General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, about that Amazon wage hike that Bernie is responsible for... [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)also, I absolutely addressed your statement about people who are out of work, in a few ways.
First, I pointed out that the fact that they are out of work already requires address outside of a minimum wage, which I'm certainly not arguing against.
Second, I pointed out that companies have to thread a delicate balance of customer base versus profit per sale. There's a sweet spot. I feel like it was implicit in my statement that that sweet spot was not going to be selling at a loss, so I'm not sure how you managed to derive from that that I was glossing over that detail.
Third, it must be repeated apparently....more money in the hands of locals tends to be at least in part, spent locally. It isn't theoretical that this is an influx of money into a community, which, when spent locally, circulates. This generates more tax dollars for a locality which means more potential government services, which hopefully translates into addressing things(to some degree) like unemployment.
The EPI study isn't simply theoretical. It was using historic evidence of previous minimum wage hikes to address false claims like minimum wage hikes ever adversely affecting employment. You have come back from my arguments and have made bold claims about the full impact of such a hike, which your own anecdotal evidence is hardly sufficient to support. That is why I asked for you for a study to prove your case.
By the way, thanks for the insult. I hope you won't be offended that I didnt' click on your link. I'd prefer you address the points I make rather than to just attempt to blanketly malign my knowledge on this subject, but whatever you need to do. I did not do the same to you. I'm not denying your anecdotal evidence, but it still makes no sense to me. You cannot directly and immediately pass all costs onto consumers. That doesn't happen unless those increased costs are mild enough that they can be absorbed into costs relatively benignly. Yes, you will raise the price to an appropriate level that ensures you make the most profit you can, but again, that's a balancing act. If you lose too many customers you could find yourself operating at a loss anyway, or certainly not at optimal profitability. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?
You do understand that anecdotal evidence is just that though, which is why you were honest enough to label your own evidence as such. You know that you can't and shouldn't base a case around that when we're talking about a far grander impact, and yet its the well you keep going back to.