kalm wrote:Perhaps China's rising wages and green initiatives are not sustainable for those companies.Ibanez wrote:
Cid, back me up on this if i'm wrong, but another interesting development is the number of American companies fleeing the rising costs of China for Vietnam. There's been a few billion dollars of investment in Vietnam within the past several years.
I've said it before, China is close to implosion. It's going to be very interesting and more than a little chaotic when it happens.Ibanez wrote:Rising Wages AND rising utility costs. Also, it's a logistical nightmare and the freight costs are staggering. Also, Chinese laborers are beginning to unionize.kalm wrote:
Perhaps China's rising wages and green initiatives are not sustainable for those companies.
My wife did part of her thesis on this as part of her sustainable business concept. The reaction American businesses have had to China is worth taking a look at.
Yep. They're just a few decades behind America now.UNI88 wrote:I've said it before, China is close to implosion. It's going to be very interesting and more than a little chaotic when it happens.Ibanez wrote:
Rising Wages AND rising utility costs. Also, it's a logistical nightmare and the freight costs are staggering. Also, Chinese laborers are beginning to unionize.
My wife did part of her thesis on this as part of her sustainable business concept. The reaction American businesses have had to China is worth taking a look at.
I blame their greedy middle class with expectations of cleaner air and better ages...chumps!UNI88 wrote:I've said it before, China is close to implosion. It's going to be very interesting and more than a little chaotic when it happens.Ibanez wrote:
Rising Wages AND rising utility costs. Also, it's a logistical nightmare and the freight costs are staggering. Also, Chinese laborers are beginning to unionize.
My wife did part of her thesis on this as part of her sustainable business concept. The reaction American businesses have had to China is worth taking a look at.
You aren't wrong. There has been an ongoing exodus to Vietnam for the last 10 years and it is increasing in pace.Ibanez wrote:BDKJMU wrote:
Exactly. Posted this last fall on another thread:
European industry flocks to U.S. to take advantage of cheaper gas
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013 ... e-gas-basf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
German Firms Flee to U.S. to Avoid Staggering “Green” Energy Costs
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-new ... ergy-costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Cid, back me up on this if i'm wrong, but another interesting development is the number of American companies fleeing the rising costs of China for Vietnam. There's been a few billion dollars of investment in Vietnam within the past several years.
Rising wages is a portion of it, the other is that China's cheap labor force is largely saturated at this point.kalm wrote:Perhaps China's rising wages and green initiatives are not sustainable for those companies.Ibanez wrote:
Cid, back me up on this if i'm wrong, but another interesting development is the number of American companies fleeing the rising costs of China for Vietnam. There's been a few billion dollars of investment in Vietnam within the past several years.
Ibanez wrote:kalm wrote:
3). You appear to have that special combination of arrogance AND ignorance.
You're talking about BDKJMU. His persona on here is arrogance and ignorance.
Increasing the minimum wage might not lead your local McDonald's to fire its cashiers. But it might mean that a 5 Guys will one day replace it.
That's the upshot of a new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that puts an intriguing twist on the age-old minimum wage debate. Most studies on the subject tend to focus on jobs (and, as regular readers of this site may know by now, those studies often come to wildly different conclusions). But this time around, researchers Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and Isaac Sorkin also decided to look at what happened to the fast-food restaurants themselves in three states—Illinois, California, and New Jersey—after they raised wages.
While the hikes had a "small" impact on jobs, the economists found, they had a substantial impact on businesses. In states where employers were asked to pay their workers more, fast-food restaurants were more likely to close. At the same time, new restaurants became more likely to open, at least in Illinois and New Jersey. In California, the story was slightly different. More fast-food joints shuttered up, but there wasn't a significant jump in openings. As a result, employment fell, but as the paper notes, the reduction "was small and sometimes indistinguishable from zero."
In the end, some business owners couldn't figure out how to shoulder a heavier payroll. And when they cleared out, new businesses swooped in to fill their void. Goodbye McDonald's. Hello 5 Guys, or Chipotle, or Chick-fil-A.
Meanwhile, at restaurants that stayed open, employment barely budged (as the paper puts it: "we find little evidence of a consistent net employment effect"). When all was said and done, the job market seems to have stayed mostly level.
All of this raises an interesting question: Why would more fast-food spots suddenly start opening right after wages rise? The study's theory, essentially, is that it's tough to teach an old McDonald's new management tricks. Brand new restaurants can be flexible about their business model. But once set, that model can be hard to revamp. So if management is used to paying its cashiers and fry cooks $7.25 an hour, it might never figure out how to clear a profit while paying them $9. A new burger joint, on the other hand, can set itself up to earn money immediately (and take advantage of the hole in the market left by the failed competition).
Which is to say, a higher minimum wage might not kill jobs. But it could kill off an old way of doing business.
