Minimum Wage increase forces restaurants to close in Seattle area

[Spurminator]

This is the most united I've seen the forum in a long time.

Nice work, OP.

[rmt]

This is the most united I've seen the forum in a long time.

Nice work, OP.

Most united would probably be H1-B visas.

[ElNono]

Not really.

Not even the le of the original article...

"Dozens of McCormick & Schmick's restaurants have closed since sale"

[Splits]

And OP's favorite governor is the least popular in the country

26%
anything OP says, opposite is true
"seeded with tax cuts"

[rjv]

So a chain that's been shutting down restaurants all over the country wants to scapegoat a minimum wage law for its Seattle closure?

and at a time where the retail/service industry is performing quite poorly at that.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.kgw.com/money/business/do...sale/431987778

One of the Seattle locations of longtime seafood and steak house McCormick and Schmick's closed quietly last month with no explanation.

The Seattle Times reported that diners who showed up for reservations at the Harborside location restaurant in early March found it shuttered.

This isn't the first McCormicks to shut down in Seattle. Last year, Houston-based Landry’s Inc. shut down McCormick’s Fish House & Bar on Fourth Avenue and Columbia Street, and in 2014 it closed the McCormick and Schmick's on First Avenue and Spring Street.

The closure comes after a string of McCormick and Schmick's closures across the country in recent years.

"As leases come up for renewal, we are forced to evaluate whether to renew the lease or not," Landry's said in a statement. "Based on tremendous labor pressure through state minimum wage increases and rising rents, we are forced to make difficult decisions with all our restaurant concepts and not just McCormick and Schmick's. Unfortunately, there have been a handful of McCormick and Schmick's locations through the past few years where it didn't make sense to renew the lease."

The company also said demographic changes have been responsible for some of the closures.

The only remaining McCormick and Schmick's in the region is the Bellevue location.

In January, a Denver location was shut down. In July 2016, a location outside Milwaukee shut down. In 2015, the company closed McCormick's restaurants in Boston and in Washington, D.C.

McCormick and Schmick's was originally a Portland-based restaurant group and in its last annual filing as a public company it said that as of Dec. 29, 2010 it operated 96 restaurants, including 89 restaurants in the United States. That same filing said the company operated 14 California locations at the time.

Now the company says it operates "nearly 60 locations across the country," including eight in California. One of the company's Los Angeles restaurants closed in 2015.

There are five locations in the Portland area currently.

The Puget Sound Business Journal has more on the reductions(the story is limited to PSBJ subscribers-only until about mid-June).

So it couldn't have been because their restaurants sucked... nah.

Riddle me this:

Would any restaurant chain admit that there just wasn't a demand for their product in the area, or rather pin the blame on anything else?

Second question:

If there was sufficient demand for their product, would they have been able to afford the extra labor cost?

[DMC]

That's why I say the minimum wage isn't the cause of their closing. Something else is going on. Minimum wage increases will affect places that charge much less.

Minimum Wage increase forces restaurants to close in Seattle area

[DMC]

So it couldn't have been because their restaurants sucked... nah.

Riddle me this:

Would any restaurant chain admit that there just wasn't a demand for their product in the area, or rather pin the blame on anything else?

Second question:

If there was sufficient demand for their product, would they have been able to afford the extra labor cost?

The 2nd question is stupid. With sufficient demand for any product, the manufacturer can pay any labor cost, thus the reason someone like Kyle Korver is a millionaire.

[Th'Pusher]

The 2nd question is stupid. With sufficient demand for any product, the manufacturer can pay any labor cost, thus the reason someone like Kyle Korver is a millionaire.

The question gets to bouton's point which is, if your business model is not only affected by, but is driven by the minimum wage you're legally allowed to pay, is it a legitimate business model?

If that's the case, then, as a business owner, you accept the risk in establishing a business in a municipality or state that has the ability to set the minimum wage that could ultimately render your business model ineffective.

