Some restaurants face pressure to trim menus and staffs under California's wage hike

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,055
48,054
136
I'm going to have to agree with Fern. It's in the govt's interest to keep the cpi low, less payouts for retirements and social security.
The calculation and data are secret.
They use a crazy substitution argument, if steak goes way up in price people will substitute ground beef. See, you are still eating- thus no inflation.
I believe that they removed rent and mortgage payments from their calculation, also.
It is a scam.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/periann...lation-dont-bother-with-the-cpi/#7fb2182e118b

Basically nothing you wrote here is right. This is why you shouldn't rely on editorials from Bitcoin enthusiasts for your understanding of inflation.

1.) Neither the calculations or the data are secret. The cleaned data used to calculate CPI is available on the BLS website for anyone to use. The raw data, while not available online, can be accessed through a research request. Additionally, the method by which CPI is calculated is public as well. The BLS website is again hilariously detailed in regards to this. As a quick overview: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiadd.htm#9_1

What your op ed writer said is simply factually wrong.

2.) There is no substitution between ground beef and steak, this is a common misconception.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm#Question_3

3.) They most certainly did not remove rent and mortgage costs from their calculation.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm#Question_2

Finally, and most damningly for inflation truther sits the Billion Prices Project, an independent estimate of inflation created by MIT. Guess what? It says basically the same thing as CPI.

2004-02-Billon_Prices_Project.png


http://bpp.mit.edu

So the foolishness of that op ed aside, it isn't even logical. The US government has been undertaking a very public attempt to INCREASE inflation in recent years.(QE) They haven't succeeded. If they were truly conspiring to manipulate inflation numbers why would they do it in a way that undermined their efforts? That's nonsensical.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,055
48,054
136
I agree with your first statement and think that inequality (another bad word that doesn't really describe it well) is very real problem. The vast and growing gulf between the rich and poor has all manner of negative effects such as eroding our democracy and creating a tenuous and unstable political climate, and this is further compounded by the erosion of the middle class.

As far as the second quote though, in a truly free market as far as wages are concerned the industry nor the government are the ones doing the regulating. Market forces of supply and demand come together to find an equilibrium price (wage).

A truly free market has never existed on any meaningful scale for the purposes of our discussion.

People in this thread keep saying what they believe the consequences of raising the minimum wage are but have any of you gone and read what the research says about the consequences of raising the minimum wage? I don't mean just go and cherry pick a single study that tells you what you want to hear, I mean actually go look at the research. A lot of what is being said here has basically no empirical support.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Inflation has averaged less than 2% over the last 10 years, which is below target. We need MORE inflation, not less.

Inflating the shit out of our currency? What nonsense is this?

Well, they did inflate the shit out of the currency (quantitative easing). But it was all soaked up in a shrinking real economy, with some pretty interesting effects. The 'liquidity' pumped into the economy with such a low inflation 'read-out' is rather amazing.

The past decade or so in banking and monetary policy will be studied and referenced for decades.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,055
48,054
136
Well, they did inflate the shit out of the currency (quantitative easing). But it was all soaked up in a shrinking real economy, with some pretty interesting effects. The 'liquidity' pumped into the economy with such a low inflation 'read-out' is rather amazing.

The past decade or so in banking and monetary policy will be studied and referenced for decades.

I would say it has more to do with the declining velocity of money in recent years instead of a shrinking real economy. (Real GDP is up significantly since the crash)

This is the fundamental problem of the liquidity trap, that monetary policy loses its effectiveness at the zero lower bound because at zero interest rates cash and bonds become interchangeable so people just keep cash.

Anyways, all a bit off topic from minimum wage (although inflation relates!), but inflation truthers are some seriously ignorant people. It's the perfect example of ideology over reality. They think inflation should have been high. When it isn't instead of examining why their economic theory was wrong they decide it must be some conspiracy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
Most people don't eat in restaurants because they can't afford to. Nobody wants to pay people who work for them enough to buy their stuff. American exceptionalisn in action. Vote Trump. Burn the system down. Make sure the system keepers also rot.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Everybody in California will be operating under the same regulations. The solution is to simply raise menu prices to cover the increased cost of labor.

11692623_929191543815277_8393073908666141212_n_zpslhuq26x3.jpg


Except whoever drew that picture forgot that corporations bypassed most of that with outsourcing, but I am sure they have no problem buying their cheap goods at Walmart or similar outlet, made in some foreign country that pays lip service at best to all those same rules and regulations.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
Except whoever drew that picture forgot that corporations bypassed most of that with outsourcing, but I am sure they have no problem buying their cheap goods at Walmart or similar outlet, made in some foreign country that pays lip service at best to all those same rules and regulations.
Except the majority of people in the US are employed by small businesses that do have to follow those rules.

