Starbucks raises minimum wage. Guess what happened???

Flagpole wrote:

Thejeff wrote:

Of course you are right, but you miss my point.

Hopefully, our legislators can learn from the CHOICES of Starbucks before they FORCE the higher MW on society.

I knew what your point was. Just pointing out a flaw in the way you presented it. Also, raising the minimum wage isn't anything new. It gets raised every so often. I worked for $3.35 an hour when I was in high school.

Minimum wage should be automatically increased with inflation, to keep up with costs of living. (Rather than a big debate to raise it every time.)

Jewcaca wrote:

$5B in dividends to Walton family last year.

2.2M workers.

$2270 bonus per employee.

At $7.25 per hour, that works out to a 15% raise increase.

Thanks. That was my intended point. The top-heavy CEO salaries needing trimmed are more to set the tone in my eyes. There is never talk of stock growth being minimized when costs such as worker salaries increase. Instead it always ways to trim costs of the worker or work environment. Profits of the rich like the Walton family are never discussed and the American people of all socioeconomic levels follow like sheep.

whateverer wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I knew what your point was. Just pointing out a flaw in the way you presented it. Also, raising the minimum wage isn't anything new. It gets raised every so often. I worked for $3.35 an hour when I was in high school.

Minimum wage should be automatically increased with inflation, to keep up with costs of living. (Rather than a big debate to raise it every time.)

After other dumb answers... This guy got the correct answer. It's been proven that consistent minimum wage increases (say 2% a year) over time would have very little (if any) effect on the economy. The big shocks are what causes issues. 2% a year would be a couple pennies at most and businesses would not feel that because they could very easily increase the price 5-10 cents and consumers will not care on most items. It's these massive 50%-60% jumps in minimum wage that shock the system and force businesses to take corrective measures (i.e. layoff workers).

I personally don't understand the minimum wage debate. If you make more money, you will simply shift your spending outwards. Meaning you will still spend the same % of your paycheck regardless of the nominal amount. You might move into a more expensive apartment/house, you will shop at better stores, you will do more leisure activities, etc. Anyone who thinks making $15/hour will let the bottom of the barrel people save money doesn't understand human behavior. Remember the people making minimum wage are less educated and they make worse decisions with their money. Giving them more will simply allow them to spend more money but they will remain in the same bottom of the barrel place in society. The end result will be they will ask for $20-$25/hr minimum wage shortly thereafter.

Oxy wrote:

How are those surgery pain meds treating ya, Jeff?

I have been told not to post while under the influence of narcotics.

Or, maybe I was told I shouldn't be driving.

Let me pull over and think about it. I am tired of all of these folks going the wrong way, anyway...

THE Tom wrote:

There are very few people who do not understand that increasing the MW might reduce employment in certain jobs, at least temporarily. Despite being THE Jeff, you might want to step back and note that everyone and their brother understands that most economic policy must address trade-offs. If a policy had unilateral benefits and no costs, it would be universal.

To cook it down in language you will understand, no one thinks that we can have 100% employment at $1000/hour. But thanks for trying, THE Jeff.

I forgive you for your tone.

Bad Argument wrote:

You obviously have never heard of inflation.

If the minimum wage gets raised, businesses will need to raise the costs of goods, manufacturing, and services because:

1. Extra money spent on labor will offset profits

2. The workforce will have greater more personal worth to spend

Over time, balance will be restored. Things will cost more, but people will make more money. Businesses will be able to hire more workers and spend a little more on labor.

There is nothing magical about a green piece of paper with a 1 or 100 on it that gives it specific worth. It is all play money and it is a waste of time to worry about whether that effects you in any real way.

No what will happen if minimum wage goes up crappy jobs like people who take orders at Mcdonalds will be replaced with Technology like a touch screen that can take an order for pretty much free. And there goes your minimum wage jobs.

Jewcaca wrote:

$5B in dividends to Walton family last year.

2.2M workers.

$2270 bonus per employee.

At $7.25 per hour, that works out to a 15% raise increase.

You have got to be kidding me.

First, source?

And second, do you understand the difference between dividends and wages?

jewbacca wrote:

Jewcaca wrote:

$5B in dividends to Walton family last year.

2.2M workers.

$2270 bonus per employee.

At $7.25 per hour, that works out to a 15% raise increase.

You have got to be kidding me.

First, source?

And second, do you understand the difference between dividends and wages?

I think that you and I probably agree on this topic in general.

Still, I feel compelled to point out that your question about understanding the difference between dividends and wages seems quite besides the point. If Walmart paid their workers a bonus of $2,270 per employee and therefore reduced their (pre-dividend) earnings by $5B they could also reduce their dividend by $5B and come out ok. (not verifying the math, or numbers - just the concept).

Thejeff wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/reuters-america-starbucks-workers-petition-for-more-hours-amid-labor-cuts.html

Also here, if you think conservative news outlets cannot be trusted :-)

Just to play devils advocate..... The above article states there were labor cuts because of a decrease in quarterly sales growth starting in April. If that is really the case (this is public information that I admit I have not verified) then it may make sense to cut labor when combined with the mobile ordering system. Rather than having the article blame the increase in minimum wage for the labor issue it may have been beneficial to look into why there was a decrease in growth and how that impacted the cuts.

That's news media though. Presenting more than one side does not get the page views.

You can just tell that you are reading an unbiased article when it begins like this:

"Raising the minimum wage is popular among limousine liberals who love to be recognized as champions of the poor."

With stronger unions and better worker protections, as well as adjustments to laws governing corporate charters and higher taxes on corporations, we could well see lower corporate profits and higher wages. But of course with the current system, CEO's are going to protect their own share over the workers. The most ridiculous claim in that piece of "journalism" was that higher wages do not lift people out of poverty. They do so by definition and studies have shown negligible effects of raising minimum wages. The country actually was doing extremely well when the minimum wage, inflation-adjusted, was higher than $15.