The result of a higher minimum wage may result in fewer choices and jobs in the associated industry, but all surviving choices and associated jobs will ultimately deliver a better product to the consumer, forcing progression as opposed to a race to the bottom.

[boutons_deux]

minimum wages increases, for 80 years, affect jobs up or down, depending on whether the economy is up or down

that Fed min wage increases are job killers is a BigCorp LIE, but it's BigCorp, so we know they ALWAYS LIE.

[pgardn]

maybe if they switched to christian faith healthcare they could save money, pray for good health and negotiation skills.

The Clammer!

[pgardn]

Any business whose business plan is based on paying poverty wages isn't a viable business.

This is not a good argument for minimum wage dontcha know...

[DMC]

The question gets to bouton's point which is, if your business model is not only affected by, but is driven by the minimum wage you're legally allowed to pay, is it a legitimate business model?

If that's the case, then, as a business owner, you accept the risk in establishing a business in a municipality or state that has the ability to set the minimum wage that could ultimately render your business model ineffective.

The result of a higher minimum wage may result in fewer choices and jobs in the associated industry, but all surviving choices and associated jobs will ultimately deliver a better product to the consumer, forcing progression as opposed to a race to the bottom.

No, the question is a tautology.

To your statement: when did fewer choices = better quality?

[DMX7]

Soon there won't be any mom and pop establishments (that's one of the things I liked about Texas when I visited - many more small businesses). Here in Miami, it's mostly the big, national chains - is that what you want, boutons, BigRestaurant? Only they will survive - like Amazon and WalMart. And then, they'll move to robots and kiosks.

McCormick and Schmick's is not a mom and pop shop, and Seattle probably has plenty of independently owned mom and pop type shops that aren't going out of business because of having to pay higher minimum wages.

[Th'Pusher]

No, the question is a tautology.

To your statement: when did fewer choices = better quality?

I Didn't say anything about product quality. The implication is that if you can support the higher wages there is sufficient demand for your product.

[DMC]

I Didn't say anything about product quality. The implication is that if you can support the higher wages there is sufficient demand for your product.

You said better product.

[Th'Pusher]

You said better product.

Better as in value to the consumer needed to drive the demand and support the higher labor cost.

[Xevious]

Not really.

How the guests doing this year?

[DMC]

Better as in value to the consumer needed to drive the demand and support the higher labor cost.

So explain how fewer businesses = better value to consumers. I'll prepare the Walmart argument.

[Th'Pusher]

So explain how fewer businesses = better value to consumers. I'll prepare the Walmart argument.

Businesses that can afford the increased cost of labor associated with an increase in the minimum wage are offering products and services that consumers find valuable. Businesses that can't aren't.

[DMC]

Businesses that can afford the increased cost of labor associated with an increase in the minimum wage are offering products and services that consumers find valuable. Businesses that can't aren't.

You can simply remove the "cost of labor associated with.." caveat and simply say businesses that don't provide a valuable good or service cannot afford to remain in business. So let's take the concept to the absurd to watch it fail: You quadruple the minimum salary. Now you have to raise prices to remain in business. Now you have to raise all salaries to meet cost of living increase. Now your minimum wage isn't worth any more than it was prior to the increase. The alternative only a couple businesses remain viable, illegal drugs and sports.

Those businesses you're talking about that cannot afford the increased cost (because they don't provide a service or good that consumers find valuable) aren't changing the quality of the other businesses who can. How does closing them create better products or better value? When you remove compe ion, you stifle growth and negate the need to be better than the compe or (i.e. quality, cost, etc..)

[Th'Pusher]

You can simply remove the "cost of labor associated with.." caveat and simply say businesses that don't provide a valuable good or service cannot afford to remain in business. So let's take the concept to the absurd to watch it fail: You quadruple the minimum salary. Now you have to raise prices to remain in business. Now you have to raise all salaries to meet cost of living increase. Now your minimum wage isn't worth any more than it was prior to the increase. The alternative only a couple businesses remain viable, illegal drugs and sports.

