Will a Higher Minimum Wage Cost Jobs?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I am going to start with a rant.

Like Football, everyone is a fucking armchair Joe Namath when it comes to businesses and the economy. Left, right, it doesnt matter, people parrot the same fucking shit without ever taking accounting and econ 101.

Lets start with the comment above and the oft villianized “corporate tax rate”. A corporation invests in and utilizes capital to make products that society wants. This is different from being an INCOME based worker. If you are working your 9-5, you are not investing your capital and taking RISK in your job.

Furthermore, there is US GAAP reported corporate taxes, and federal income tax. Many times corporations have deferred taxes, which would lower their current period tax. Companies with high PPE will have high depreciation rates and lower taxable income.

This professors argument is not even in favor of the minimum wage hike. He mentions the disruptions that it would cause and the main issue being a lack of small business credit.

The Harvard Business review case citing CostCo and Walmart (more specifically, Sams club) is a perfect example of letting the fucking market work. CostCo is blowing Sams Club out of the water in market share. They have lower turn over and high employee productivity. They attract and retain candidates because of their corporate culture and wage, but it is not at the point of a gun. They are winning. So in that sense, I agree, but you cannot FORCE a business to make decisions in this manner. [/quote]

You can say this until you’re blue in the face, many here won’t listen. You know they read a book, or worse an article, one time and now they are experts. Then you have people here that have owned business’, are economist, accountants, etc… and they are looked at like they are nuts.

I have a BS in Accounting, almost an MS in Accounting, and am a Budget Analyst for a living and I wouldn’t even begin to try and tell someone with certainty how an increase would affect employment. Off course, that’s because I recognize how complex reality is and how seemingly small expenses given time can have drastic consequences. I also understand as was pointed out by Jewbacca (SP?) this is political as much it is economical. [/quote]

I personally think he wants to get inside rather than take a broader approach that would be a benefit to ALL CORPORATIONS rather than a SELECT FEW

42

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I am going to start with a rant.

Like Football, everyone is a fucking armchair Joe Namath when it comes to businesses and the economy. Left, right, it doesnt matter, people parrot the same fucking shit without ever taking accounting and econ 101.

Lets start with the comment above and the oft villianized “corporate tax rate”. A corporation invests in and utilizes capital to make products that society wants. This is different from being an INCOME based worker. If you are working your 9-5, you are not investing your capital and taking RISK in your job.

Furthermore, there is US GAAP reported corporate taxes, and federal income tax. Many times corporations have deferred taxes, which would lower their current period tax. Companies with high PPE will have high depreciation rates and lower taxable income.

This professors argument is not even in favor of the minimum wage hike. He mentions the disruptions that it would cause and the main issue being a lack of small business credit.

The Harvard Business review case citing CostCo and Walmart (more specifically, Sams club) is a perfect example of letting the fucking market work. CostCo is blowing Sams Club out of the water in market share. They have lower turn over and high employee productivity. They attract and retain candidates because of their corporate culture and wage, but it is not at the point of a gun. They are winning. So in that sense, I agree, but you cannot FORCE a business to make decisions in this manner. [/quote]

You can say this until you’re blue in the face, many here won’t listen. You know they read a book, or worse an article, one time and now they are experts. Then you have people here that have owned business’, are economist, accountants, etc… and they are looked at like they are nuts.

I have a BS in Accounting, almost an MS in Accounting, and am a Budget Analyst for a living and I wouldn’t even begin to try and tell someone with certainty how an increase would affect employment. Off course, that’s because I recognize how complex reality is and how seemingly small expenses given time can have drastic consequences. I also understand as was pointed out by Jewbacca (SP?) this is political as much it is economical. [/quote]

I personally think he wants to get inside rather than take a broader approach that would be a benefit to ALL CORPORATIONS rather than a SELECT FEW[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean?

43

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You been at a place 3 years, got a $1 raise every year, and now all the people who just started make $1 less than you? You don’t want a raise?

Think man, you are smarter than this.
[/quote]

The truth is that jobs paying minimum wage (well almost) are based around skills that can be picked up within a matter of weeks. Someone with 2 years experience is worth little more than someone who has been there 3 months.

And as soon as you get a more reasonable gap people don’t tend to demand a raise in kind.

Not to mention that they might want a raise but it does not mean they will get one.[/quote]

Truth is, you didn’t even come close at actually addressing the issue except for some school book nonsense.

We are talking about the real world here.

Please try again.

44

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally think he wants to get inside rather than take a broader approach that would be a benefit to ALL CORPORATIONS rather than a SELECT FEW[/quote]

We should pass “dog eat dog laws”.