Federal minium wage was never $15 inflation-adjusted.

$10.34 in 2012 dollars was the highest wage, which was 1968.

But this thread is not about federal minimum wage anyway.

It's about the wage Starbucks set for its minimum.

racer II wrote:

The part of the equation that I do not see mentioned are company profits. Maybe the cost associated with bring workers up to a workable wage should come from profits or bloated upper management salaries. Instead, companies cut labor, increase prices, and find 1000 other ways to make up the $ except affecting their take. How many millions are needed before thinking of others situations comes into play?

You're an idiot. A complete idiot.

You could pay upper management $15 per hour and redistribute all of the rest and the result would be a 5 cent raise for each employee.

how dumb R U? wrote:

You could pay upper management $15 per hour and redistribute all of the rest and the result would be a 5 cent raise for each employee.

Too challenged to read all the posts for context? Continue baying and marching on.

The top-heavy CEO salaries needing trimmed are more to set the tone in my eyes. There is never talk of stock growth being minimized when costs such as worker salaries increase. Instead it always ways to trim costs of the worker or work environment. Profits of the rich like the Walton family are never discussed and the American people of all socioeconomic levels follow like sheep.

Some points for the idiots here:

1) Doubling your worker's wages doesn't mean you have to double the price of your product. There are many more expenses besides payroll.

2) It's not just that money is only tokens or whatever. Jobs themselves are only tokens too. America is so automated that nobody needs to work anymore.

3) So, anyone who complains about paying a prosperity wage to people with menial jobs is a piece of shit. ALL JOBS ARE MENIAL, some are merely considered more menial than others.

4) The economy is in the tank because consumers haven't got the money to spend on the countless luxuries and useless things produced by the country's machines and menial jobs. Until there is disposable income at the bottom, only necessities will be profitable, and the economy will stagnate.

5) there are two ways to fix this: the old way is to give money to the consumers so they will have disposable income again. This is difficult because of the envy it produces among the more fortunate who get less free stuff, and it has to be constantly repeated because it doesn't solve the natural tendency of money to end up with the rich people.

The new way is socialism, and boy do you all hate that, mainly because you can't stand the idea that you own the nation's wealth instead of some billionaire. This is due to the self-hatred and deep inferiority complex caused by your upbringing, particularly if it involved religion, which Marx was 100% correct about.

Not saying you're right or wrong, just wondering if you could provide the numbers and/or sources for how you came to a 5% raise for all employees by paying all upper management $15/hour?

how dumb R U? wrote:

racer II wrote:

The part of the equation that I do not see mentioned are company profits. Maybe the cost associated with bring workers up to a workable wage should come from profits or bloated upper management salaries. Instead, companies cut labor, increase prices, and find 1000 other ways to make up the $ except affecting their take. How many millions are needed before thinking of others situations comes into play?

You're an idiot. A complete idiot.

You could pay upper management $15 per hour and redistribute all of the rest and the result would be a 5 cent raise for each employee.

Flagpole wrote:

I knew what your point was. Just pointing out a flaw in the way you presented it. Also, raising the minimum wage isn't anything new. It gets raised every so often. I worked for $3.35 an hour when I was in high school.

I was paid $1.00 working at a restaurant as a part time grillman. My first full time job as a teacher paid be $3.84 an hour. So, bring this to 2016 and $15.00 should equate to $45 an hour for first year teachers (actually only about $24 an hour). Not happening. Not even close, unless maybe in NYC. (These figures are based on 40 hour week/ 52 week payout, to keep things even). So, either the value of coffee makers has greatly increased, or the value of other professions has taken a big hit.

Freezing wrote:

Thejeff wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/reuters-america-starbucks-workers-petition-for-more-hours-amid-labor-cuts.html

Also here, if you think conservative news outlets cannot be trusted :-)

Just to play devils advocate..... The above article states there were labor cuts because of a decrease in quarterly sales growth starting in April. If that is really the case (this is public information that I admit I have not verified) then it may make sense to cut labor when combined with the mobile ordering system. Rather than having the article blame the increase in minimum wage for the labor issue it may have been beneficial to look into why there was a decrease in growth and how that impacted the cuts.

That's news media though. Presenting more than one side does not get the page views.

Yep. It is possible the cut to hours was independent. After all that increases profits no matter what. Shouldn't a good capitalist be using as little labor as possible?

Frankly the whole idea of paying people to poor coffee is insane. It is the type of things a machine does much better than a human. Have a couple of people to clean up and help the ignorant and let the robots dispense drugs to morning commuters.

Well Well wrote:

I think that you and I probably agree on this topic in general.

Still, I feel compelled to point out that your question about understanding the difference between dividends and wages seems quite besides the point. If Walmart paid their workers a bonus of $2,270 per employee and therefore reduced their (pre-dividend) earnings by $5B they could also reduce their dividend by $5B and come out ok. (not verifying the math, or numbers - just the concept).

I know this. But the part that's missing is the fiduciary duty the CEO has to shareholders. No CEO is going to give shareholder value to the employees because "it's the right thing to do," or said CEO will be out of a job. And potentially liable for damages. You would have to have the shareholders voluntarily give up their earnings to the employees.

You think the Waltons should do this (speaking to jewcaca)?

I'll tell you what. You first. I'm assuming you have a 401k. Go ahead and give your dividends to the employees who you feel really deserve them. If you've invested, you likely own Walmart stock, so you can be the trailblazer to set things right. Then you can pat yourself on the back and wallow in poverty with the people whose values you worship.