Minimum Wage increase forces restaurants to close in Seattle area

[tlongII]

http://www.kgw.com/money/business/dozens-of-mccormick-schmicks-restaurants-have-closed-since-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).

[boutons_deux]

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

Too bad that some Seattle diners will now starve to death. Capitalism, capitalists are brutal.

[rmt]

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

Too bad that some Seattle diners will now starve to death. Capitalism, capitalists are brutal.

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.

[boutons_deux]

mom and pop businesses has been killed by chains, not by minimum wage, just like mom and pop farms have been killed by BigAg

[clambake]

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

[Will Hunting]

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

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.kgw.com/money/business/dozens-of-mccormick-schmicks-restaurants-have-closed-since-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).

That's what happens when a Billionaire buys the chain to reduce competition.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/2011/11/new-mccormick-schmicks-owner-to.html

Hard to say what the real reason is, but it won't be because of minimum wage. Not for a high end restaurant like them.

[baseline bum]

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

[tlongII]

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

Yes.

[Chucho]

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

Too bad that some Seattle diners will now starve to death. Capitalism, capitalists are brutal.

Walmart says you're a fucking moron per par. For a person who pretends to be "for the people"
and anti "big" everything, you sure are for an environment where the only things standing are the "big" everything you claim to be against.


American materialism and entitlement has outpaced American self-worth and grips on reality. Everyone thinks not being overly privileged with expensive goods and property means they are "impoverished". If you have a flip phone or non-Jordan sneakers, you might as well be living in Bumfuck, Egypt.

Americans need to get over themselves, specifically those on the West Coast, because a lot of unqualified, minimally skilled, public-schooled Muricans are going to be reliving 08-11 all over again. Businesses are exiting and closing all around Cali, AGAIN, because the state doesn't care about the citizens and the businesses that keep those citizens employed.

Personally, I'm totally over it. Instead of keep getting fucked by the state and unrealistic lifestyle expectations from a starting wage, we're simply opening a second location in Boise and then slowly killing the Cali location off. Done and done. No one would care if I go out of business because the Gov. increases my overhead annually and I can't compete with Amazon and the "big" everything that people say they hate, yet support the culture that will give us ONLY "big" everything.

[Reck]

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


Seriously?

Mcdonalds, Wendy's and all of those fast food restaurants say hello, young buck.

[Blake]

A restaurant was forced to close down? But I thought restaurants were good investments.

[mavsfan1000]

Stupid Socialists States killing businesses.

[spurraider21]

the article starts out by saying it closed "with no explanation" but then follows that up with paragraphs of explanations

[Chucho]

Seriously?

Mcdonalds, Wendy's and all of those fast food restaurants say hello, young buck.

A whole lot of McDonald's are already stemming the forced overhead rises by putting in the self-service order takers and even experimenting with self-cooking kitchens and drive thrus. Good for them, fuck those that think their lifestyle needs to be accommodated at other's expenses.

Sorry if you feel indicted, but it's truth. The NBA doesn't give jobs to scrubs that don't have the skills that beget an athlete's salary. This very basic comparison should hold true to every form of at-will employment. There's going to be a fuck load more poor people left from these absurd wage increases than the number that will benefit from it. Why? Because the number of employers that can't withstand the insane surge of labor costs that will put their businesses into the red is larger than the number that can, and will, take it on the chin. 10-20 years after these roll out more and more, the shitty effect will really resonate. Good bye working class, hello Mexico-caste system 2.0.

[clambake]

Sorry if you feel indicted, but it's truth. The NBA doesn't give jobs to scrubs that don't have the skills that beget an athlete's salary. This very basic comparison should hold true to every form of at-will employment.

well, it should, but then there's chandler parsons.

[Wild Cobra]

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

Did they say that, or did the person writing the article make that claim?

The ratings of the chain I saw was 3 of 5 stars. Not good when you are charging prices that end up being $100 for two people.

Now I disagree with the $15/hr minimum wage, but really people. Such stupid threads and reporting do nothing but discredit.

