will need to increase with the minimum wage - this is a given -, and if he holds prices as fixed, selling more goods is the only possible way to keep profits constant. And if he is facing an upward-sloping cost curve, which is very common, and if he is producing at the point where MC = MR, which he should be, he'll just be seeing his profit margins diminishing. Upping the price is a fair response to bring up per-unit revenue, and so is laying off workers to lower total cost.

Notice how demand doesn't readily factor into this argument. More people willing and ready to purchase goods is only useful as a buffer against the reduced demand from a price increase.

[Imperiatom]

Nobody with grammar as fucking horrible as yours could get a job as a goddamn clerk, let alone director.

I call bull.

Well, according to his story, he inherited the business. So regular vetting processes might have been avoided.

No vetting when its family.

Anyway i have dyslexia, nearly failed English at school, aced maths and science though.

[Cannot think of a name]

If you say so.

But that's the problem, isn't it? We have your say so against all the evidence. If only you had some evidence as well we could buy what you're sellin'. As it is, you're just not very convincing. Well, I mean, to yourself, sure...

That's the main problem is your evidence is dangerously over generalized of the economy as a whole and when a person of first hand experience and success begs to differ you can't fathom how it might be possible.

No, you misunderstand. I can fathom it just fine. It's just that the following does not seem to hold true: "As goes your patio furniture business, so goes the world."

It's not that I cannot fathom that you make bad decisions based on faulty logic. It's that there just aren't enough of you apparently to worry about.

I don't make a habit of sharing the company accounts with the plebeians.

Who's asking?

I guess we must be doing a bad job with luxury cars, house in the country, trips to London and three-four holidays a year. What a terrible small-medium sized business plan:palm: . Oh Did i mention private education for me and my three siblings?

But the real question is, how is that invasion of the Wal*Mart in Lubbock, Texas going?

[Imperiatom]

It's not that I cannot fathom that you make bad decisions based on faulty logic. It's that there just aren't enough of you apparently to worry about.

No we just run our business, make money off the plebs, send our children to Public school and then the whole cycle is repeated when the cash converter otherwise known as the modes of production are handed to the next generation. So yes maybe you should be worried by the concentration of wealth that my system brings to a few individuals.

[Imperiatom]

You don't have to raise your prices. Increased purchasing compensates for higher wages.

He isn't wrong. It's a well-recorded economic concept that when the marginal revenue from an additional unit of selling some good is less than the marginal cost of producing or purchasing or storing that additional good, you should stop producing. His expenditure on labour will need to increase with the minimum wage - this is a given -, and if he holds prices as fixed, selling more goods is the only possible way to keep profits constant. And if he is facing an upward-sloping cost curve, which is very common, and if he is producing at the point where MC = MR, which he should be, he'll just be seeing his profit margins diminishing. Upping the price is a fair response to bring up per-unit revenue, and so is laying off workers to lower total cost.

Notice how demand doesn't readily factor into this argument. More people willing and ready to purchase goods is only useful as a buffer against the reduced demand from a price increase.

why did i not chose to phrase it like this before? That is exactly where i am coming from. Still been 5 years since i last studied business economics. I congratulate you on an flawless explanation.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's not that I cannot fathom that you make bad decisions based on faulty logic. It's that there just aren't enough of you apparently to worry about.

No we just run our business, make money off the plebs, send our children to Public school and then the whole cycle is repeated when the cash converter otherwise known as the modes of production are handed to the next generation. So yes maybe you should be worried by the concentration of wealth that my system brings to a few individuals.

If your family name was Walton, maybe. But the activities of your family business don't make the financial news for a reason, dude.

Seriously, this isn't convincing. None of it is. Even if we take every single word as true, it doesn't matter. You can tell me how successful you are until your blue in the face, the studies show that you are in enough of a minority that it just doesn't matter. What one business does doesn't matter. If your next response is to be to try and convince me how rich you are, don't bother. It hasn't swayed me the first ten times, it's not going to do it the eleventh.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

He isn't wrong. It's a well-recorded economic concept that when the marginal revenue from an additional unit of selling some good is less than the marginal cost of producing or purchasing or storing that additional good, you should stop producing. His expenditure on labour will need to increase with the minimum wage - this is a given -, and if he holds prices as fixed, selling more goods is the only possible way to keep profits constant. And if he is facing an upward-sloping cost curve, which is very common, and if he is producing at the point where MC = MR, which he should be, he'll just be seeing his profit margins diminishing. Upping the price is a fair response to bring up per-unit revenue, and so is laying off workers to lower total cost.

Notice how demand doesn't readily factor into this argument. More people willing and ready to purchase goods is only useful as a buffer against the reduced demand from a price increase.

why did i not chose to phrase it like this before? That is exactly where i am coming from. Still been 5 years since i last studied business economics. I congratulate you on an flawless explanation.

I appreciate the compliment, but you might be dismayed to hear that I support this minumum wage increase. Businesses like yours, which are small and relatively more responsive to changes in wage, might be disproportionately harmed by an increase in the minumum wage, but on net, it's been strongly argued that welfare will rise from this policy. In other words, the good outweighs the bad, so it seems.