The only reason huge corporations don't, is because they chose not to. The corporations could be just as productive in the US, but that would mean the people at the top wouldn't make as much money.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Except the majority of people in the US are employed by small businesses that do have to follow those rules.

The only reason huge corporations don't, is because they chose not to. The corporations could be just as productive in the US, but that would mean the people at the top wouldn't make as much money.

You don't have a strong grasp on the business world. Please educate yourself some more before your next attempt at applying your knowledge.

Your thoughts are based on two points that you will be incapable of rationalizing:
1) A corporation should be based in the U.S.
2) A corporation should hire U.S. citizens above citizens of other nations.

You should travel internationally more often. You'll be knocked down harder by common citizens of foreign nations than anything you experience on a random online political forum here.
 
Last edited:

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
For those that agree with the $15/hr, have you ever try to make payroll or know someone that does? Salary/wage is one of the largest/costliest component of running a business.

Related story:


Craig Scharton, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant called Peeve’s Public House in downtown Fresno, said he was still smarting from a recent increase in the minimum wage from $9 to $10 an hour. He said the increase had forced him to close on Mondays and Tuesdays and played a role in reducing his staffing to a dozen today from 18 two and a half years ago.

Mr. Scharton was at a loss to explain how he would absorb the new increase. “We’re trying our best to revitalize downtown,” he said. “This just kind of kicks our legs out from under us.”...wages are by far the biggest cost for the typical service sector business. Mr. Scharton estimates that labor is about 40 percent of his costs, versus about 6 percent for real estate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/b...wage-in-california-plan-has-some-worried.html

I am glad my side business is about getting pay per contract/job and no need of minimum wage earners.
 
Last edited:

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Nope. In fact, the opposite is far more likely. Decrease in people needing Assistence and an Increase in Jobs. Just not initially.

This path has been gone down before, it has resulted in Net Benefits every time.

That will truly be amazing considering it has yet to happen anytime the minimum wage has been increased.

I take it you have some studies you have read that back your prediction?

Times have changed where automation is far more available than it was in the past, not to mention as countless others have said the degree of increase previously wasn't nearly as drastic as it is now (even with it spread out)

Time will tell but seems more folks will shift over to full government assistance as the fall out of the workplace.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
You know how everyone is talking about fast food workers being replaced with machines? The same can be done at the restaurant level to a certain extent.

Chili's is already experimenting with the concept by having a tablet at the table that you can put orders directly into. The only thing left is for them to cook it in the back and for someone to bring it out to you. Pick your poison in life folks, either way, in the end with things like this you're just screwing over yourselves.
Yep, studies have shown that businesses will invest heavily in cheap labor or technology to replace it, but rarely both. The cheap restaurant labor is about to find out what happens when their jobs are cut and tech investments will continue in other sectors if other states follow with this min wage silliness.
 

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
Yep, studies have shown that businesses will invest heavily in cheap labor or technology to replace it, but rarely both. The cheap restaurant labor is about to find out what happens when their jobs are cut and tech investments will continue in other sectors if other states follow with this min wage silliness.

Not to mention tech that does the same thing will only get cheaper and better over time. People need to realize that not everyone deserves to make a 'living wage' with just one job. If you decided to screw around when you were young, do drugs, whatever, guess what, you deserve to pay the consequences. Should've studied up, get a proper education, work hard preparing for interviews instead of dicking all day in school. If you chose the easy way when you were young, guess what, now you have to work much harder than those who have worked harder than you. That means working part time along with the full time job. That means you shouldn't be going around having kids you can't afford, no cellphone plan, no expensive sneakers.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,413
1,570
126
Not to mention tech that does the same thing will only get cheaper and better over time. People need to realize that not everyone deserves to make a 'living wage' with just one job. If you decided to screw around when you were young, do drugs, whatever, guess what, you deserve to pay the consequences. Should've studied up, get a proper education, work hard preparing for interviews instead of dicking all day in school. If you chose the easy way when you were young, guess what, now you have to work much harder than those who have worked harder than you. That means working part time along with the full time job. That means you shouldn't be going around having kids you can't afford, no cellphone plan, no expensive sneakers.

stop oppressing me bro and pay me my living wage for doing something a robot will do in 5 years.
 

mysticjbyrd

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2015
1,363
3
0
You don't have a strong grasp on the business world. Please educate yourself some more before your next attempt at applying your knowledge.

Your thoughts are based on two points that you will be incapable of rationalizing:
1) A corporation should be based in the U.S.
2) A corporation should hire U.S. citizens above citizens of other nations.