Yep. A lot of poor and lower income folks who can afford McDonalds can't afford 5 Guys. KYJelly just displaying his lack of concern for the poor folk....AZGrizFan wrote:Sure. A 5 Guys. If you want to pay $13 for a hamburger and fries for lunch. Which will become $15.50 if the minimum wage is raised.
Not quite. kalm said it like this:CID1990 wrote:That's what I saidkalm wrote:
"We" didn't lose anything. "We" made a conscious decision to give it away.
Skjellyfetti wrote:Go live out your free market ideals there.AZGrizFan wrote:
More Liberal tolerance.
So fucking what....
I don't eat at McDonald's or 5 Guys.AZGrizFan wrote:Sure. A 5 Guys. If you want to pay $13 for a hamburger and fries for lunch. Which will become $15.50 if the minimum wage is raised.
Pricing out poor people from shitty fast food shouldn't be one of our worries.BDKJMU wrote:Yep. A lot of poor and lower income folks who can afford McDonalds can't afford 5 Guys. KYJelly just displaying his lack of concern for the poor folk....AZGrizFan wrote:Sure. A 5 Guys. If you want to pay $13 for a hamburger and fries for lunch. Which will become $15.50 if the minimum wage is raised.
). Why do you hate elderly people and the poor?Skjellyfetti wrote:Another benefit to raising the minimum wage that I hadn't considered.
Increasing the minimum wage might not lead your local McDonald's to fire its cashiers. But it might mean that a 5 Guys will one day replace it.
That's the upshot of a new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that puts an intriguing twist on the age-old minimum wage debate. Most studies on the subject tend to focus on jobs (and, as regular readers of this site may know by now, those studies often come to wildly different conclusions). But this time around, researchers Daniel Aaronson, Eric French, and Isaac Sorkin also decided to look at what happened to the fast-food restaurants themselves in three states—Illinois, California, and New Jersey—after they raised wages.
While the hikes had a "small" impact on jobs, the economists found, they had a substantial impact on businesses. In states where employers were asked to pay their workers more, fast-food restaurants were more likely to close. At the same time, new restaurants became more likely to open, at least in Illinois and New Jersey. In California, the story was slightly different. More fast-food joints shuttered up, but there wasn't a significant jump in openings. As a result, employment fell, but as the paper notes, the reduction "was small and sometimes indistinguishable from zero."
In the end, some business owners couldn't figure out how to shoulder a heavier payroll. And when they cleared out, new businesses swooped in to fill their void. Goodbye McDonald's. Hello 5 Guys, or Chipotle, or Chick-fil-A.
Meanwhile, at restaurants that stayed open, employment barely budged (as the paper puts it: "we find little evidence of a consistent net employment effect"). When all was said and done, the job market seems to have stayed mostly level.
All of this raises an interesting question: Why would more fast-food spots suddenly start opening right after wages rise? The study's theory, essentially, is that it's tough to teach an old McDonald's new management tricks. Brand new restaurants can be flexible about their business model. But once set, that model can be hard to revamp. So if management is used to paying its cashiers and fry cooks $7.25 an hour, it might never figure out how to clear a profit while paying them $9. A new burger joint, on the other hand, can set itself up to earn money immediately (and take advantage of the hole in the market left by the failed competition).
Which is to say, a higher minimum wage might not kill jobs. But it could kill off an old way of doing business.
For monetary reasons or health reasons?Cluck U wrote: Why do you hate elderly people and the poor?
Not everyone can afford to eat at Chipotle, 5 Guys, or other such places.
You can't buy fast food with food stamps in most states.Cluck U wrote:Wait...you'll just give them more Food Stamps. Got it.
Cluck U wrote: Instead, a great majority of employees today go out and buy beer, big screen TVs, processed foods, and a whole load of crap they don't need (except in their own silly race to keep up with the Joneses).
And yet a 50" flat screen IS considered mandatory, even for the poor.Skjellyfetti wrote:Pricing out poor people from shitty fast food shouldn't be one of our worries.BDKJMU wrote:
Yep. A lot of poor and lower income folks who can afford McDonalds can't afford 5 Guys. KYJelly just displaying his lack of concern for the poor folk....
Sorry, buy a whole chicken for $5... put some effort in... and cook a fucking meal like a regular person for far less than a meal at McDonald's (well, maybe it's not normal to cook food anymore, idk
Eating out is supposed to be a fucking luxury... and not something you're supposed to be able to afford to do regularly.
I'm not talking about pricing out the poor. I'm talking about pricing out ME. The poor are already priced out of 5 Guys.Skjellyfetti wrote:Pricing out poor people from shitty fast food shouldn't be one of our worries.BDKJMU wrote:
Yep. A lot of poor and lower income folks who can afford McDonalds can't afford 5 Guys. KYJelly just displaying his lack of concern for the poor folk....
Sorry, buy a whole chicken for $5... put some effort in... and cook a fucking meal like a regular person for far less than a meal at McDonald's (well, maybe it's not normal to cook food anymore, idk
Eating out is supposed to be a fucking luxury... and not something you're supposed to be able to afford to do regularly.
What? Not mandatory in the least. Fuck televisions...AZGrizFan wrote:
And yet a 50" flat screen IS considered mandatory, even for the poor.
Yeah, mandatory. Just like iPhones, iPads, etc., etc., etc. Today's poor live like 1965's middle class.Skjellyfetti wrote:What? Not mandatory in the least. Fuck televisions...AZGrizFan wrote:
And yet a 50" flat screen IS considered mandatory, even for the poor.
I'm not a hypocrite. In fact, I am very consistent. I don't think it is the government's responsibility to set wages or force profit sharing (the two themes in the two threads you referenced). I also don't think it is the government's responsibility to force people to purchase health insurance.Skjellyfetti wrote: You can't buy fast food with food stamps in most states.
I'm all for banning their use on fast food in all the other states.
Edit to add:
You are such a fucking hypocrite.
In this thread you want us to feel sorry for poor people that might not be able to afford fast food in the hypothetical situation in the article.
AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME you're posting this in another thread:
Cluck U wrote: Instead, a great majority of employees today go out and buy beer, big screen TVs, processed foods, and a whole load of crap they don't need (except in their own silly race to keep up with the Joneses).
Not sure why you want to take that away and make someone pay $12 for their meal. 
You and Z might want to take break at this point as you are getting out-classed, out conked, and flat owned by Skelly in this thread...Cluck U wrote:I'm not a hypocrite. In fact, I am very consistent. I don't think it is the government's responsibility to set wages or force profit sharing (the two themes in the two threads you referenced). I also don't think it is the government's responsibility to force people to purchase health insurance.Skjellyfetti wrote: You can't buy fast food with food stamps in most states.
I'm all for banning their use on fast food in all the other states.
Edit to add:
You are such a fucking hypocrite.
In this thread you want us to feel sorry for poor people that might not be able to afford fast food in the hypothetical situation in the article.
AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME you're posting this in another thread:
I believe people shouldn't eat processed foods...but if they want to eat crappy foods, then so be it. McD's can serve a person a double cheeseburger for a dollar. Toss down a water (free) and side of apple slices and you have a cheap meal for the elderly and the poor.
You see, I believe people should be allowed to fail. And I don't expect people to feel sorry for anyone else - YOU conjured that one up. I simply expect people like you to realize that you consistently come up with a recommended solution without bothering to think about the impact of your decision on others, despite you believing that we should think about our impact on others.
And that is a great segue to brining this full circle...you are a hypocrite.
You insist on taking away poor people's choices and making decisions for them (as well as the wealthy) simply because you believe that you know what is best for everyone.
Indeed, there is a little Caesar in you...yet you hate people in power who disagree with you and your choices.
Nonsense.kalm wrote:
You and Z might want to take break at this point as you are getting out-classed, out conked, and flat owned by Skelly in this thread...
We get it.Skjellyfetti wrote:I don't eat at McDonald's or 5 Guys.AZGrizFan wrote:Sure. A 5 Guys. If you want to pay $13 for a hamburger and fries for lunch. Which will become $15.50 if the minimum wage is raised.
The point isn't the quality in burger increases (I guess that's a plus, but I don't really give a ****). The point is that a job will replace it.
Also, why do you assume that 5 Guys's price will increase if the minimum wage is increased? They don't rely on the minimum wage like McDonald's and other places. They pay their employees a lot more than McDonald's... more than the minimum wage. That cost is already reflected in the burgers.
A minimum wage increase would not effect those restaurants as much as a McDonalds... which is kinda the point of the article I posted.
Cluck U: Yay...supply side created artificial demand and perpetual growth...Cluck U wrote:Nonsense.kalm wrote:
You and Z might want to take break at this point as you are getting out-classed, out conked, and flat owned by Skelly in this thread...
Deep inside, skelly wants gubmint to handle everything and to solve everyone's problems...and that is really a reflection that skelly believes there should be a greater power (not God, oddly enough, but a human substitute for God) handling everything because people can't handle themselves. That last part is true...some people can't handle themselves. skelly just can't handle the fact that some people can't handle themselves and he feels sorry for them and wants everyone else to feel sorry for, and be accountable for, those sorry folks.
You are correct about one thing though, skelly was thinking like a conk for a second. Shutting down low paying businesses that hire and serve large numbers of poor people in order to put up more profitable businesses that don't hire as many workers, and don't bother serving the poor, while making more poor people unemployed, is a very Conk idea.
But it certainly clashes with skelly's soft spot for the poor. It is also...hypocritical.
