Does anyone here run a business that pays min wage? If so what would happen to the prices of your products or service if the min wage was raised to $10? Also what percent of your pricing is labor? I read today that if the min wage was adjusted to inflation and such that it would be around $10. Comments.. Any responses would be great thank you
I owned my own plumbing business that I usually ran alone but on occasion I hired on another plumber or two and helpers as well for some remodeling jobs I had. I never paid the minimum wage because I'd never get good qualified people to do the work right and professionally. I always paid way more but incorporated those costs into the total of the job I was doing at the time.
US minimum wage is less than $10 ??????? If people are arguing that raising the minimum wage will damage the economy and reduce investment in new jobs ....... then your building the wrong type of economy
I help someone with a small innovative business (and ttytt its really fun helping them - albeit I probably pay $70 a month in gas and maybe 6 hours a week - for free, you know, just to help them get going.) I was saying they should hire someone on the weekend to expand their business (as of now they only work 6 days a month and turn a profit of around $1500). I suggested either $50 for 5 hours plus 25% commission or just pay them ~$100. That seems fare. note: I have zero business experience Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Didn't you know we are building an Idiocracy here! The argument goes that if we pay you more then we have to raise prices to afford your labor and so minimum wage increase becomes null and void! Why bother?
Before retiring, I owned and operated a small million-dollar business and had several employees. The percentages will vary depending on the type of business, but in my case wages represented about 30% of my operational costs. For the benefit of anyone that might not know, let me introduce you to a very real fact of life: Wages and consumer prices are locked in an eternal spiral with absolutely no end. When wages go up, prices MUST follow. When prices rise, employees start pressuring for increases in pay. With a very few exceptions, the vast majority of business operate on a fairly small profit margin and *any* additional cost of operation - including wages - has to be passed along or the business will fail. It's just that simple.
I've read that in California, 50% of the government tax revenue comes from the taxes paid by the richest 1%, ie. CEOs and executives of big corporations. The government has trouble stabilizing its tax revenues because of the volatile nature of these super-rich people that pay such a large portion of it. What would happen if the government introduced a law that eliminated the need to tax the rich, by redistributing the wealth using a "maximum wage" ? I propose a maximum annualized wage (including the value of all basic pay, bonuses, commissions, contracts, shares, etc.) earned by an employee, owner, shareholder, etc. of a company that is equal to 5-times the annualized income of the lowest paid worker at a company. Case 1: If a company is a sole proprietorship, the annualized income can be as high as you want. Case 2: If a company is a partnership, the annualized income of one partner cannot be more than 5-times larger than the income of the other partner. Case 3: If a company employs 10000 people, and the lowest paid worker makes $10/hr (temp, contract, or full-time), or $20,000 annualized, then the top executive cannot make more than $100,000 (cumulative from pay, shares, bonuses, etc). Case 4: If a business owner is a foreigner who lives abroad, then the same rule applies. The annualized amount of fungible assets paid to that owner could not be larger than 5-times the amount transferred to the lowest paid worker. Case 5: If a business owner wants to start more than one business, then this might be a way to bypass the limitation. Each business would then pay a certain amount as annual yields, not exceeding the 5-fold maximum wage limit. ================================== ================================== Cons: a. that this would require a layer of oversight by the government, b. businesspeople are obviously going to look for loopholes to increase their wealth beyond this limit, such as by charging personal expenses to the business without giving their employees the same right. Pros: a. I see this as a fair way to distribute wealth to a much larger number of people and thereby stabilizing the government's tax revenues. b. there would be more money in the hands of a larger population to spend on basic goods & services, thereby stabilizing the economy. Opinions?
You can institute a maximum wage by simply raising the taxes on the richer. I believe $250,000 is the number Obama's throwing around... anyone making more than that is in a higher tax bracket, period.
Hi Success, I love your ideas as I have always thought that too much of the wealth stays at the top. The main argument that tends to come up is the bigger corporations will just go overseas if they have to share too mush of the profits or dont get those exorbitant bonuses and salaries. Ultimately to ensure that this could happen would be to take that option away by having the same laws enacted globally, giving big business nowhere to run or hide!