[DMC]

M&S charges so much they can afford to pay more. I highly doubt they pay minimum wage anyhow, since their waiters make enough in tips to cover it (easily) and their cooks don't work for minimum wage. If they closed abruptly, it's probably because they are overpriced fancy food in a brick and mortar brothel.

[SnakeBoy]

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.

Landry's Inc is not mom & pop, they own about a dozen restaurant chains plus casinos. Before they became a public company in the 90's and were just Landry's Seafood it was my wife's favorite seafood place. All the San Antonio locations closed long ago when the food went to shit, except the one on the riverwalk which survives on tourists so they don't have to worry about repeat customers.

[clambake]

Landry's Inc is not mom & pop, they own about a dozen restaurant chains plus casinos. Before they became a public company in the 90's and were just Landry's Seafood it was my wife's favorite seafood place. All the San Antonio locations closed long ago when the food went to shit, except the one on the riverwalk which survives on tourists so they don't have to worry about repeat customers.

you responded to this vapid space.



thats sweet.

[rmt]

Landry's Inc is not mom & pop, they own about a dozen restaurant chains plus casinos. Before they became a public company in the 90's and were just Landry's Seafood it was my wife's favorite seafood place. All the San Antonio locations closed long ago when the food went to shit, except the one on the riverwalk which survives on tourists so they don't have to worry about repeat customers.

I did not mean that this particular restaurant is mom & pop. If there's a location in Denver and Milwaukee, that doesn't apply. I was responding to business in general - small vs big.

[Wild Cobra]

M&S charges so much they can afford to pay more. I highly doubt they pay minimum wage anyhow, since their waiters make enough in tips to cover it (easily) and their cooks don't work for minimum wage. If they closed abruptly, it's probably because they are overpriced fancy food in a brick and mortar brothel.

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.

[ElNono]

misleading title is misleading...

[tlongII]

misleading title is misleading...

Not really.

[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 title 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

:lol 26%
:lol anything OP says, opposite is true
:lol "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/dozens-of-mccormick-schmicks-restaurants-have-closed-since-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 competition, you stifle growth and negate the need to be better than the competitor (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 competition, you stifle growth and negate the need to be better than the competitor (i.e. quality, cost, etc..)

Clean it up and then re-engage.

[DMC]

I'm not chasing that red herring.

:lol 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 competition. If Ford had no competition, 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]

:lol 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 competition. If Ford had no competition, 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 competition doesn't drive innovation/quality. My argument is that removing non-competitive 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?

:lol 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 competition doesn't drive innovation/quality. My argument is that removing non-competitive 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. :lol 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.

[Th'Pusher]

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

:lol 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.

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


I never mentioned states rights or minimum wage. :lol 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.

The point is that it wouldn't be the end of the world if some companies go under as a result of a minimum wage increase. Their business model is predicated on paying shit wages.

It sounds like we agree on quite a bit. Don't be so eager to argue and show everyone how smart you are. You're like a pre-teen trying to get his hands on his first set of tits.

[DMC]

The point is that it wouldn't be the end of the world if some companies go under as a result of a minimum wage increase. Their business model is predicated on paying shit wages.

It sounds like we agree on quite a bit. Don't be so eager to argue and show everyone how smart you are. You're like a pre-teen trying to get his hands on his first set of tits.

You said this in response to a statement I made that wasn't even directed to you:

"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."

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion in bold.

[Th'Pusher]

You said this in response to a statement I made that wasn't even directed to you:

"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."

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion in bold.

Again, don't be so eager to argue and parse every word as if this were a court of law. The statement was akin to separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm sorry that was not explicitly clear to you.

[Chucho]

There's gonna be a whole lotta poorer people in the coming years. I bet they will still have Jordans and Iphones tho, along with more murders and robberies "to feed the fam", but still...Jordans and Iphones for the impoverished...and higher wages...to go with higher inflation.

[Th'Pusher]

Why don't you try and parse ^ that piece of shit DCM?

[DMC]

Again, don't be so eager to argue and parse every word as if this were a court of law. The statement was akin to separating the wheat from the chaff. I'm sorry that was not explicitly clear to you.

Do you wish to abandon your comments?