[Imperiatom]

No we just run our business, make money off the plebs, send our children to Public school and then the whole cycle is repeated when the cash converter otherwise known as the modes of production are handed to the next generation. So yes maybe you should be worried by the concentration of wealth that my system brings to a few individuals.

If your family name was Walton, maybe. But the activities of your family business don't make the financial news for a reason, dude.

Seriously, this isn't convincing. None of it is. Even if we take every single word as true, it doesn't matter. You can tell me how successful you are until your blue in the face, the studies show that you are in enough of a minority that it just doesn't matter. What one business does doesn't matter. If your next response is to be to try and convince me how rich you are, don't bother. It hasn't swayed me the first ten times, it's not going to do it the eleventh.

I only mention wealth because if it is such a terrible idea, why is it that it works? 99% of businesses do not make the news especially if the are not a publicly trade company. There are almost 4.8 million private company's in the UK. I doubt you could name 100 without looking some up on Google.

[Ralkovia]

why did i not chose to phrase it like this before? That is exactly where i am coming from. Still been 5 years since i last studied business economics. I congratulate you on an flawless explanation.

I appreciate the compliment, but you might be dismayed to hear that I support this minumum wage increase. Businesses like yours, which are small and relatively more responsive to changes in wage, might be disproportionately harmed by an increase in the minumum wage, but on net, it's been strongly argued that welfare will rise from this policy. In other words, the good outweighs the bad, so it seems.

In the end though, Michigan doesn't have the affordable industry necessary for a net economic benefit effect. For a whole, minimum wage hits manufacturing the hardest in a globalized market. Not only that, but minimum wage should be applied when there is an overall good economic times, where profits offer a buffer effect. If you think Michigan is in good economic times...well I can point you to a crack dealer to keep that good feeling going.

[Cannot think of a name]

If your family name was Walton, maybe. But the activities of your family business don't make the financial news for a reason, dude.

Seriously, this isn't convincing. None of it is. Even if we take every single word as true, it doesn't matter. You can tell me how successful you are until your blue in the face, the studies show that you are in enough of a minority that it just doesn't matter. What one business does doesn't matter. If your next response is to be to try and convince me how rich you are, don't bother. It hasn't swayed me the first ten times, it's not going to do it the eleventh.

I only mention wealth because if it is such a terrible idea, why is it that it works? 99% of businesses do not make the news especially if the are not a publicly trade company. There are almost 4.8 million private company's in the UK. I doubt you could name 100 without looking some up on Google.

None of which addresses a thing.

[Imperiatom]

why did i not chose to phrase it like this before? That is exactly where i am coming from. Still been 5 years since i last studied business economics. I congratulate you on an flawless explanation.

I appreciate the compliment, but you might be dismayed to hear that I support this minumum wage increase. Businesses like yours, which are small and relatively more responsive to changes in wage, might be disproportionately harmed by an increase in the minumum wage, but on net, it's been strongly argued that welfare will rise from this policy. In other words, the good outweighs the bad, so it seems.

I don't mind, i respect your view. i am just glad you understand where i am coming form. I understand why many people believe setting a minimum wage is necessary. I personally believe in minimal government intervention including the wage level and that a Minimum wage creates more problems than it solves.

[Cannot think of a name]

a Minimum wage creates more problems than it solves.

It's just that you have yet to demonstrate that. Even if we take you at face value, your practices do not appear to outweigh everyone elses.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I appreciate the compliment, but you might be dismayed to hear that I support this minumum wage increase. Businesses like yours, which are small and relatively more responsive to changes in wage, might be disproportionately harmed by an increase in the minumum wage, but on net, it's been strongly argued that welfare will rise from this policy. In other words, the good outweighs the bad, so it seems.

In the end though, Michigan doesn't have the affordable industry necessary for a net economic benefit effect. For a whole, minimum wage hits manufacturing the hardest in a globalized market. Not only that, but minimum wage should be applied when there is an overall good economic times, where profits offer a buffer effect. If you think Michigan is in good economic times...well I can point you to a crack dealer to keep that good feeling going.

Everything you're arguing is predicated on the the wage elasticity of low-skilled labour demand, which, in the United States, is estimated at 0.1 - 0.5, from what few sources I could dig up. To put this in perspective, a 30% wage increase will see between a 3% to 15% decrease in labour demanded. I don't know much about the American economy, so I'll take your word for it that firms in Michican are on the upper end of that range. So, we have to ask, is having less people on a more liveable wage better than having more people on a less liveable wage? The answer isn't clear, and that's why policy-makers undertake a lot of preliminary research prior to implementation, a needs assessment being crucial, too. Unless the Michigan policy-makers are inept, these factors would have been taken into account and scrutinised thoroughly so that they could estimate the change in net welfare.

[Imperiatom]

In the end though, Michigan doesn't have the affordable industry necessary for a net economic benefit effect. For a whole, minimum wage hits manufacturing the hardest in a globalized market. Not only that, but minimum wage should be applied when there is an overall good economic times, where profits offer a buffer effect. If you think Michigan is in good economic times...well I can point you to a crack dealer to keep that good feeling going.