I'm not chasing that red herring.

Those businesses you're talking about that cannot afford the increased cost (because they don't provide a service or good that consumers find valuable) aren't changing the quality of the other businesses who can.

The above statement contradicts this one:

When you remove compe ion, you stifle growth and negate the need to be better than the compe or (i.e. quality, cost, etc..)

Clean it up and then re-engage.

[DMC]

I'm not chasing that red herring.

red herring.. The concept is the same, it's just more obvious when you amplify it.

The above statement contradicts this one:



Clean it up and then re-engage.

Other businesses change the quality of their own products. How are my statements contradictory? I didn't say they don't have an effect, I said they don't change the quality. How does Chevy change the quality of a Ford? Ford will do that based on the compe ion. If Ford had no compe ion, do you think their product would be that much more valuable? Of course it would, but it's cause and effect. The value comes from scarcity, not from Ford taking it upon themselves to improve their product and offer it at a lower price.

If you cannot lift the yoke, don't approach it.

[Th'Pusher]

red herring.. The concept is the same, it's just more obvious when you amplify it.

it's a appeal to ridicule.

Other businesses change the quality of their own products. How are my statements contradictory? I didn't say they don't have an effect, I said they don't change the quality. How does Chevy change the quality of a Ford? Ford will do that based on the compe ion. If Ford had no compe ion, do you think their product would be that much more valuable? Of course it would, but it's cause and effect. The value comes from scarcity, not from Ford taking it upon themselves to improve their product and offer it at a lower price.

I'm not arguing compe ion doesn't drive innovation/quality. My argument is that removing non-compe ive businesses from the landscape by imposing a minimum wage won't reduce innovation or quality. New businesses with more valuable products will continue to fill the void.

Are you arguing for eliminating states and municipalities right to impose a minimum wage? That a minimum wage is unnecessary? The invisible hand of the market will figure it out? Do you have a position or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[DMC]

it's a appeal to ridicule.

Now you're going to throw out random fallacy claims and hope I chase after them?

no

If fewer businesses means better products then unless there's a crossover point where that's no longer true (that you haven't defined) then you're wrong. Pricing business out of business doesn't raise the value of the good or service that remains. It only lowers the supply side of the supply/demand equation thus causing room for a price increase or quality decrease.

I'm not arguing compe ion doesn't drive innovation/quality. My argument is that removing non-compe ive businesses from the landscape by imposing a minimum wage won't reduce innovation or quality. New businesses with more valuable products will continue to fill the void.

Are you saying that, as of right now, less valuable products are in higher demand than their more valuable counterparts?

Are you arguing for eliminating states and municipalities right to impose a minimum wage? That a minimum wage is unnecessary? The invisible hand of the market will figure it out? Do you have a position or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I never mentioned states rights or minimum wage. Don't try to troll me, son.

I think minimum wages should be raised. I don't think it had anything to do with M&S closure. Then the comment was made that a business that could afford X should be able to afford X. That's obviously a tautology (by using two different words for "afford" which means you have enough money, the other being "sufficient". Sufficient is akin to "enough". Reduced to LCD it's saying "if you had enough demand would you make enough money?" So there's either a nonsensical statement (if demand can never generate money sp no amount is enough, which rules out the first part of the question "enough demand" since "enough to generate the right amount of money" is obviously inferred) or the question was already answered by the time it was asked "enough demand to..."

So what are you arguing? You said that fewer businesses would mean more valuable products. You didn't define how you gauge value. If you mean a monopoly holds the most valuable products because they can charge whatever they want for it (like water during a drought), then you must mean quality vs price. How does having fewer businesses equate to better quality vs price and how does having more businesses equate to having less quality vs price, as options? Fewer options is fewer options. More options is always better.