Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: Higher Wages = Less JOBS

  1. #1
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,808

    Higher Wages = Less JOBS

    San Diego's Experiment With Higher Minimum Wage: 4,000 Fewer Restaurant Jobs
    San Diego's restaurant recession is another data point suggesting that making it more expensive to employ people causes fewer people to be employed. Shocker.


    California is hiking the statewide minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023, and San Diego is getting a head start on the higher wage mandate—and, maybe, the consequences of it.

    Rather than inch upward from $10 per hour to $10.25 per hour in January 2016, as the rest of the state was doing, San Diego jumped its minimum wage to $11.50 per hour. In the year and three months since then, the number of food service jobs in San Diego has dropped sharply, with perhaps as many as 4,000 jobs lost, or never created in the first place.

    "If job growth in the restaurant sector had just kept pace with the state's performance … the industry could have created 5,200 jobs instead of the 1,300 that took place," Lynn Reaser, chief economist of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University, told Dan McSwain, a columnist with the The San Diego Union-Tribune.

    Economists say the restaurant industry is a good barometer for the consequences of minimum wage increases because those businesses rely heavily on low wage workers, operate on small margins, and have high rates of turnover (that is, restaurants tend to pop-up quickly in some areas and go bust just as quickly in others).

    hmm coulda, woulda, shoulda .....

    I have no doubt forced higher wagers would result in less overall jobs ... and more automation



    San Diego's new minimum wage already may be killing jobs


    Evidence has emerged of an economic dark side to San Diego’s decision last year to vault over the state minimum wage — it may have already destroyed thousands of jobs for low-wage workers even as higher pay helps tens of thousands of others.

    Consider the restaurant industry, for example, which economists study because it relies on low-wage workers, yet generally faces no foreign or out-of-state competition.

    Amid an abrupt slowdown in growth, nearly 4,000 food-service jobs may have been cut or not created throughout San Diego County from the beginning of 2016 through February of this year, according to an analysis of federal payroll data by Lynn Reaser, chief economist of the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute at Point Loma Nazarene University.

    “This was at a time when both overall economies performed similarly well,” Reaser said. “If job growth in the restaurant sector had just kept pace with the state's performance … the industry could have created 5,200 jobs instead of the 1,300 that took place.” Last month growth turned negative, as the sector actually lost jobs.

    I’ll hasten to add that Reaser draws no sweeping conclusions from a relatively short period of economic data. For one thing, restaurants in the region still employed 126,000 people in February, and many of them are enjoying higher wages because San Diego increased its minimum from the statewide $10 an hour in June to $11.50 inside the city as of January.
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  2. #2
    Board Mommy vraiblonde's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Off the grid
    Posts
    118,418
    Blog Entries
    2
    What did they think was going to happen?
    "Too much agreement kills a chat."
    ~Eldridge Cleaver

  3. #3
    If wages were cut in half we could employ twice as many people! Yay!!!

    So, the study suggests 4,000 less jobs out of 126,000 people employed in food service. Due to a $1.50 an hour increase.

    That's 3% los of workers and an increase of about 14% in wages.

    Roughly speaking, 126,000 people make an extra $84,000 an hour, in total, while 4,000 make zero. Ostensibly, $1,449,000 an hour being earned now vs. at $10, and 130,000 workers, $1,300,000.

    So, net total dollars is up. There is now $149,000 an hour being earned net total more and if we divide that by 4,000 idle hours, that's the equivalent of $37.35 per person per hour that is available that was NOT there before WITH everyone working.

    Anyone getting the implications of this? I'll spell it out; the raise in the minimum wage causes a net gross dollar increase going into the economy while costing 4,000 jobs. And if you say the raise costs those 4,000 jobs, you have to say those 4,000 made $37.35 an hour. Which they didn't.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    If wages were cut in half we could employ twice as many people! Yay!!!

    So, the study suggests 4,000 less jobs out of 126,000 people employed in food service. Due to a $1.50 an hour increase.

    That's 3% los of workers and an increase of about 14% in wages.

