President Trump- The Implications

[Red Arrow]

Then you read your book and I'll read mine.

Fair enough.

[Red Arrow]

They aren't working abusive hours but they are getting their fair shake after 40 hours and nobody has a chance of working on salary at $455/week like I had to. And that's a good thing.

Good for your formerly salaried workers.  I agree that salaried workers can be abused but that is a function of management and the need of the abused to have a job, not the government. 

How about your beginning hourly workers?  Do they make a living wage?  Your workers, not the industry average.

[Red Arrow]

Compare that map to the most economically productive areas in the United States .... Raleigh-Durham, NYC, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Washington DC...

Strangely, for blue areas being famously overregulated job destroyers they sure do produce a lot of extremely high value, knowledge sector activity that drives the American economy.

*end my only political post ever on Tulsa Now* back to urban revitalization.

Eating food mostly produced in red areas.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I have nothing against Haley, I don't agree with her much, but that's ok. I think she would have been a solid appointment to a position that she was qualified for, something that she dealt with as Governor. Ambassador to the UN just makes no sense. Like Conan said, Carson would probably be a decent Surgeon General, though I do think he's a bit of a loon, but as the head of HUD he makes no sense. He doesn't even have much leadership experience.

So Nikki Haley isn't qualified to be UN Ambassador although she spent six years in the South Carolina House of Representatives and then as governor of the same state.

Let's look at the Ambassador to Japan, Caroline Kennedy. Never served in an elected position. Never. Not even as a city council woman. Also, didn't vote in quite a few elections between 1988 and 2008. Never voted for the vacancy that Hillary left to run for POTUS in 2008. Didn't vote in many NY State elections. So her qualifications were/are she's a lawyer, involved in education, and she's a Kennedy. Yep, she is soooooo uniquely qualified to be a diplomat.

http://www.biography.com/people/caroline-kennedy-204598#synopsis

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28314182/ns/politics/t/kennedy-did-not-vote-many-elections/#.WDcaR_krKCg

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/records-show-caroline-kennedy-failed-cast-vote-times-1988-article-1.355381

[davideinstein]

Good for your formerly salaried workers.  I agree that salaried workers can be abused but that is a function of management and the need of the abused to have a job, not the government. 

How about your beginning hourly workers?  Do they make a living wage?  Your workers, not the industry average.

I'd say roughly 80% of my workers make a living wage by the hour for what the standard in Oklahoma is. The ones that don't are usually always high school or college students working part time for a little extra cash.

[Conan71]

I'd say roughly 80% of my workers make a living wage by the hour for what the standard in Oklahoma is. The ones that don't are usually always high school or college students working part time for a little extra cash.

Which is why minimum wage is viewed as entry level or part time pay, for those looking to make extra cash while going to school or as some extra income for a young family.

Based on the economics of it, could you maintain the same menu prices while, say, doubling your payroll costs or even raising them by 50%?

This is always asked in a hypothetical, but you literally are the only one on here qualified to speak to that.  TIA.

[davideinstein]

Which is why minimum wage is viewed as entry level or part time pay, for those looking to make extra cash while going to school or as some extra income for a young family.

Based on the economics of it, could you maintain the same menu prices while, say, doubling your payroll costs or even raising them by 50%?

This is always asked in a hypothetical, but you literally are the only one on here qualified to speak to that.  TIA.

No, you have to increase prices with the labor cost but raising prices doesn't hurt the customer as much as low wages hurt the employee, customer service and the company due to turnover. I can have all of the personal opinions I want, but there is a very strong argument that raising wages helps everyone involved as a whole from a business perspective.

We've had to increase our prices this year for delivery to pay our drivers reimbursement (even the bike drivers who spend money on their bikes, even though that's our choice and not required) and raise prices on food because of rising labor cost. It's very, very tough to get quality workers these days unless you stay competitive on wages.

The blessing this year has been that food cost have come down which takes some of the heat off of the rising labor cost. When it comes to managing the cost for us you have to keep food cost and labor cost at around 50% to make a profit. Making a profit isn't only important for the company but it also helps keep our wages competitive because 25% of a store profit each period (every four weeks) goes back to the store management.

I fully understand the example early about the accountant at $40K, but the new regulations are helping us long term. We went from salary to hourly three months ago and our turnover has decreased drastically with management. In my particular industry, that pays dividends over time. I know the response will be that you don't need the government to tell you that but in food service it's all about instant gratification with profits which is often at the expense of the employee.

[davideinstein]

Adding to this, the one thing I disagree with is over 40 hours being overtime. In my opinion it should be over 45 hours. And the salary minimum should be closer to $40-$42k instead of $46k.

[Red Arrow]

Adding to this, the one thing I disagree with is over 40 hours being overtime. In my opinion it should be over 45 hours. And the salary minimum should be closer to $40-$42k instead of $46k.

Why do you pick 45 hours?