You should travel internationally more often. You'll be knocked down harder by common citizens of foreign nations than anything you experience on a random online political forum here.

ad hominem

Strawman

incoherent nonsense

1) Close tax loopholes that enable prevent them from exploiting tax havens.
2) Protectionism, like other industrial nations use.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,228
14,915
136
Times have changed where automation is far more available than it was in the past, not to mention as countless others have said the degree of increase previously wasn't nearly as drastic as it is now (even with it spread out)

Time will tell but seems more folks will shift over to full government assistance as the fall out of the workplace.

Times have changed? As in times have changed since the last minimum wage increase or since the previous two minimum wage increases?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
Not to mention tech that does the same thing will only get cheaper and better over time. People need to realize that not everyone deserves to make a 'living wage' with just one job. If you decided to screw around when you were young, do drugs, whatever, guess what, you deserve to pay the consequences. Should've studied up, get a proper education, work hard preparing for interviews instead of dicking all day in school. If you chose the easy way when you were young, guess what, now you have to work much harder than those who have worked harder than you. That means working part time along with the full time job. That means you shouldn't be going around having kids you can't afford, no cellphone plan, no expensive sneakers.
Exactly, I'm all for it. I'd choose tech over cheap labor any day of the week, it means we are actually progressing technologically. Hence why I don't mind min wage hikes nor border walls to keep out the cheap labor. Force companies to innovate and compete and get to the star trek replicator quicker, not suck on the cheap labor tit.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,321
136
maybe, just maybe the CEO's can take a paycut instead of the working stiffs getting stiffed or is that too much to ask to offset the costs?
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
maybe, just maybe the CEO's can take a paycut instead of the working stiffs getting stiffed or is that too much to ask to offset the costs?


Executive compensation is certainly worth looking at in making sure that he/she is gauging risk, properly guiding the company, and maximizing shareholder return - and doing it from a long term perspective. But to think that cutting exec pay will be enough to filter down to anything meaningful for the whole company is silly.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,055
48,054
136
ad hominem

Strawman

incoherent nonsense

1) Close tax loopholes that enable prevent them from exploiting tax havens.
2) Protectionism, like other industrial nations use.

What do you think the average tariff rate is for the United States as compared to other industrialized countries? Do you actually think it is significantly lower?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Basically nothing you wrote here is right. This is why you shouldn't rely on editorials from Bitcoin enthusiasts for your understanding of inflation.


So the foolishness of that op ed aside, it isn't even logical. The US government has been undertaking a very public attempt to INCREASE inflation in recent years.(QE) They haven't succeeded. If they were truly conspiring to manipulate inflation numbers why would they do it in a way that undermined their efforts? That's nonsensical.

I don't believe all of that crap from the bls. Of course they will defend their work and their hedonic quality adjustment.
Now we're all buying cheap crap from China, and it's all the same as the fine products we used to get from the U.S. and Europe?
A few years ago energy prices soared, making food and transportation costs skyrocket and yet the official inflation rate remained low.
I still don't believe these lying bastards.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Except the majority of people in the US are employed by small businesses that do have to follow those rules.

The only reason huge corporations don't, is because they chose not to. The corporations could be just as productive in the US, but that would mean the people at the top wouldn't make as much money.


Sorry but no, its not because huge corporations chose not to, it's because they exploit the legal loopholes their lobbyists put into law.

That's why they can perform a tax inversion but if you as an American citizen try to avoid paying taxes by trying to do something similar you will have the IRS on your back.

Don't know who has been feeding you that corporate koolaid bullshit but if you keep drinking it you will no doubt end up a Hillary supporter.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-washington-punishes-small-business-1431040539

Small business looms large in American political rhetoric. From the campaign trail to the floor of the U.S. House and Senate, members of Congress love to evoke the diner and dry cleaner, the neighborhood grocer and local hardware store. Ensuring the well-being of Main Street, we might easily assume, is one of their central policy aims.



The legislative track record tells another story. It is one in which the interests of big corporations are dominant, and many laws and regulations seem designed to bend the marketplace in their favor and put small, independent businesses at a competitive disadvantage.



Since the late 1990s, the overall market share of firms with fewer than 100 employees has fallen from 33% to 28%, according to U.S. Census data. There are nearly 80,000 fewer small retailers today than in 1999. Starting a new business also appears to have become harder. Despite their prominence in our tech-fueled imagination, the number of startups created annually fell by about 20% between the 1970s and the 2000s, Census data shows.



Dismissing these trends as merely the product of market forces misses the powerful way that government policy has tilted the playing field.
A report last month by the research organization Good Jobs First, for example, found that two-thirds of the $68 billion in business grants and special tax credits awarded by the federal government over the past 15 years went to big corporations. State and local economic development incentives are similarly skewed.