You made a complex statement without regard to the ramifications of it being true. Now you are just dismissing it as front porch chatter.

Which is the wheat, which the chaff? Wheat = higher priced goods? Is there more value in higher priced goods? If so, why doesn't everyone buy those instead?

[DMC]

Why don't you try and parse ^ that piece of shit DCM?

It's a prediction. How can I argue?

[Th'Pusher]

Do you wish to abandon your comments?

You made a complex statement without regard to the ramifications of it being true. Now you are just dismissing it as front porch chatter.

Which is the wheat, which the chaff? Wheat = higher priced goods? Is there more value in higher priced goods? If so, why doesn't everyone buy those instead?

Figure it out on your own...

[DMC]

:lol he quit again ^

Think next time before interrupt an adult.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Heightened minimum wage causes stagflation. Economics 101. OP is correct.

If anything, a lower minimum wage is more communist and a higher one is more capitalist. Because with a higher one, less people work for more, so you have some a high degree of millennial inequality, because the most popular or attractive or athletic ones get the $15-20 an hour minimum wage while a large amount of others get zero because business can't afford to employ more.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.google.com/search?q=assoicated+press+trump+interview&gws_rd=ssl#q=seattle+area+unemployment+rate&spf=373

yet, Seattle's unemployment rate is still below the national average...

[RandomGuy]

https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/docs/economic-reports/current-monthly-employment-report.pdf

Current employment rate doesn't show any substantial blips either.

[RandomGuy]

Leaving me with one thing for tlongII:

The plural of anecdote is not data.

OP fail.

[tlongII]

I see RandomGuy is posting irrelevant information again.

[RandomGuy]

I see RandomGuy is posting irrelevant information again.

You don't think that overall employment would be affected by a substantial increase in the minimum wage?

[Spurminator]

It's areas like $15 minimum wage where Democrats bolster the impression that they're a bunch of coastal urban elites who don't know anything about how Rural America works. $15 minimum wage makes absolutely no sense in Mineral Wells, TX. Any minimum wage legislation has to take into account cost of living and other local nuances or it will destroy commerce in small towns.

I'm completely on board with raising minimum wage on a regional scale that makes sense. But $15 an hour nationally doesn't really make sense.

[spurraider21]

It's areas like $15 minimum wage where Democrats bolster the impression that they're a bunch of coastal urban elites who don't know anything about how Rural America works. $15 minimum wage makes absolutely no sense in Mineral Wells, TX. Any minimum wage legislation has to take into account cost of living and other local nuances or it will destroy commerce in small towns.

I'm completely on board with raising minimum wage on a regional scale that makes sense. But $15 an hour nationally doesn't really make sense.15? booboo wants 25 nationally :lol

not even joking

[baseline bum]

15? booboo wants 25 nationally :lol

not even joking

He really does. My jaw dropped to the floor when that faggot was arguing for something like a $21/hour minimum wage a few months ago.

[sickdsm]

mom and pop businesses has been killed by chains, not by minimum wage, just like mom and pop farms have been killed by BigAg

mom and pop farms have just consolidated and incorporated. Just Mom&Pop, Inc. now.

[Chucho]

You don't think that overall employment would be affected by a substantial increase in the minimum wage?

People who think otherwise are naive, dumb, biased, never worked more than a minimum wage job or don't have the initiative and balls to open a business. That's why people like Boot's make stupid assertions like

"Big Corporate KILLED mom +pops". Yeah, increasing labor costs 10-15% over a two or three year period on SMBs that, on average, have lower profit margins, won't do it.

That's just an ignorant statement. I used to feel the same way when I was working grunt labor, but I was 100% honest with myself and knew why I was working dead-end occupations; 100% ME.

We moved here to the Central Valley in 09, right in the middle of the absolute worst part of the recession and in the worst economic climate in the country at the time per CNN and Time. Family-funded our business, grown 10-15% every year and with the wage increases, it's insanely difficult to attract, retain quality employees while giving them clear salary and career projections with us as 1-2 years worth of raises is given to them annually by the Government.

