You know I thought I was done here, but I just took a shower while thinking about this and I have to say, I'm impressed with your skills. You should run for office. I mean that genuinely.

Lets recap for the kids at home.

YOU: You're all over reacting. Raising the minimum wage will benefit those making minimum wage and will impact the over paid fat cat business owners but won't impact anyone else and prices definitely won't change all that much if at all.

ME: Prices will go up and here's why.

YOU: Prices WON"T go up, you're wrong. They won't be able to raise prices because no one will buy a $5 footlong when it goes up to $6. The public won't stand for the higher prices, therefore the prices won't be able to go up.


ME: Ummm.... People are paying $6 for a $5 footlong and have been for a while.

YOU: See? That's exactly what I said, prices WILL go up and no one will care and everything will be fine.


That's just.... beyond words really. Just switch gears and change your argument just like that and to hell with the facts and not even a hint irony in any of it. Well played. I applaud you. You'll make a fine governor.

Ok now I'm done. Have a good day.

The price of some subs went up without any wage hike, and in truth it was the end of a sale that they started years ago. This isn't an issue of impressive skills.  If we wanted to claim that a 20% increase in the minimum wage will make the price of, say, a sub go up.. we'd have to explain why a 33% difference in wages...currently existing.... between locations -doesn't- do that. If they can pay labor twelve an hour in michigan, to make the same 5 -or- 6 dollar sub that they pay someone else, in florida, 7.25 to make...why would the price go up....if they payed someone ten an hour, like they -already- do here in kentucky?

Understand?

(you do realize that you flat out imagined that conversation, above, right, lol?)

Who beside yourself is talking about an $8.70/hour minimum? I've heard LOTS of people proposing $15/hour (a 107% increase) I've heard not quite as many propose $12 (a 66% increase) and very few propose $10 (a 38% hike). But you're the only one I've seen talking about 20%. And so far, you're entire argument seems to be based on this 20% number that as far as I can tell, you and you along are proposing.

The official position of the Clinton, campaign, for example..is 12 an hour.  Well within the range of profitability for a sub shop...since they already pay it and already hit a margin.  

I took my que from you...-you- used a 20% increase as a number.........that would, purportedly, necessitate an increase in price of goods and services that would inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

Quote:Every business operates on a profit margin so every business has the ability to absorb slight fluctuations in costs while keeping prices stable. But from where I'm sitting, I believe we'd be looking at double digit precent of increase in costs. So yeah I'm just not buying that any car company, or any other company is going to watch the cost to produce their product go up by 20% or more and just say well we'll keep prices the same and just be happy with making less profit.

........................?

Read what I wrote. I said total cost to produce a product increasing by 20%. That's not the same thing as increasing just wages by 20%. Wages are only one of many costs involved in getting a subway sub made and sold. If the TOTAL cost to produce that sub increased by 20% you can be sure the retail price would reflect that increase. And that is what I was saying in the post you quoted. 

Raising the minimum wage by the proposed 66%-107% would cause an increase in the price of nearly everything. Which means the cost of living goes up nearly  in proportion to wages i.e. not much changes.

I agree that raising minimum wage by only 20% would not have the same impact on prices. But raising minimum wage by 20% is not what is being proposed and would not get anyone currently on the raise minimum side of this debate to stop pushing for the $15/hour they're currently pushing for.

Indeed it's not, and isn;t that my entire point?  What relevance would it have...and what could you have -possibly- been talking about otherwise, in this thread, in response?

Meh, chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

(October 9, 2016 at 2:16 pm)johan Wrote: Raising the minimum wage by the proposed 66%-107% would cause an increase in the price of nearly everything. Which means the cost of living goes up nearly  in proportion to wages i.e. not much changes.

Right, that's a completely fallacious argument. Even if we were to assume the price of commodities and manufactured goods increased linearly with minimum wages, it would still work towards closing the gap in income inequality: those who are the lowest wage earners can still purchase the same amount of goods and services, and those at the top can purchase less. The cost of many other things that directly impact living such as power, rent, rates, etc cannot linearly increase with minimum wage. For example, the price of crude oil is determined by agreements made between oil-rich sovereign states. The cost of supplying petrol to customers might increase slightly with higher wages, but the cost of the commodity remains the same. Similar thing with electricity: let's say you have a town supplied by hydro-power. That's an easy example: the cost of water doesn't increase due to wages. The infrastructure includes the dam, the transformers, the polls and wires is already there.

Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the world, but I think more needs to be done with taxation policy to target the wealthy - and in particular I'd like to see a progressive corporate tax and another tax bracket for people earning in excess of $360,000 - even if it's just 3-4c per dollar on top of the $180,000 tax bracket.

Depends where you are shopping, Aractus.

Is it a high end grocery store that over prices everything just for shopping at "their" store, or is it a lower end grocery store that lowers prices for the same exact products that only lower income people can afford?

(October 9, 2016 at 11:49 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Is it a high end grocery store that over prices everything just for shopping at "their" store, or is it a lower end grocery store that lowers prices for the same exact products that only lower income people can afford?

I have no idea what you're talking about. We don't have the same environment as the US. In the US, for example, farmers are subsidised! They can't even afford to produce food, textiles, and pharmaceuticals without government assistance! In Australia, we don't subsidise any farmers. Anyway, the price of groceries is related to location (remoteness), and convenience mostly. Over the past 10-15 years or so Coles and Woolies reduced the cost of food transportation dramatically by cutting out the wholesalers, which now means they move move their own food around the country in their own trucks that are rarely empty. It's much more efficient than the past - at least for them.

It is true that the price of groceries is lowest in the highest-income areas (except for Aldi that has national pricing), but it's something like 5-10% of the overall cost of groceries within cities.

(October 10, 2016 at 12:56 am)Aractus Wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course not. *sigh*

(October 10, 2016 at 12:56 am)Aractus Wrote: It is true that the price of groceries is lowest in the highest-income areas

So the rich people in your area get to spend less on groceries while the poor people have to spend more?

What I am mainly stating is that there are many stores from which one can choose to shop here. All the products are the same, no matter where one shops. All one is shopping for is the name of the establishment.

There are stores that over price their products simply because they can, and then there are stores that sell the same products at a cheaper price because they can.