While the members our business associations—mostly independent retailers—must finance their own growth, one of their biggest competitors, Amazon, has received $330 million in tax breaks and other subsidies to fund its new warehouses. Indiana, for example, gave the company a $5 million tax credit to open a distribution center in 2009.



Multinational companies also benefit from a host of tax loopholes. A local pharmacy or bike shop cannot stash profits in a Bermuda shell company or undertake a foreign “inversion.” The result is that small businesses pay an effective federal tax rate that is several points higher on average than that paid by big companies, according to a Small Business Administrationstudy from 2009.


At a time when price competition is fierce and margins razor thin, these cost differences have a real impact on the ability of small businesses to survive. Yet efforts to reform corporate subsidies and close tax loopholes have gone nowhere.


Congress’s tacit support for further consolidation in the banking system is also undermining small independent businesses. From our perspective, local community banks are the most important part of the financial system, because they supply the lion’s share of small business loans. Yet Congress hasn’t lifted a finger as more than 500 have collapsed since 2008, according to federal data, swept away by the aftermath of a financial crisis they didn’t create.



Our members are feeling these losses. When we surveyed them earlier this year, of those looking to grow, nearly one in three reported being unable to secure a loan.



Rather than addressing this shortage of credit, and the decline of local banks at its root, the House passed a bill in January rolling back Dodd-Frank restrictions on Wall Street’s ability to hold collateralized loan obligations and trade derivatives outside of clearinghouses. The title of the bill, believe it or not, is the “Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.”



Even the Small Business Administration doesn’t seem to have the backs of small businesses these days. The agency has steadily expanded its definition of “small” in a way that has shifted its support away from the businesses that are truly small. While the agency’s overall loan portfolio has grown, the number of small-dollar business loans backed by the agency—those under $150,000—fell by two-thirds between 2005 and 2013, from 74,000 loans to just 25,000.


During this time the SBA guaranteed thousands of loans to low-wage fast-food franchises, often with high failure rates. Over the last decade, the agency backed loans to 1,969 Quiznos sandwich outlets, 787 Cold Stone Creamery stores, and 129 Blimpie sub shops. Altogether more than 40% of these outlets failed. The only winners in these deals were the big franchise parent companies, which earned fees from each of these new outlets without incurring any risk or liability when the franchisees failed and defaulted on their loans.



Small businesses hold a special place in the American political imagination for reasons that go far beyond their ability to create jobs and nurture healthy neighborhoods. Two centuries ago, our forefathers and mothers dumped thousands of pounds of tea into Boston Harbor to protest British policies that gave the powerful East India Company an advantage over local tea merchants.


Ever since then we’ve rightly viewed independent businesses as essential to liberty and democracy, a safeguard against the tyranny of concentrated power. It’s time that lawmakers reflect that value, not only in their rhetoric, but in their actions.
 

-slash-

Senior member
Jan 21, 2014
361
1
41
Only that lame republican anti-middle-class anti-working-class mindset would be against employed people actually doing better. And getting ahead without the need for public assistance on top of wage.
But that is the point. They really do not want people to do better. They like their little talking point of labeling Obama as the food stamp president.
If people actually earn a decent wage and those needing and on public assistance reduced, that kinda totally F**Ks up the entire republican ideologue.
And surely no one wants THAT....

It's actually the lame liberal mindset that is against people doing better for themselves. Instead of promoting self improvement, the idea is to just give them a better wage for a menial job. How is that helping them better themselves? It's just giving them more money for no improvement in work. You dont get a raise for doing the status quo, you get a raise for exceeding expectations. If people actually get off their lazy asses and work hard, they can earn a decent wage and get themselves off government bennies instead of waiting for the government to mandate a high wage to do it for them. Massive minimum wage increases to get people off benefits is just a shitty band-aid to a bigger problem, a poor workforce.

This coming from a middle-class Republican who has worked themselves up to a livable wage without using benefits, no higher education, and who now manages the mouth breathers you want to mandate get $15/hr. They arent worth it. The ones that are, they are already at $15/hr or better.
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126

Missing: 1987 present: "Without millions of illegal workers and ignoring immigration and labor laws, lettuce will cost $80... no... $800 a head! No American can build/ship/package/grow/deliver/maintain/service anything!! Business will be ruined!!"
 

-slash-

Senior member
Jan 21, 2014
361
1
41
Except whoever drew that picture forgot that corporations bypassed most of that with outsourcing, but I am sure they have no problem buying their cheap goods at Walmart or similar outlet, made in some foreign country that pays lip service at best to all those same rules and regulations.

Yup, and now we have an issue trying to keep corporations in America. Cause and effect in plain view. Funny how that works...