7 ms·

There's plenty of evidence to suggest it's a contributor: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/rising-health-insurance-costs-blunt-employees-payc

by entee 9y ago

There's plenty of evidence to suggest it's a contributor: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/rising-health-insurance-costs-blunt-employees-paycheck-gains https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/rising-he... Though given the extraordinary profitability of companies right now, surely not the only factor. Some of those profits could be redistributed to workers. Not sure how to do that without potentially causing damage though.

moorhosj 9y ago
Can you explain what "damage" it might cause? Giving labor a seat on the board seems like a logical, small step in this direction. Maybe a lower tax rate for Employee Owned Companies (ESOP's) would incentivize owners to spread some of these record profits.
- ericd 9y ago
  Why should the government take the ideological view of favoring one type of company over another?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Why should the government take the ideological view of favoring one type of company over another? Because it does that inherently when it decides what form of business organization to allow in the first place. Corporations are creatures of government, not nature, by creating them and setting standards for what the rules are for governing them it is favoring a particular type of company. But taxing them and then creating a variety of more-or-less tax exempt categories with different behavioral restrictions it is favoring one type of company over others. Even if it chose not to charter corporations (or similar, newer types like LLCs) and only to allow sole proprietorships and partnerships, that would be favoring one type of company over others. The question is not whether the government should favor certain forms of business organizations -- there is no way that it can avoid that. The question is what forms it should favor and how.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Fair. I should have asked why the government should favor employee owned corporations over the more common structures.
- entee 9y ago
  I think you're right, these are good ideas. My concern for damage has to do with the ratio between production and wage. Obviously wage earners should keep more than they currently keep, but the amount they keep needs to be flexible. If the economy tanks or there's a shift in the market, the wage needs to be flexible. I merely advocate for an approach with the necessary responsiveness to a dynamic economy while still improving wages.
crdoconnor 9y ago
Minimum wage hikes are typically a pretty direct transfer from profits to wages, with a minor increase in prices: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30522170_The_Impact_of_the_National_Minimum_Wage_on_Profits_and_Prices_Report_for_Low_Pay_Commission https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30522170_The_Impact... As "minimum wages across state borders using contiguous counties" (Dube, Lester, Reich) demonstrates (confirmed by Seattle's recent experience), it doesn't cut employment: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m In spite of this, an association of restaurant owners in California spent a lot of their own money on these billboards to express touching concern for the employment prospects of their employees: http://kron4.com/2014/07/18/new-sf-billboard-says-workers-will-be-replaced-by-tech-if-15-minimum-wage-is-approved/ http://kron4.com/2014/07/18/new-sf-billboard-says-workers-wi... It's now 4 years later and sadly, their predictions were startlingly accurate. Nearly every restaurant server in San Francisco and Seattle is now an app.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  Labor costs are typically consume 30% of a restaurant's revenue. Increasing those costs by 50% and not expecting major consequences is a unrealistic.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    Which parts of the studies above did you disagree with? What major consequences did you think Seattle suffered from?
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      Major consequences to the restaurants. As for the city as a whole, I'd expect to see no new businesses such as light manufacturing locating there unless they have to be there. And Amazon announced they were locating a second headquarters elsewhere. You could argue that has nothing to do with minimum wage, and probably not since Amazon doesn't have their minimum wage operations in Seattle. But Seattle has done things like passing an unconstitutional income tax targeted at Amazon (now winding its way through the courts) that likely factor in to such decisions. Along with other heavy tax increases, like sales taxes, property taxes, and a proposed "head tax" that appears to be targeted at Amazon.

by entee 9y ago

moorhosj 9y ago

Can you explain what "damage" it might cause? Giving labor a seat on the board seems like a logical, small step in this direction. Maybe a lower tax rate for Employee Owned Companies (ESOP's) would incentivize owners to spread some of these record profits.

ericd 9y ago
Why should the government take the ideological view of favoring one type of company over another?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Why should the government take the ideological view of favoring one type of company over another? Because it does that inherently when it decides what form of business organization to allow in the first place. Corporations are creatures of government, not nature, by creating them and setting standards for what the rules are for governing them it is favoring a particular type of company. But taxing them and then creating a variety of more-or-less tax exempt categories with different behavioral restrictions it is favoring one type of company over others. Even if it chose not to charter corporations (or similar, newer types like LLCs) and only to allow sole proprietorships and partnerships, that would be favoring one type of company over others. The question is not whether the government should favor certain forms of business organizations -- there is no way that it can avoid that. The question is what forms it should favor and how.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Fair. I should have asked why the government should favor employee owned corporations over the more common structures.
entee 9y ago
I think you're right, these are good ideas. My concern for damage has to do with the ratio between production and wage. Obviously wage earners should keep more than they currently keep, but the amount they keep needs to be flexible. If the economy tanks or there's a shift in the market, the wage needs to be flexible. I merely advocate for an approach with the necessary responsiveness to a dynamic economy while still improving wages.

crdoconnor 9y ago

Minimum wage hikes are typically a pretty direct transfer from profits to wages, with a minor increase in prices: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30522170_The_Impact_of_the_National_Minimum_Wage_on_Profits_and_Prices_Report_for_Low_Pay_Commission https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30522170_The_Impact... As "minimum wages across state borders using contiguous counties" (Dube, Lester, Reich) demonstrates (confirmed by Seattle's recent experience), it doesn't cut employment: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86w5m90m In spite of this, an association of restaurant owners in California spent a lot of their own money on these billboards to express touching concern for the employment prospects of their employees: http://kron4.com/2014/07/18/new-sf-billboard-says-workers-will-be-replaced-by-tech-if-15-minimum-wage-is-approved/ http://kron4.com/2014/07/18/new-sf-billboard-says-workers-wi... It's now 4 years later and sadly, their predictions were startlingly accurate. Nearly every restaurant server in San Francisco and Seattle is now an app.

skookumchuck 9y ago
Labor costs are typically consume 30% of a restaurant's revenue. Increasing those costs by 50% and not expecting major consequences is a unrealistic.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Which parts of the studies above did you disagree with? What major consequences did you think Seattle suffered from?
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    Major consequences to the restaurants. As for the city as a whole, I'd expect to see no new businesses such as light manufacturing locating there unless they have to be there. And Amazon announced they were locating a second headquarters elsewhere. You could argue that has nothing to do with minimum wage, and probably not since Amazon doesn't have their minimum wage operations in Seattle. But Seattle has done things like passing an unconstitutional income tax targeted at Amazon (now winding its way through the courts) that likely factor in to such decisions. Along with other heavy tax increases, like sales taxes, property taxes, and a proposed "head tax" that appears to be targeted at Amazon.