Economics is a harsh mistress

[brenthutch 444]

https://reason.com/2019/10/21/target-15-bucks-per-hour-didnt-work-out/

"wage increases include a wide number of trade-offs, including reduced non-wage compensation, fewer job openings, reduced hours, increased automation, higher insurance co-pays, less vacation and personal time, and reduced employee discounts"

Who would have thunk it?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://reason.com/2019/10/21/target-15-bucks-per-hour-didnt-work-out/

"wage increases include a wide number of trade-offs, including reduced non-wage compensation, fewer job openings, reduced hours, increased automation, higher insurance co-pays, less vacation and personal time, and reduced employee discounts"

Who would have thunk it?

A company found a way to fuck over its employees for an "I told you so". Not sure why you are celebrating this. Well, maybe I am.

[JoeWeber 2,941]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://reason.com/2019/10/21/target-15-bucks-per-hour-didnt-work-out/

"wage increases include a wide number of trade-offs, including reduced non-wage compensation, fewer job openings, reduced hours, increased automation, higher insurance co-pays, less vacation and personal time, and reduced employee discounts"

Who would have thunk it?

CNN interviewed 23 employees out of 323,000 or 360,000 Target employees/workers. Both numbers are used in the article so maybe 37,000 aren't hourly, who knows? But without a broader picture there is nothing I consider worth considering in the article, including the conclusions drawn.

Interestingly one interviewee, Heather, received a one buck raise for her efforts. I have no idea what is really going on at Target, how CNN chose the interviewees, or if it was just disgruntled worker day but, if it's true, $14 and hour plus health benefits above 30 hours a week for brick and mortar retail work is not harsh treatment in today's environment. 

[Rick 67]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

CNN interviewed 23 employees out of 323,000 or 360,000

Hardly seems like a big enough sampling for the conclusions they've come to.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

A company found a way to fuck over its employees for an "I told you so". Not sure why you are celebrating this. Well, maybe I am.

No celebrating, my friend, just the cold hard reality and a cautionary tale.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

No celebrating, my friend, just the cold hard reality and a cautionary tale.

I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that if left without regulation a company will try and minimize its outlay, which includes their employee expenses. That companies that use low-skilled labour hold the balance of power in that relationship is also not a big surprise.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that if left without regulation a company will try and minimize its outlay, which includes their employee expenses. That companies that use low-skilled labour hold the balance of power in that relationship is also not a big surprise.

It would be a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders do otherwise.   

[SkyDekker 1,465]

37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It would be a violation of their fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders do otherwise.   

Singularly like that, no it wouldn't be. But indeed a fine example how a free market does not lead to good treatment of staff.

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Singularly like that, no it wouldn't be. But indeed a fine example how a free market does not lead to good treatment of staff.

What are you talking about?  If a company does not treat its people right it will loose quality employees.  One of the precepts of any successful business is to get the right people and keep them.  That does not happen if the staff is mistreated.  Just ask the workers in China how a non-free market labor market is working out for them.  

Edited October 22, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

What are you talking about?  If a company does not treat its people right it will loose quality employees.  One of the precepts of any successful business is to get the right people and keep them.  That does not happen if the staff is mistreated.

Sounds like you are accusing of Target not living up to their fiduciary responsibility....Remember, you started this with an article of Target team members indicating they are not being treated well?

Target has a long term incentive plan for their key team members to address the quoted issue. How many of the $15/hr staff do you think are part of that LTIP? 

 

[brenthutch 444]

46 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sounds like you are accusing of Target not living up to their fiduciary responsibility....Remember, you started this with an article of Target team members indicating they are not being treated well?

Target has a long term incentive plan for their key team members to address the quoted issue. How many of the $15/hr staff do you think are part of that LTIP? 

 

It is all about balance. They virtue signaled with their voluntary $15 hour minimum wage then balanced the cost by making cuts in other areas.  $15 per hour gets the front page but the downside is elucidated on page 51, after the obituaries.  All perfectly consistent with their fiduciary  responsibilities.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

It is all about balance. They virtue signaled with their voluntary $15 hour minimum wage then balanced the cost by making cuts in other areas.  $15 per hour gets the front page but the downside is elucidated on page 51, after the obituaries.  All perfectly consistent with their fiduciary  responsibilities.