It would crush business more than it is crushed now . The Employer has to double the cost they pay an employee. This does not make the employer a dime . The employer has to MAKE PROFIT for the the business owners to GET ANY MONEY for there work of running a business and for most business owners it is a 24/7 thankless job. When the EMPLOYEE is home picking his nose watching T.V. with there hand in there pants they are busy trying to figure out how to meet payroll and what kind of PROFIT it is going to take to keep him self and his EMPLOYEEs having a job. O.K. I am calm now, what was the question again . The cost would be past down to the customer so if you like INFLATION then it is a good Idea , or if the customer decides they won't buy the product because the price is to High then the business will go out of business unless they are deemed to big to fail in the eyes of Big Government
Building? I wouldn't say building is the operative word. We're a country in decline... and while there's some things that would help that we're not doing, I think what we've done up to now has screwed the pooch.
My idea would not increase the cost of wages, it would only distribute wages more fairly. The total cost of wages in a company would stay the same, so there would be no cost to pass on to the consumer via price increases.
More pros: - Just as an employee would have to hold down multiple jobs to increase his income, a businessperson would have to run multiple companies to increase his income. That would lead to job creation. - Distributing the wealth to ordinary people would boost sales of basic goods, leading to stability in various sectors. This is in contrast to the super rich guy who decides to spend a huge wad of cash at one place and not the other, then changes his mind a couple years later, causing boom & bust cycles, job losses, and bankruptcies all over the place. A stable economy has it's appeal.
Ho-hum. The same sick old "redistribute the wealth" song.:shrug: That idea is older than Lenin or Mao - and it didn't work for them either. The closest ANY government has ever come to something like that is to take more from the MIDDLE CLASS and give a tiny bit of of to the poorest class. The government itself sucked up the huge majority of it themselves.
while their is probably some theoritical level of income where the marginal tax rate should be 100% the simple fact remains no one would ever reach that point. hell you could probably jury rig it to try and reach that level and not get there.
Um you do realize um well you were alive when the US did more or less tax the fuck out of the rich. and you do also um well know that time is well considered the time when the US was the most prosperous. while a minimum wage might be arguable. what it hopes to attain isn't. the fact of the matter is when the lower and middle classes have the money to meet their expenses and ocasionally drop money for luxuries everyone benefits. when the lower classes have to decide which necessities they will go out and the middle class is dying while the uppercrust's income are rapidly expanding only the uppercrust benefits. the simple fact is an economy is based on the spending power of the masses. if it isn't their it falters. I know from your viewpoint the generally inmaterial costs on the uppercrust are oh so horrible as it is your suffering those. but for the people who aren't starving because of it its oh so important. the fact you so love to shit on is that in the end the rich don't matter and they aren't special. they are there because of luck they can reletively easily be replaced. the everyday working stiff can't.
As usual, a little bit of truth and a LOT of nonsense and misunderstanding.:bugeye: Where did I say to not tax the "rich"? And I'm also a firm believer in progressive tax brackets too, dude. Meaning that those who can afford to pay more SHOULD pay more. And believe me I do. I pay more in taxes ( even when rated on a monthly basis alone) more than you've ever earned in your entire life!!! But some of the garbage I see in this thread - like a 100% tax bracket - is pure insanity! Do you have any idea what will happen to this poor country if you push the top bracket much higher than it is now? Me, and other people who you consider "rich", will take ALL our cash and leave the country - and then WHO will support all you "helpless" jerks that live on welfare??? That little hole you're in will just get BIGGER and DEEPER without us. :shrug:
Why bother? All wage increases add to inflation, not just minimum wage increases. You want a bunch of poor, sick people in your country? You want a bunch of disaffected folks who might have to resort to crime? You want families not being able to afford to feed their kids adequately? We are talking about affording staples here, plus your argument is kinda ignoring the fact of elastic sales, more consumers means lower prices in actual fact, so the increased buying power of people on minimum wage is a natural limiter on inflation. And like middle class people with disposable income would notice the difference in price of a few cents on staple items anyway.