More businesses are closing in Cali than opening at an alarming rate, worse than 09, right after we get some fucking growth in this shit hole Valley, because the Crime Syndicate lead by Boss Brown, is doing something so stupid and even said "we don't know how this will work (fucking reassurance from the Left) " and not a single reputable economist will sign off on.

But again, idiots like Boots, who've probably done nothing to support his community or other people in any way, spout their stupid parroted drivel of "BIG CORP durp, durp, durp". Faggot.

Even more, he makes such contradictory statements because he puts his partisan preference at the expense of blatant hypocrisy.

[Will Hunting]

People who think otherwise are naive, dumb, biased, never worked more than a minimum wage job or don't have the initiative and balls to open a business. That's why people like Boot's make stupid assertions like

"Big Corporate KILLED mom +pops". Yeah, increasing labor costs 10-15% over a two or three year period on SMBs that, on average, have lower profit margins, won't do it.

That's just an ignorant statement. I used to feel the same way when I was working grunt labor, but I was 100% honest with myself and knew why I was working dead-end occupations; 100% ME.

We moved here to the Central Valley in 09, right in the middle of the absolute worst part of the recession and in the worst economic climate in the country at the time per CNN and Time. Family-funded our business, grown 10-15% every year and with the wage increases, it's insanely difficult to attract, retain quality employees while giving them clear salary and career projections with us as 1-2 years worth of raises is given to them annually by the Government.

More businesses are closing in Cali than opening at an alarming rate, worse than 09, right after we get some fucking growth in this shit hole Valley, because the Crime Syndicate lead by Boss Brown, is doing something so stupid and even said "we don't know how this will work (fucking reassurance from the Left) " and not a single reputable economist will sign off on.

But again, idiots like Boots, who've probably done nothing to support his community or other people in any way, spout their stupid parroted drivel of "BIG CORP durp, durp, durp". Faggot.

Even more, he makes such contradictory statements because he puts his partisan preference at the expense of blatant hypocrisy.
:lol expecting anyone to think you run a successful business. You have the posting style of an angry teenager.

[Chucho]

:lol expecting anyone to think you run a successful business. You have the posting style of an angry teenager.

"Angry teenager" is pretty much the mood of this entire board. Maybe 2-5% of my posts here are "serious", but you've got it all figured out, right, Dr. Phil?

I don't mean to run afoul your expert diagnosis, but contrary to your findings, Doc, I do run a successful business. Two locations- Modesto, CA and Boise, ID. 40 employees. I'm comfortable, I'm my own boss, my employees like working for me and I make ok money and we grew our business in the worst economic climate in the country.

If I were looking for your approval, I'd post my check stubs. But I'm secure and see no need to fish for approval from STers. You, I believe in my expert opinion, are not as secure. Otherwise this unwarranted attack wouldn't be a thing seeing as I've never had a word with you ever in my time here.

I don't know your situation, or why you'd attack me unwarranted. It could be that you're in a rough spot and struggling financially and ST might be your only outlet to vent your anger and frustrations from your failures. Whatever I did to incur your rage, I do apologize and I hope everything works out for you, I truly do. I'm certain you're a lovely lady and everything will improve for you in time, just hang in there, Kiddo! I'm, like all of us, are pulling for you!










How does my "condescending dick" schtick work for ya? Loosen the glutes a bit?

[RandomGuy]

People who [don't] think [overall employment would be affected by a substantial increase in the minimum wage] are naive, dumb, biased, never worked more than a minimum wage job or don't have the initiative and balls to open a business. .

(hope I got the sentiment right)

I am sure overall employment would be affected, I'm just not sure how much. The data from Seattle seem to indicate little effect other than at the edges in marginally profitable businesses like the one tlongII is hanging his hat on.

States make for good laboratories. It is how we know that trickle down is useless (think Kansas). Let a state raise the minimum wage and see what happens to the velocity of money. Poorer people tend to spend more relative to their earnings out of sheer necessity (marginal income).

Let Cali work it out.

[boutons_deux]

"I am sure overall employment would be affected"

decades of data say you are shirley wrong. Aren't supposed to be some kind of economic person? data driven?