However, some corporation winning out and other losing is kind of the point of this whole competition business.

45

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Not really sustainable. If it was then you were not being efficient and it is a good thing that you let go the two extra people.

[/quote]

I assume all your vast experience in business management has lead to this conclusion?

46

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I am going to start with a rant.

Like Football, everyone is a fucking armchair Joe Namath when it comes to businesses and the economy. Left, right, it doesnt matter, people parrot the same fucking shit without ever taking accounting and econ 101.

Lets start with the comment above and the oft villianized “corporate tax rate”. A corporation invests in and utilizes capital to make products that society wants. This is different from being an INCOME based worker. If you are working your 9-5, you are not investing your capital and taking RISK in your job.

Furthermore, there is US GAAP reported corporate taxes, and federal income tax. Many times corporations have deferred taxes, which would lower their current period tax. Companies with high PPE will have high depreciation rates and lower taxable income.

This professors argument is not even in favor of the minimum wage hike. He mentions the disruptions that it would cause and the main issue being a lack of small business credit.

The Harvard Business review case citing CostCo and Walmart (more specifically, Sams club) is a perfect example of letting the fucking market work. CostCo is blowing Sams Club out of the water in market share. They have lower turn over and high employee productivity. They attract and retain candidates because of their corporate culture and wage, but it is not at the point of a gun. They are winning. So in that sense, I agree, but you cannot FORCE a business to make decisions in this manner. [/quote]

I have a BS in Accounting, almost an MS in Accounting, and am a Budget Analyst for a living [/quote]

Post more, maybe you and Beans can get something done around here.

47

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I am going to start with a rant.

Like Football, everyone is a fucking armchair Joe Namath when it comes to businesses and the economy. Left, right, it doesnt matter, people parrot the same fucking shit without ever taking accounting and econ 101.

Lets start with the comment above and the oft villianized “corporate tax rate”. A corporation invests in and utilizes capital to make products that society wants. This is different from being an INCOME based worker. If you are working your 9-5, you are not investing your capital and taking RISK in your job.

Furthermore, there is US GAAP reported corporate taxes, and federal income tax. Many times corporations have deferred taxes, which would lower their current period tax. Companies with high PPE will have high depreciation rates and lower taxable income.

This professors argument is not even in favor of the minimum wage hike. He mentions the disruptions that it would cause and the main issue being a lack of small business credit.

The Harvard Business review case citing CostCo and Walmart (more specifically, Sams club) is a perfect example of letting the fucking market work. CostCo is blowing Sams Club out of the water in market share. They have lower turn over and high employee productivity. They attract and retain candidates because of their corporate culture and wage, but it is not at the point of a gun. They are winning. So in that sense, I agree, but you cannot FORCE a business to make decisions in this manner. [/quote]

I have a BS in Accounting, almost an MS in Accounting, and am a Budget Analyst for a living [/quote]

Post more, maybe you and Beans can get something done around here.[/quote]

I’d like to, but only if an actual discussion is going to happen. I’m not into e-pissing matches.

I also think, much like in weight training, I’m like a beginner / intermediate. I know some stuff and I’m confident in the knowledge I have, but I just don’t have the experience to try and educate others. Maybe in another decade or so…

48

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I am going to start with a rant.

Like Football, everyone is a fucking armchair Joe Namath when it comes to businesses and the economy. Left, right, it doesnt matter, people parrot the same fucking shit without ever taking accounting and econ 101.

Lets start with the comment above and the oft villianized “corporate tax rate”. A corporation invests in and utilizes capital to make products that society wants. This is different from being an INCOME based worker. If you are working your 9-5, you are not investing your capital and taking RISK in your job.

Furthermore, there is US GAAP reported corporate taxes, and federal income tax. Many times corporations have deferred taxes, which would lower their current period tax. Companies with high PPE will have high depreciation rates and lower taxable income.

This professors argument is not even in favor of the minimum wage hike. He mentions the disruptions that it would cause and the main issue being a lack of small business credit.

The Harvard Business review case citing CostCo and Walmart (more specifically, Sams club) is a perfect example of letting the fucking market work. CostCo is blowing Sams Club out of the water in market share. They have lower turn over and high employee productivity. They attract and retain candidates because of their corporate culture and wage, but it is not at the point of a gun. They are winning. So in that sense, I agree, but you cannot FORCE a business to make decisions in this manner. [/quote]

I have a BS in Accounting, almost an MS in Accounting, and am a Budget Analyst for a living [/quote]

Post more, maybe you and Beans can get something done around here.[/quote]

I’d like to, but only if an actual discussion is going to happen. I’m not into e-pissing matches.

