Since I have noticed that my lunch costs seem to have recently taken a jump, I thought this Still Water Business Owner had an excellent idea. Let's explain how politics are increasing our cost of living.
HP Minimum Wage Surcharge
Yahoo Minimum Wage Surcharge
By the way, if you are against the higher minimum wage you may want to go eat there or write some positive recommendations. It sounds like those open minded Liberals are trying to crucify them for making the cost of this policy known.
And a quick search showed that they are not alone.
KOMO News Surcharge
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Annoying half your customers sounds like a foolish business decision to me. Better to raise your prices by a few percent. I won't mind paying a little bit more.
He did raise the prices a few percent and simply told people the reason. How could that be a bad thing?
Especially since he is likely competing with Wisc businesses that are not carrying that burden.
Wisc Min Wage
Personally I think all businesses should identify this government mandated workfare cost. At least we would know what the policy decision cost us.
Where as Liberals keep wanting to think it is the businesses paying this "fair wage", when we all know it will be the consumers, including the poor.
I can afford to pay $7 to $10 when I go out to lunch, many others can not. I hope they like bologna sandwiches everyday.
Inadvertently almost, this owner has pointed out the true nature of minimum wage laws: they're taxes. For the privilege of continuing to run their businesses as before, the government requires the owners raid their own tills, giving away specified amount without anything in return. That the recipients aren't governments really doesn't matter, employees or not. It's an involuntary expenditure that could have first gone to the government, then paid out to those employees as tax refunds. If it looks like a tax and has the same effects as a tax, it's a tax as this cafe owner has bravely pointed out.
Hi Buddy,
Long time no hear from.
I agree whole heartedly. That is why I support earned income work credits, medicaid, food stamps, etc over the minimum wage. At least we know what government policy is costing our society.
By putting the subsidy in the minimum wage, people like Laurie can close their eyes and deny how it increases cost in America and decreases our ability to compete in the global economy.
Besides we are taxing everyone, not just the rich, so I thought Liberals should be against the minimum wage. It is like a sales tax, which is usually considered regressive.
Well, this is really a fascinating concept. Why limit it to government? Perhaps small businesses who have sought financing since 2008 should start a "Wall Street Recklessness Fee".
There are many issues that impact the cost of doing business. However the policy of government mandating what the employer must pay their employee above "market wage" is one of the most easily measured.
Especially during this transition, I mean the Owner knows that it will cost him $10,000 more to operate his restaurant this year than last because of the jump from $7.25 to $8.00.
And it will increase again when the next step is implemented.
Where as we would need to try and prove that "Wall Street Being Reckless" caused 100% of our recent problems. Meaning that neither gov't or customers were factors. That could take awhile to get agreement on this since I disagree.
Cause of Meltdown
I don't have a problem with this "transparency", as long as it's equally applied. Is there a "Drought Mitigation Fee" to recoup the skyrocketing cost of beef? Or a "Pig Virus Fee" on pork?
None of the cost examples you give are being consciously chosen and applied to the cost of doing business. They are just natural variation with the economy and the market.
Where as government mandated cost increases are consciously applied for some reason. Some group of people are deciding that the benefits out weigh the costs and are legislating that businesses and consumers pay them. They can include:
- Minimum wage
- Minimum health insurance reqts
- Regulatory requirements
(EPA, OSHA, SOX, etc)
These costs can be removed as easily as they were added if society deems it acceptable. That is why it is important to know them.
"These costs can be removed as easily as they were added if society deems it acceptable."
The costs can be shifted, not removed.
If you get rid of the minimum wage or health care requirements, more people will be dependent on the safety net.
If you get rid of OSHA, society will incur the cost of increased workplace accidents.
If you get rid of the EPA, you won't have a planet to pass to future generations, and society will pay the costs for the environmental cleanup.
On and on and on and on...
I love how conservatives say that the way to "compete" in the global economy is to cut the pay of our lowest-paid people.
Shifts vs Removal
Getting rid of min wage, min insurance, EPA and OSHA may or may not reduce cost. I am not smart enough to say for sure.
My guess is that it would shift some and remove quite a bit more of the current. Saying that removing OSHA and EPA over sight will result in more injuries, death and pollution implies that companies want to injure and pollute. Where as I believe the fear of costly litigation and concern for employees and our environment will keep them doing the right things.
As for min wage and min insurance, some of the costs will go to the safety hammock, but a lot of them will simply mean people with less money. Imagine all those spouses and teen agers that have part time min wage jobs. As I said, my daughters thank all of you that raised their income so they can buy more toys, clothes, etc.
No one was cutting their income. They were working for what their knowledge, skills, responsibility acceptance, etc could justify in the employment market.
Just remember that everything gets a bit more expensive in America when we arbitrarily drive extra cost into the system. Therefore our products and services look more expensive around the world. And the products and services elsewhere look cheaper to us.
I am looking to buy the 4th car for my family, and I am starting to think I should try out some of those high foreign content cars. It seems most American consumers are indifferent to who they employee with their purchases, why should I care and pay more to keep Americans working?
"Where as I believe the fear of costly litigation and concern for employees and our environment will keep them doing the right things."
History doesn't support that position, John. The very reason we have these regulations in place is because there were enough bad actors to cause serious negative impacts on society. Heck, we still see it today. Look at the chemical spill in West Virginia earlier this year, for instance, and how the company in question reacted.
"As for min wage and min insurance, some of the costs will go to the safety hammock, but a lot of them will simply mean people with less money."
Thank you for proving my point.
So what exactly is the cost to Americans if my daughters can't buy another pair of high foreign content shoes?
Since the cost of high domestic content products and services do go up as we force these costs into our system.
Do you think American consumers will be patriotic and pay more to cover these costs?
Or will the American consumers buy even more high foreign content goods to keep their personal expenses down?
The problem with our economy isn't overpaid restaurant servers.
I agree.
How do we convince the American consumers that it is good for them to pay more for high domestic content product and services?
How do we deport all of the illegal aliens that are taking jobs from American citizens?
If we create more jobs and reduce the available work force, we would not need the minimum wage to artificially and wastefully raise the wage.
Until then we are just creating more pressure to send more jobs over seas, since that is the consumer preference.
Or did you have a "different problem" in mind?
Post a Comment