Everything you're arguing is predicated on the the wage elasticity of low-skilled labour demand, which, in the United States. is estimated at 0.1 - 0.5, from what few sources I could dig up. To put this in perspective, a 30% wage increase will see between a 3% to 15% decrease in labour demanded. I don't know much about the American economy, so I'll take your word for it that firms in Michican are on the upper end of that range. So, we have to ask, is having less people on a more liveable wage better than having more people on a less liveable wage? The answer isn't clear, and that's why policy-makers undertake a lot of preliminary research prior to implementation, a needs assessment being crucial, too. Unless the Michigan policy-makers are inept, these factors would have been taken into account and scrutinised thoroughly so that they could estimate the change in net welfare.

I would say the market sets a livable wage as it is where Demand most efficiently meets supply if there is no government intervention. If i don't offer enough pay the interviewee will not take the offer of the job, if i offer too much i get over supply. I would argue government intervention leads to a glut in supply, I may look for more automation instead of labour for long term cost savings. This leads me to believe that whilst there is little effect on the employment levels of the skilled, unskilled labour now looks much more expensive. For this reason i feel a minimum wage level harms the lowest payed and the unskilled disproportionaly among the unemployed as it makes the employment of skilled labour more attractive. Thus leaving the poorest and the minorities stuck in "ghettos" they are trapped in and thus stopping the unskilled from gaining the first rung of the ladder. It creates a more unequal society and not less.

[Threlizdun]

It's a start. Now if the rest of the nation can catch up then I may be able to work without feeling that I am being robbed every second I'm there.

Maybe you should try being the employee rather than the employer, i know the feeling very well.

What? What makes you think I'm an employer?

[Cannot think of a name]

Maybe you should try being the employee rather than the employer, i know the feeling very well.

What? What makes you think I'm an employer?

Him accidentally switching up the words 'employee' and 'employer.' Though it's still a bit disingenuous since all he did to make that move was be born.

[Imperiatom]

Maybe you should try being the employee rather than the employer, i know the feeling very well.

What? What makes you think I'm an employer?

Its a joke, a play on your words since you failed to state which you are.

[Patriqvinia]

Bad. This is why.

No. People who use this argument have a rudimentary understanding of economics at most. The indicator we use for something like this is typically welfare, and welfare considers both the economic and the social impact of policy changes. And the simple economic model where the economy is in perfect equilibrium and will always return to perfect equilibrium, and nothing exists outside of that equilibrium, really shouldn't be your baseline for analysing something like this. Once we take into account the general welfare changes from a higher wage, and the increases in productivity and consumption for consumers, we're now talking about a net change, since there are both positives and negatives, both economic and social. And that's when we turn to the empirical evidence to measure which outstrips which, and what we can expect, etc, etc.

It's not as simple as your ECO101 course would imply.

Bolded: Then we're on the same page... except, you somehow got to the opposite conclusion.

[Imperiatom]

What? What makes you think I'm an employer?

Him accidentally purposely switching up the words 'employee' and 'employer.' Though it's still a bit disingenuous since all he did to make that move was be born.

Its not my fault i was born!

[Cannot think of a name]

Him accidentally purposely switching up the words 'employee' and 'employer.' Though it's still a bit disingenuous since all he did to make that move was be born.

Its not my fault i was born!

Sooooo, you made no sense on purpose.


Well, my fault for giving the benefit of the doubt.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

No. People who use this argument have a rudimentary understanding of economics at most. The indicator we use for something like this is typically welfare, and welfare considers both the economic and the social impact of policy changes. And the simple economic model where the economy is in perfect equilibrium and will always return to perfect equilibrium, and nothing exists outside of that equilibrium, really shouldn't be your baseline for analysing something like this. Once we take into account the general welfare changes from a higher wage, and the increases in productivity and consumption for consumers, we're now talking about a net change, since there are both positives and negatives, both economic and social. And that's when we turn to the empirical evidence to measure which outstrips which, and what we can expect, etc, etc.

It's not as simple as your ECO101 course would imply.

Bolded: Then we're on the same page... except, you somehow got to the opposite conclusion.

Your video mentioned welfare in terms of producer and consumer surplus, which is insufficient in and of itself to analyse something like this. That's why we came to different conclusions.

[Imperiatom]

Its not my fault i was born!

Sooooo, you made no sense on purpose.


Well, my fault for giving the benefit of the doubt.

He said he felt he was being robbed, i suggested in that case he should try being the employee to stop feeling like he was being robbed .

[Cannot think of a name]

Sooooo, you made no sense on purpose.


Well, my fault for giving the benefit of the doubt.

He said he felt he was being robbed, i suggested in that case he should try being the employee to stop feeling like he was being robbed .

Heard you the first time.

[Imperiatom]

He said he felt he was being robbed, i suggested in that case he should try being the employee to stop feeling like he was being robbed .

Heard you the first time.

Makes perfect sense.