I also think, much like in weight training, I’m like a beginner / intermediate. I know some stuff and I’m confident in the knowledge I have, but I just don’t have the experience to try and educate others. Maybe in another decade or so…[/quote]

Well other than Beans and a very few others…not many folks here understand nuts and bolts accounting.

49

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Well other than Beans and a very few others…not many folks here understand nuts and bolts accounting. [/quote]

Well, U.S. GAAP is pretty complicated. More so than the tax code imo. Throw IFRS on top and things get messy.

50

US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally think he wants to get inside rather than take a broader approach that would be a benefit to ALL CORPORATIONS rather than a SELECT FEW[/quote]

We should pass “dog eat dog laws”.

However, some corporation winning out and other losing is kind of the point of this whole competition business.[/quote]

But when 2 companies make widgets and company A pays no tax and company B pays %10 tax company A is at a huge advantage

52

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I personally think he wants to get inside rather than take a broader approach that would be a benefit to ALL CORPORATIONS rather than a SELECT FEW[/quote]

We should pass “dog eat dog laws”.

However, some corporation winning out and other losing is kind of the point of this whole competition business.[/quote]

But when 2 companies make widgets and company A pays no tax and company B pays %10 tax company A is at a huge advantage
[/quote]

Sure, countries are in a competition too.

53

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.[/quote]

Do you think CPAs don’t argue over FASB?

54

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.[/quote]

Do you think CPAs don’t argue over FASB? [/quote]

I think they do. I was just saying the Board that makes up FASB argue over what is in GAAP and what they pass as GAAP.

55

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.[/quote]

Do you think CPAs don’t argue over FASB? [/quote]

I think they do. I was just saying the Board that makes up FASB argue over what is in GAAP and what they pass as GAAP.[/quote]

I wrote FASB, but I mean’t IFRS. Anyway, it’s the FASB boards job to argue over what should and shouldn’t be GAAP, why wouldn’t they? They aren’t going to create GAAP without fleshing it out first.

56

Personally I like a lot about IFRS, but I think once it’s been around for a while longer you’re going to see it’s over arching principles be stressed beyond their capabilities.

57

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.[/quote]

Do you think CPAs don’t argue over FASB? [/quote]

I think they do. I was just saying the Board that makes up FASB argue over what is in GAAP and what they pass as GAAP.[/quote]

I wrote FASB, but I mean’t IFRS. Anyway, it’s the FASB boards job to argue over what should and shouldn’t be GAAP, why wouldn’t they? They aren’t going to create GAAP without fleshing it out first. [/quote]

I know it is their job. I am not an accountant but I do have a MBA so Accounting was part of the Degree. Some of the stuff is very intuitive, but there is some stuff you go what was FASB thinking when they wrote this, then 2 years later they write a new FASB that over rules the old FASB. I am a finance guy. I want to know how much capital I have to invest then try to get the highest ROI for a level of risk. I don’t care about whether the stuff balances or not. I do like the financial statements though.

58

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
US GAAP is CRAAP. So Complicated even CPAs and FASB even argue over what it means.[/quote]

Do you think CPAs don’t argue over FASB? [/quote]

I think they do. I was just saying the Board that makes up FASB argue over what is in GAAP and what they pass as GAAP.[/quote]

I wrote FASB, but I mean’t IFRS. Anyway, it’s the FASB boards job to argue over what should and shouldn’t be GAAP, why wouldn’t they? They aren’t going to create GAAP without fleshing it out first. [/quote]

I know it is their job. I am not an accountant but I do have a MBA so Accounting was part of the Degree. Some of the stuff is very intuitive, but there is some stuff you go what was FASB thinking when they wrote this, then 2 years later they write a new FASB that over rules the old FASB. I am a finance guy. I want to know how much capital I have to invest then try to get the highest ROI for a level of risk. I don’t care about whether the stuff balances or not. I do like the financial statements though.[/quote]

It wasn’t likely the FASB. It was probably Congress because of a special interest group that force the FASBs hand.

59

It’s kind of like saying, “why the heck did the IRS decide to make AMT work that way?” When in actuality it wasn’t the IRS at all. It’s not a 1 to 1 comparison, but it’s close enough I think.

60

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Personally I like a lot about IFRS, but I think once it’s been around for a while longer you’re going to see it’s over arching principles be stressed beyond their capabilities. [/quote]

IFRS is basically GAAP, minus a quite a few decades of practical experience.

In 200 years IFRS will be just like GAAP is now.