3 ms·
The claim would be that prices rise, offsetting the cost to the consumer who are also workers. It does not do much if that is how it shakes out. The stated hope
by jostylr 2y ago
The claim would be that prices rise, offsetting the cost to the consumer who are also workers. It does not do much if that is how it shakes out. The stated hope of those arguing for the raise is that the people at the top of the company make a lot of money and that money would be diverted to the workers. While I am sure that happens sometimes, I am not aware of evidence that this is often the case.
The $10 a burger price increase would be a stupid prediction unless the worker just sells one burger an hour and nothing else. If an employee's share of the selling amounted to, say, 10 burgers an hour on average, then a $1 price increase on burgers would counter the wage raise.
- gus_massa 2y agoI agree. Also, the cost of the burger includes the cost of labor that may be at minimun wage, byt also the cost of the meat and the bread. That includes the salary of the farm workes that may be at minimum wage, but also the salary of the genetic engenneer making transgenic wheat and the salary of the oil field extraction employes that usualy have big salaries. So the final increase is harder to calculate.
- lesuorac 2y agoThe people receiving $750 are neither all workers nor consumers of the businesses being taxed. Sure as an aggregate I bet at least one Oregonian is a consumer/worker of any business with >$25M of income but if you don't spend at least 25k ($750 * (1/0.03)) at businesses making over >$25M then you're coming out ahead if prices go up by 3% at _just_ those specific businesses.