Obama to use executive order to raise minimum wage

[PhDeac]

Exactly. You can walk into a Target and Walmart and immediately see the different business models at play.

Yeah. That's obvious. The question is how Wal-Mart could amend their business model to account for increases in minimum wage and if they could still maintain that distinction with Target. I think Wal-Mart probably has enough flexibility to balance all of their options (technology, layoffs, cutting hours, etc) and be just fine.

 

[Wrangor]

OH. MAI. GAWD.




But seriously, Wrangor. What's wrong with making technology more attractive. Minimum wage kicks businessmen in the ass and encourages them to advance technology. That's great for society as a whole.

It's not great for the lower class.

 

[PhDeac]

It's not great for the lower class.

What is? Not losing 500,000 jobs isn't either. You continue to ignore the parts of the CBO projection that say near a million people will be lifted out of poverty.

We need a strong safety net by way of a federal job training program in order to take care of displaced human capital instead of encouraging artificial employment in the private sector.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Prices at Target don't seem to be much higher than WalMart.

In N Out is much smaller than McDs, has basically the same prices for food (lower than Wendy's or BK) but still pays $9-10/hour vs. minimum.

You can't say they are apples to apples just because they both sell burgers and fries, they are structured completely differently. In-N-Out and Cookout would be a more accurate comparison. McDs stores are franchised, In-N-Out are corproate owned. McDs is national, In-N-Out is regional. There are positives and negatives to both, and both on the whole are very successful. But, one of the key differences is that increased labor costs may affect one more than the other.

 

[RJKarl]

Everything you stated should cause In N Out to have more problems with costs than McDs. They don't have the buying power for products or locations, but they must compete with chains that do. They don't have the advertising budget to compete, but they do.

How come Costco can pay more than WalMart/Sam's?

The reality is some companies have morals and care about their employees and some see employees as totally disposable.

 

[PhDeac]

You can't say they are apples to apples just because they both sell burgers and fries, they are structured completely differently. In-N-Out and Cookout would be a more accurate comparison. McDs stores are franchised, In-N-Out are corproate owned. McDs is national, In-N-Out is regional. There are positives and negatives to both, and both on the whole are very successful. But, one of the key differences is that increased labor costs may affect one more than the other.

Good post.

 

[sarcasdeac]

You probably need to distinguish between labor rates and labor costs. Costo's labor rates (what they are paying their employees) are higher, but their labor costs are probably lower than Sam's since Costco has higher retention/ lower turnover and therefore less cost associated with training new employees. Plus they probably have other added benefits such as less employee theft, etc. typically seen with a more loyal workforce.

Costco caters to the higer income customer and sells more higher end products than the other warehouse clubs.

 

[RJKarl]

WalMart/Sam's causes their own turnover by underpaying, lower benefits. etc. Their business model is to not respect or pay their employees.

 

[marquee moon]

You probably need to distinguish between labor rates and labor costs. Costo's labor rates (what they are paying their employees) are higher, but their labor costs are probably lower than Sam's since Costco has higher retention/ lower turnover and therefore less cost associated with training new employees. Plus they probably have other added benefits such as less employee theft, etc. typically seen with a more loyal workforce.

Costco caters to the higer income customer and sells more higher end products than the other warehouse clubs.

OOPS!!!

 

[bigdoublezero]

When I think Costco, I definitely think higher-income consumer with higher-end products.

 

[Deacfreak07]

You probably need to distinguish between labor rates and labor costs. Costo's labor rates (what they are paying their employees) are higher, but their labor costs are probably lower than Sam's since Costco has higher retention/ lower turnover and therefore less cost associated with training new employees. Plus they probably have other added benefits such as less employee theft, etc. typically seen with a more loyal workforce.

Costco caters to the higer income customer and sells more higher end products than the other warehouse clubs.

I feel like there's a correlation here.

 

[Milhouse]

prices at target are a lot higher than walmart

 

[RJKarl]

Sam's labor rates are integral parts of their costs. They are very big part of employee retention and thus the cost of training.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Everything you stated should cause In N Out to have more problems with costs than McDs. They don't have the buying power for products or locations, but they must compete with chains that do. They don't have the advertising budget to compete, but they do.

How come Costco can pay more than WalMart/Sam's?

The reality is some companies have morals and care about their employees and some see employees as totally disposable.

It cuts both ways. Does In-N-Out need to truck food and supplies across the entire country? Do they need national distribution centers? Do they need to supprt advertising coallitions for their regional franchisees? Do they need to drop a bazillion dollars on Super Bowl ads to keep up with Burger King? Do they need to have 50 different sets of franchise and compliance regulations due to differing laws in each state? All that stuff costs money. In-N-Out and McDs are not just simply pushing the same button on the same machine with the same wheels turning to make a burger pop out of thin air when you order it. They are two completely different businesses in almost every way except for the product they sell. It is like saying Wake and Ohio State feel the effects of various market forces exactly the same.

 

[RJKarl]

It cuts both ways. Does In-N-Out need to truck food and supplies across the entire country? Do they need national distribution centers? Do they need to supprt advertising coallitions for their regional franchisees? Do they need to drop a bazillion dollars on Super Bowl ads to keep up with Burger King? Do they need to have 50 different sets of franchise and compliance regulations due to differing laws in each state? All that stuff costs money. In-N-Out and McDs are not just simply pushing the same button on the same machine with the same wheels turning to make a burger pop out of thin air when you order it. They are two completely different businesses in almost every way except for the product they sell. It is like saying Wake and Ohio State feel the effects of various market forces exactly the same.

Mcds does not truck supplies across the country. They have been done locally and regionally for at least the past four decades. Once again you don't what you are talking about. You find a position and then make things up to fit your preconceived notions.

Yes, I have personal, first hand knowledge of this all the way back to Ray Kroc visiting my neighbor to set up hamburger purchases in the mid-60s.

As to your gibberish about franchise laws, that is push button and staffs and has nothing to do with franchisees paying such low wages.

 

[Wrangor]

What is? Not losing 500,000 jobs isn't either. You continue to ignore the parts of the CBO projection that say near a million people will be lifted out of poverty.

We need a strong safety net by way of a federal job training program in order to take care of displaced human capital instead of encouraging artificial employment in the private sector.

900,000 will be lifted out of poverty, until costs go up because businesses are having to charge more for the same product. When you willingly throw 500,000 to the curb you aren't worried about a safety net, you are setting up a hammock system. It is idiotic for someone who seems to care about the plight of the poor to willingly throw a half a million people into the unemployment line. It is ridiculous. I will take 1.4 million people with a paycheck and a chance to make it every day over 900k with an increased chance and 500k with zero chance.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Apparently every employer in the country has joined together in a giant cabal to purposefully keep the minimum wage at its current level of purchasing power.

 

[WFFaithful]

"This economy produces very valuable companies with very few employees. Meanwhile, the majority of workers are not seeing income gains commensurate with their productivity levels.

This puts a strain on the essential compact that you can earn your success. As Joel Kotkin has argued, the middle class is being proletarianized, and the uneducated class is being left behind."

How do you help the middle class?

"Instead, Republicans need to declare a truce on the social safety net. They need to assure the country that the net will always be there for the truly needy. Then they need to point out that it is the web of middle-class entitlements, even the home mortgage deduction, that really threaten benefits to the poor."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/brooks-capitalism-for-the-masses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[bigdoublezero]

Yeah, a net of bootstraps.

 

[RJKarl]

Do you notice that none of the anti-minimum wage posters ever mention that the CBO report had a range. The 500,000 number wasn't a specific in the report. It said their could be zero jobs losses or more. They didn't give a specific answer.