[Red Arrow]

I'd say roughly 80% of my workers make a living wage by the hour for what the standard in Oklahoma is. The ones that don't are usually always high school or college students working part time for a little extra cash.

I would not expect part-timers to make a living wage due to the hours.  They could still be paid at a living wage rate per hour though.

[Conan71]

No, you have to increase prices with the labor cost but raising prices doesn't hurt the customer as much as low wages hurt the employee, customer service and the company due to turnover. I can have all of the personal opinions I want, but there is a very strong argument that raising wages helps everyone involved as a whole from a business perspective.

We've had to increase our prices this year for delivery to pay our drivers reimbursement (even the bike drivers who spend money on their bikes, even though that's our choice and not required) and raise prices on food because of rising labor cost. It's very, very tough to get quality workers these days unless you stay competitive on wages.

The blessing this year has been that food cost have come down which takes some of the heat off of the rising labor cost. When it comes to managing the cost for us you have to keep food cost and labor cost at around 50% to make a profit. Making a profit isn't only important for the company but it also helps keep our wages competitive because 25% of a store profit each period (every four weeks) goes back to the store management.

I fully understand the example early about the accountant at $40K, but the new regulations are helping us long term. We went from salary to hourly three months ago and our turnover has decreased drastically with management. In my particular industry, that pays dividends over time. I know the response will be that you don't need the government to tell you that but in food service it's all about instant gratification with profits which is often at the expense of the employee.

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective on this and an honest reply.

Increasing minimum wage in what are considered traditional entry level jobs into the workforce is a rickety economic see saw.  I'm well aware there are families where both spouses might work two minimum wage jobs apiece to keep afloat.  While the emotional part of me wants those people to be able to feed their children and keep a solid roof overhead, sudden changes in wage conditions can end up costing those folks their job if their employer is unprepared for a sudden uptick in wages, assuming they work for smaller enterprises rather than a national chain.

Granted, a Royale With Cheese going from $3.50 to $4.50 overnight doesn't alter the rest of the economy like it does with commodities such as gasoline going up $1.00 suddenly since most people can get by without a cheeseburger or there are other options.  When gas goes up significantly, the consumer economy in general feels the pinch. 

When all wages are set to rise by government edict, it would stand to reason that consumer prices would go up in the end and really no one has better purchasing power than they had before.  Someone might net $10 per hour instead of $5 but if all that person's day-to-day living costs have doubled, they are no better off than before.  Perhaps there is an economic theorem where someone's cost of living does not go up by a commensurate amount and I'm simply out of the loop and talking out my a$$.

When gas was near $4.00 a gallon in July of 2008 that certainly did not help the overall economy since people living paycheck to paycheck essentially had to choose between new shoes or a pair of jeans or filling up their car to be able to make it to work for the next few days or a week in order to still buy meager groceries.

For someone with means, if their local deli has to raise the price of a pastrami sandwich by $1.00 or $1.50 to cover higher labor costs it's no big deal and probably goes unnoticed.  To the family of six living near the poverty line which considers the occasional family meal at a national chain fast food restaurant as a nice respite from boxed and canned food, I get where it is a struggle.

There is good reason for government to make sure workers are not exploited like they were during the industrial revolution, no doubt.  But there is a point where the government can do more harm to industry and consumer economics by setting somewhat arbitrary wage structures without concern as to what happens to employers wage costs and how those costs are passed down throughout the economy.

[erfalf]

The existence of the welfare state makes these adjustments to minimum wage unnecessary. It would be one thing if not receiving a "fair" wage truly meant be hungry and suffering. But we have programs in place for that sort of thing. You really want to see wages go up, get rid of the net.

Regarding turnover/employer retention, don't count on the government to do your companies work for you. Execs make decisions every day regarding how much turnover they are willing to bear. Questions regarding how fast a replacement can be found/trained play into that decision. The reason these big time execs and athletes can pull it in is because they have convinced someone that they are extraordinarily difficult to replace.

Like where I work, we have a lot of admin types. They all start at around $10/hour. Non-managers rarely make over $20/hour. We know some will leave especially when COP is across the street (not so much lately). We try to hire people that are tied to the community because we offer an extremely convenient work atmosphere. It's a cushy job that just doesn't pay a ton. Turnover is pretty low. Our turnover rate hovers around 2% on average (1 defection for every 50 employees a month). In fairness, some of those don't leave on their own accord.  There are a zillion things a company can do to attract/retain talent. Relying on the government to boost the pay for your lowest paid workers should not help one iota.

[davideinstein]

Why do you pick 45 hours?

From my experience that's right about the point where employees are overworked and less productive.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Eating food mostly produced in red areas.

That is similar to what cotton and tobacco production were 150 years ago plus a lot of agriculture...got a Civil War out of that economic discontinuity.  Wildly differing zones of thought/influence.  Hope we don't there again.

[patric]

Make Russia Great Again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html