    Roughly speaking, 126,000 people make an extra $84,000 an hour, in total, while 4,000 make zero. Ostensibly, $1,449,000 an hour being earned now vs. at $10, and 130,000 workers, $1,300,000.

    So, net total dollars is up. There is now $149,000 an hour being earned net total more and if we divide that by 4,000 idle hours, that's the equivalent of $37.35 per person per hour that is available that was NOT there before WITH everyone working.

    Anyone getting the implications of this? I'll spell it out; the raise in the minimum wage causes a net gross dollar increase going into the economy while costing 4,000 jobs. And if you say the raise costs those 4,000 jobs, you have to say those 4,000 made $37.35 an hour. Which they didn't.
    And, what did that do to the costs of the products?

    Meaning, now we have 126,000 people who are paid more, but their buying power is less, plus 4,000 whose buying power is zero. So, not only do the 126,000 earn a net less in terms of buying power, but their taxes are higher due to the increase in income as well as due to the net load on "government" (read: taxpayer). So, all in all, everyone is worse off! Woo Hoo!!
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    And, what did that do to the costs of the products?

    Meaning, now we have 126,000 people who are paid more, but their buying power is less, That's wrong. I showed how it is MORE. A good bit more and FAR more than the 4,000 would have earned. The NET is well up. plus 4,000 whose buying power is zero. So, not only do the 126,000 earn a net less in terms of buying power, but their taxes are higher due to the increase in income as well as due to the net load on "government" (read: taxpayer). So, all in all, everyone is worse off! Woo Hoo!!
    I do not know how you come to that conclusion when I laid out you are incorrect.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    I do not know how you come to that conclusion when I laid out you are incorrect.
    You laid out that they have more dollars. You didn't follow through with what that net increase in the cost to the employer (for less employees) does to the employer's bottom line, and how employers don't absorb such costs, and how the cost of their product then goes up. When you take that into account, the additional 14% increase in wages costs the employer about an increase in 25% (at least), which means a proportionate increase to the consumer. So, their increase in pay, when considered over a large group of employers doing the same thing, ends up with $1 that used to be $1 worth of stuff, and now buys no more than $0.80 worth of stuff (if that much).

    But, they do get taxed higher, and now there are thousands of workers not working, increasing the load on taxpayers which pretty much always ends up in additional taxes being taken.

    It just doesn't work when you force pay that is not market-driven.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    You laid out that they have more dollars. You didn't follow through with what that net increase in the cost to the employer (for less employees) does to the employer's bottom line, and how employers don't absorb such costs, and how the cost of their product then goes up. When you take that into account, the additional 14% increase in wages costs the employer about an increase in 25% (at least), which means a proportionate increase to the consumer. So, their increase in pay, when considered over a large group of employers doing the same thing, ends up with $1 that used to be $1 worth of stuff, and now buys no more than $0.80 worth of stuff (if that much).

    But, they do get taxed higher, and now there are thousands of workers not working, increasing the load on taxpayers which pretty much always ends up in additional taxes being taken.

    It just doesn't work when you force pay that is not market-driven.

    You're making a bunch of suppositions as though business owners all did the exact same thing in response. Labor costs are not 100% of product costs. In food service it's something like 1/3, tops. Most is lower and the majority of wages are tips.
    I would constantly take objection to objections of working people making more just as I will object to this quaint notion of 'market' driven.

    We are a ####ed up culture. We celebrate some mean ass MF'er who makes billions as being a success no matter how much monopoly power and gummint help or lying or cheating or stealing he did. He's a winner! And #### over even the suggestion of some schulmp making $1.5 an hour more.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  8. #8
    Here! Here!

    Rise up comrades... attack the bourgeoisie.

  9. #9
    This upward pressure on wages and salaries is relentless. Not sure how much longer I can hold out...
    You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer. -Frank Zappa

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilligan View Post
    This upward pressure on wages and salaries is relentless. Not sure how much longer I can hold out...
    If I had to guess, I think you take good care of your guys.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |