CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law |
||
|
|
CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law
Drjones said: » Caitsith.Mahayaya said: » The lose is at the business and business owners who will choose to layoff staff or reduce hours in order to compensate for the profit loss the wage increase has brought in. Moreover, if their cost of labor remains constant, how is in a loss for the business? Simplistically speaking, in this scenario labor costs might remain constant, but cost of labor would increase. If you're buying fewer hours of labor at a higher rate you can maintain costs by dropping hours and losing productivity.
It's a lot more complicated than that though. Drjones said: » Any business that can't afford to pay its employees a reasonable wage wasn't a viable business to begin with.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Drjones said: » Caitsith.Mahayaya said: » The lose is at the business and business owners who will choose to layoff staff or reduce hours in order to compensate for the profit loss the wage increase has brought in. Moreover, if their cost of labor remains constant, how is in a loss for the business? Its more of a business model issue in that the quoted example is more than likely the company itself isn't making money and is shucking a bum product or service... or is one of those start ups designed not to turn out a product but gobble up investor $$$$ Zerowone said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Drjones said: » Caitsith.Mahayaya said: » The lose is at the business and business owners who will choose to layoff staff or reduce hours in order to compensate for the profit loss the wage increase has brought in. Moreover, if their cost of labor remains constant, how is in a loss for the business? Its more of a business model issue in that the quoted example is more than likely the company itself isn't making money and is shucking a bum product or service... or is one of those start ups designed not to turn out a product but gobble up investor $$$$ Small businesses typically don't get big because there is a tipping point. There is a point where you can't afford to get bigger because you can't produce enough to meet the needs of a larger company until you already are a larger company. That's what they talk about when a small business experiences growing pains. If businesses reduce labor hours to make up for increased labor costs, it probably won't experience a dramatic loss in productivity, they will simply expect employees to do the extra work in those hours. I was just pointing out the contradictory nature of his post. Your statement is partially correct. Companies do terminate/layoff employees and rehire at a lower wage. How else do you think human resource executives earn(part of their) quarterly quarterly bonuses reflective of their department. Payroll budgeting is HR's department, they too have to maximize profit using a particular budget.
EDIT: Of course an indicator of a successful business includes wage increases, for particular departments. Let's see ceo/cfo, sr executes, jr executives and clerical- upper management increases their own wages first, especially since clerical are easily replaceable. Replacing a sr accountant is a lot more difficult than your mail room person.
[+]
Well, it depends on the company itself.
If you are talking about the medium-large to large businesses, then yes, you are correct. The reason is that there is a set system and any new person can learn that set system easy. Also, the relationship between the boss and the employee is limited because you are looking at one person managing a large group of people. If you are talking about small to medium sized businesses, then you are partially correct. It is hard to get a new person to fully understand a fluid system that small businesses tend to have in place, as the smaller business doesn't have a plan for everything (yet). Also, the relationship between boss and employee is better because everyone is in a smaller group together. For example, my firm has just under 50 total employees (including partners), mostly tax staff, a few audit, and even smaller administration staff. Our system is very fluid because of our work being fluid, and that every project is different. One project could be just a simple partnership tax return, while another could be a more complex partnership tax return with 10+ states attached with it. Or a simple audit review vs a more complex full blown audit. Because of that, there are multiple systems in place that requires flexible people, and even if there were an abundance of accountants out there, it would still be difficult to fire a higher paid employee and hire a newer employee just for the sake of cost, because of the fluid system my firm has in place. Now, if you are talking about AT&T or Wal-mart... Don't forget that most of the people employed in America work for a small company. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Don't forget that most of the people employed in America work for a small company. Technically its about half, but 99% of all businesses employ less than 500 people (accepted definition of a small business). That's split about in thirds between the subgroups of 100-499, 20-99, and what I always think of as a small business; less than 20 employees. The demographics are also inconsistent, as most of the laws governing small businesses define them as less than 100 employees or less than 50 employees. So it all depends on what definition you are using. Those numbers are somewhat outdated since they are based on the 2010 census and DoL statistics, but I doubt it's changed significantly. Ok, I'm curious.
Where did you get your numbers, since you referenced DoL and 2010 census and I couldn't find it? Also, federal definition of a small business is 50 full-time employees/equivalent or smaller. Full-time equivalent means if 2 people are part time, but both of them together works 40 hours, that makes them together 1 full-time employee. That way, for a business that runs 24/7, you would be a small business if the average number of employees on the clock at any given time is 12 or less at all levels (multiple stores combine together into 1 business, if the business runs multiple stores). try google, i refuse to believe you can't find DoL and census data with a 30 second search.
Just for clarification, you can use the department of labor statistics breakdowns or you can search for the specific demographic you are interested in. The Department of Labor defines anything less than 500 employees as a small business for it's statistics and breaks that down into 3 sub categories. 50 employees isn't the "federal definition" it's the IRS definition... http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewfs.pdf
Quote: At the end of the first quarter of 2005, there were 4.9 million firms in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.6 percent of all firms and 55.8 percent of total employment. ... For example, a commonly used definition of a “large” firm is 500 or more employees; data for this grouping can be created by combining two firm-size classes, those with 500–999 employees and those with 1,000 or more em- ployees. Firms with 500 or more employees were, on average over the period, responsible for 23.3 percent of all gross quarterly job gains, 22.5 percent of gross quarterly job losses, and 35.0 percent of quarterly net gains in employment.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewfs.pdf Quote: At the end of the first quarter of 2005, there were 4.9 million firms in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.6 percent of all firms and 55.8 percent of total employment. ... For example, a commonly used definition of a “large” firm is 500 or more employees; data for this grouping can be created by combining two firm-size classes, those with 500–999 employees and those with 1,000 or more em- ployees. Firms with 500 or more employees were, on average over the period, responsible for 23.3 percent of all gross quarterly job gains, 22.5 percent of gross quarterly job losses, and 35.0 percent of quarterly net gains in employment. I definitely understand the inconsistencies because it seems like nobody uses the same definition of small business. It should be intuitive that if 99%+ of businesses are classified as small, a lot of people would work for them, but there is a huge disparity between the number of employees. Those 99% have between 1 and 500 employess, and then it jumps steeply into the thousands and tens of thousands employees. Edit: Most of my economic and business textbooks are putting the line at 500 employees with a few using ranges between 100 and 1000 as a medium category. I hate that 2 apparently contradictory statistics can essentially both be right, lol. Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewfs.pdf Quote: At the end of the first quarter of 2005, there were 4.9 million firms in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.6 percent of all firms and 55.8 percent of total employment. ... For example, a commonly used definition of a “large” firm is 500 or more employees; data for this grouping can be created by combining two firm-size classes, those with 500–999 employees and those with 1,000 or more em- ployees. Firms with 500 or more employees were, on average over the period, responsible for 23.3 percent of all gross quarterly job gains, 22.5 percent of gross quarterly job losses, and 35.0 percent of quarterly net gains in employment. I definitely understand the inconsistencies because it seems like nobody uses the same definition of small business. It should be intuitive that if 99%+ of businesses are classified as small, a lot of people would work for them, but there is a huge disparity between the number of employees. Those 99% have between 1 and 500 employess, and then it jumps steeply into the thousands and tens of thousands employees. I was hoping for something more like this. Also, data that isn't 8 years old. Also, it took me 15 seconds to find this information, and it is as current as it can be. But by the data, it seems like the higher job gains can be found in larger firms than smaller. So I guess we are both wrong. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewfs.pdf Quote: At the end of the first quarter of 2005, there were 4.9 million firms in the private sector of the U.S. economy. Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.6 percent of all firms and 55.8 percent of total employment. ... For example, a commonly used definition of a “large” firm is 500 or more employees; data for this grouping can be created by combining two firm-size classes, those with 500–999 employees and those with 1,000 or more em- ployees. Firms with 500 or more employees were, on average over the period, responsible for 23.3 percent of all gross quarterly job gains, 22.5 percent of gross quarterly job losses, and 35.0 percent of quarterly net gains in employment. I definitely understand the inconsistencies because it seems like nobody uses the same definition of small business. It should be intuitive that if 99%+ of businesses are classified as small, a lot of people would work for them, but there is a huge disparity between the number of employees. Those 99% have between 1 and 500 employess, and then it jumps steeply into the thousands and tens of thousands employees. I was hoping for something more like this. Also, data that isn't 8 years old. Also, it took me 15 seconds to find this information, and it is as current as it can be. But by the data, it seems like the higher job gains can be found in larger firms than smaller. So I guess we are both wrong. Neither of us are actually WRONG, it just depends who's definition you are using. You are more correct using the DoL's definition than yours. And who the hell was talking about job GAINS? Min wage won't matter in a year. We will have robots to clean up our doody and the matrix to feed us virtual steak.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you didn't read the .pdf linked.
Table A has the same business employment break-down listed that you posted. I would have liked better than 2005 but that was what was available categorizing small and large companies, linked from this site. http://www.bls.gov/bdm/ Quote: Current: Firm Size Class Quarterly Data (HTML) (PDF) — this initial release of firm size class data includes analysis of data series that begin in 1992 I did read the .pdf, as you could have seen from my response of it being 8 years old, and that my link came from the same site as yours.
Also, if you look at my link, you would see that it has data that you can analyze back to 1992. And if you analyzed it, you would see that, ever since the recession, more and more job gains have been coming from larger companies, instead of smaller ones (you would have to look at several graphs to see that). Yes, it doesn't show how many people are working at which group of employers, but it does show that more and more people are being hired on larger employers than not. Which is a very scary thing. Less individual businesses means less innovations and more monopolies. I really do not like where this pattern is heading... Asura.Kingnobody said: » I did read the .pdf, as you could have seen from my response of it being 8 years old, and that my link came from the same site as yours. Also, if you look at my link, you would see that it has data that you can analyze back to 1992. And if you analyzed it, you would see that, ever since the recession, more and more job gains have been coming from larger companies, instead of smaller ones (you would have to look at several graphs to see that). Yes, it doesn't show how many people are working at which group of employers, but it does show that more and more people are being hired on larger employers than not. Which is a very scary thing. Less individual businesses means less innovations and more monopolies. I really do not like where this pattern is heading... Job growth comes from growing companies and industries, its mostly irrelevant what the size of the company is. Its worth pointing out that most job growth in established firms generally comes from the acquisition of smaller companies and IP that fuel ingenuity in the firms that have the leverage to grow the IP. Asura.Kingnobody said: » I did read the .pdf, as you could have seen from my response of it being 8 years old, and that my link came from the same site as yours. Also, if you look at my link, you would see that it has data that you can analyze back to 1992. And if you analyzed it, you would see that, ever since the recession, more and more job gains have been coming from larger companies, instead of smaller ones (you would have to look at several graphs to see that). The date is in the excerpt... You also wouldn't need to "analyze" anything, it's basically the headline of the link you posted, and also common sense based on the current economic climate. And still irrelevant. Quote: Which is a very scary thing. Less individual businesses means less innovations and more monopolies. I really do not like where this pattern is heading... While this is true, it's a bad sign that the fiscal policies you claim to support are responsible for the economic results you don't like. Cerberus.Eugene said: » Its worth pointing out that most job growth in established firms generally comes from the acquisition of smaller companies and IP that fuel ingenuity in the firms that have the leverage to grow the IP. I assumed that the metrics were normalized to show only NEW jobs, but it seems that you are correct. They aren't offset by aquisition because they only show increases to a firm's employment and not losses from firms that were bought. Odin.Jassik said: » While this is true, it's a bad sign that the fiscal policies you claim to support are responsible for the economic results you don't like. I said since the recession. Recession started at the end of the Bush administration, and is still continuing (still yet to see an actual recovery, just this tepid "recovery" which is keeping growth at an absolute minimum). Your horse is the one causing these economic results. Until we get an actual leader in the White House, this will continue... ...oh wait, lets not forget the liberal mantra: A president has no influence on the economy unless it is a Republican president, then they are the devil that ruined us all when a Democrat president *** things over for everyone. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact.
Zerowone said: » Franklin Delano Roosevelt did a pretty good job of picking up the pieces after Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover made a serious mess of things. Its not always liberal mantra but historical fact. false I will say that this had been an awesome read on my day off from making a pinched nerve in my finger (/sad losing hours but happens ><).
I do think minimum wage is an entry level wage and not livable.. but people have to understand that a lot of companies AREN'T hiring under 18 anymore. "It's a job meant for high school kids" doesn't mean anything when people won't hire under 18, an age where most are OUT of high school. They do this to avoid any extra effort with scheduling laws/not being able to handle equipment/etc. Happened while I was working at McDonald's AND at Walmart. Target still hires under 18, but it sucks when you have to constantly take over for someone because they can't sell alcohol yet. I myself work one of those jobs and I'm 25, but now I'm in a situation where I CAN attend schooling and work my way up into another industry.. I don't want to do cashiering for the rest of my life. Most others don't have this opportunity that I have, sadly. Although I will say this, the jobs I've had have made me irritated, sad, depressed and want to punch something very hard at times, but overall have taught me awesome work ethics and how to handle myself in the workplace. Draining and demeaning, but teaches you valuable skills for better opportunities. Also, anyone that has to deal with the public on a daily basis face to face should get a raise (even if it's small), enough said. Think of how many "People of Walmart" workers at Fast Food and places like that have to deal with day to day. Like, 50 cents as "Dealing with ***" pay. Has a nice ring to it.
[+]
Valefor.Applebottoms said: » Also, anyone that has to deal with the public on a daily basis face to face should get a raise (even if it's small), enough said. Think of how many "People of Walmart" workers at Fast Food and places like that have to deal with day to day. Like, 50 cents as "Dealing with ***" pay. Has a nice ring to it. Shouldn't getting an education and working in a field that you like be incentive enough to get out of the "Dealing with ***" situation you are currently in? That was my driving point in going to college and getting degrees in accounting and business management. So I wouldn't have to deal with the general public as an "Associate" or "Team Partner" or whatever they call peons now.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » whatever they call peons now. we're all someone's peon, bubba.
[+]
Valefor.Applebottoms said: » If it's any consolation, when I was referring to "student jobs", I was also funneling undergrads in there (which is precisely what you are doing). Just to clarify, not students ages sixteen to eighteen. I think all of us understand the reasons why they're whittling the kiddos out. There's too many unskilled in the workforce that employers can't accommodate, but the fact that we have reached this point is a shame in itself.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Valefor.Applebottoms said: » Also, anyone that has to deal with the public on a daily basis face to face should get a raise (even if it's small), enough said. Think of how many "People of Walmart" workers at Fast Food and places like that have to deal with day to day. Like, 50 cents as "Dealing with ***" pay. Has a nice ring to it. Shouldn't getting an education and working in a field that you like be incentive enough to get out of the "Dealing with ***" situation you are currently in? That was my driving point in going to college and getting degrees in accounting and business management. So I wouldn't have to deal with the general public as an "Associate" or "Team Partner" or whatever they call peons now. Oh it is incentive enough, trust me. And I said it should be for EVERYONE having to deal with the public. From the lowly "peons" to the higher ups that get paid more. It causes stress on all levels.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Applebottoms said: » If it's any consolation, when I was referring to "student jobs", I was also funneling undergrads in there (which is precisely what you are doing). Just to clarify, not students ages sixteen to eighteen. I think all of us understand the reasons why they're whittling the kiddos out. There's too many unskilled in the workforce that employers can't accommodate, but the fact that we have reached this point is a shame in itself. It's just I hear "well these are the jobs for the kids" over. and over. and over. and over. and over. and over. and over. again. It's frustrating because people don't understand that these jobs AREN'T for the kids anymore.. things change, lol.
[+]
|
|
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