So treating employees well is not part of their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Regardless, as Joe pointed out, the article isn't really all that informative.

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

So treating employees well is not part of their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Regardless, as Joe pointed out, the article isn't really all that informative.

I agree 100%, it is not as informative as it is illustrative. Anyone with a brain would understand, artificially raising the minimum wage would have negitive results.  IT is just a case study in reality.

Edited October 23, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I agree 100%, it is not informative as anyone with a brain understands that artificially raising the minimum wage has negitive results.  As I said it is more illustrative than informative.  

There is a decent body of work on the effects of mandated minimum wage increases. Many with varying results. I think it is telling that like your opinion regarding climate change, you prefer anecdote over data.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

There is a decent body of work on the effects of mandated minimum wage increases. Many with varying results. I think it is telling that like your opinion regarding climate change, you prefer anecdote over data.

Its funny that you concede "varying results" then dig your heals in with "anecdote over data" LOL

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Its funny that you concede "varying results" then dig your heals in with "anecdote over data" LOL

Yes. Varying results means that: "anyone with a brain understands that artificially raising the minimum wage has negitive results" is simply not true. That the issue is significantly more nuanced. In other words, you are cherry picking anecdotes to confirm your already established opinion. 

[brenthutch 444]

It is nothing more complicated than the law of supply and demand.

[brenthutch 444]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2017/06/27/report-finds-seattles-15-minimum-wage-may-hurting-workers/431424001/

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/the-truth-about-15-federal-minimum-wage

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/

https://shiftwa.org/first-casualty-of-seattles-15-minimum-wage/

I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.  You can have your nuance, I will stick with my reality.

[yobnoc 142]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is nothing more complicated than the law of supply and demand.

Yet the conservative mindset ignores this basic principle when they argue about tax cuts for the wealthy.  No matter how much money you save corporations (to the detriment of the middle class), they won't create new jobs unless there is an independent fluctuation in the market need for whatever widget they make. 

[brenthutch 444]

Wow, I can not even begin to figure out how to answer that.  Please flesh out how tax cuts hurt the middle class.  As a member of the middle class I can certainly appreciate the  extra $5K+ my family has benefited from.  Please explain how I have been harmed.  

[JoeWeber 2,941]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, I can not even begin to figure out how to answer that.  Please flesh out how tax cuts hurt the middle class.  As a member of the middle class I can certainly appreciate the  extra $5K+ my family has benefited from.  Please explain how I have been harmed.  

That'll depend. Are you a home owner or buyer?

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

That'll depend. Are you a home owner or buyer?

Both, I own some rental properties, I am paying a mortgage on some rental properties and I (actually we) are paying a mortgage on our primary residence. 

[yobnoc 142]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, I can not even begin to figure out how to answer that.  Please flesh out how tax cuts hurt the middle class.  As a member of the middle class I can certainly appreciate the  extra $5K+ my family has benefited from.  Please explain how I have been harmed.  

You've just been tricked is all.  The tax cuts that you are currently touting that apply to you?  Those go away by design in just a few years.  The tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate tax cuts?  Permanent.  Also, have you looked at the deficit recently?  How about that national debt?  The ones that daddy trump said he'd take care of?  Oh he took care of it by kicking the can down the road.  Don't be so short-sighted.  Try to extrapolate what's going to inevitably happen in the long term.  So your challenge to tell me how you've been harmed is based on the premise that we're only looking at a short period of time - a few years at best.  But when you look at the data, there's a nasty storm on the horizon.  You might not care about the mess you're leaving your kids and future generations because you've got a few extra bucks in your wallet today, but my responsibility to my kids can't be be bought, and if it could, it certainly wouldn't come that cheap.

[brenthutch 444]

Mother Jones?  Try again.  Why don't you include a graph of how much the lower HALF of income earners contribute to our collective tax burden.  A SINGLE taxpayer in the top .1% pays more in taxes than the millions of folks in the bottom third COMBINED.

Edited October 23, 2019 by brenthutch

[yobnoc 142]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Mother Jones?  Try again