national minimum wage LAWS. good or bad?

[myrkul]

- The operating margins of the company

In a perfectly competitive market, margins, and thus profits, are zero. A lot of the companies that have minimum wage workers are in industries with enormous competition. McD's has Burger King, White Castle, Hardee's, Checkers/Rally's, Wendy's, Arbys, Roy Rogers, and even Taco Bell to compete against if you include substitutions. Thus I expect their margins to be tiny, pennies per hamburger (close to $0.13 for a BigMac back in 2001, no idea what now). Small margins = raise prices or reduce costs (employees)

I've had the "pleasure" of watching this happen in real time. Minimum wage went up, out came the McDouble - a double cheeseburger with only one slice of cheese. They reduced the cost of the burger to retain what slim margin they had.

Very well, let me explicitly state it. I am willing to discuss. Please answer the question: Is the environment (ignoring human intervention, either way) self-regulating?

So you're willing to discuss. I already know that. But am I willing to discuss if you dictate the questions which can be asked immediately after telling me what I should or should not bring up? I don't think so.

Prediction: you will refuse to answer, deflecting, because you know that the truth hurts your argument.

Nailed it.

[Rassah]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)

[FirstAscent]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)

Best and freshest fast food burgers around. Best service around. $11 an hour starting wage. Fast food business model. Cheeseburger, soda and fries for $5.

Food quality: http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

[myrkul]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)

Best and freshest fast food burgers around. Best service around. $11 an hour starting wage. Fast food business model. Cheeseburger, soda and fries for $5.

Food quality: http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

Very limited range. Specifically, a 1-day drive from the distribution center. Understandable, since it allows them to use refrigerated trucks instead of freezer trucks, keeps their food fresh, and limits transportation costs. Pretty good business plan, actually, but it sux that I can't have one in Texas. It's OK. we have BBQ.

[FirstAscent]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)

Best and freshest fast food burgers around. Best service around. $11 an hour starting wage. Fast food business model. Cheeseburger, soda and fries for $5.

Food quality: http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

Very limited range. Specifically, a 1-day drive from the distribution center. Understandable, since it allows them to use refrigerated trucks instead of freezer trucks, keeps their food fresh, and limits transportation costs. Pretty good business plan, actually, but it sux that I can't have one in Texas. It's OK. we have BBQ.

They do have a distribution center in Texas for In-n-Outs in Texas. Their business model works. And they are expanding. And believe me, it works like crazy.

[myrkul]

Let me know where I've missed something

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?)

Best and freshest fast food burgers around. Best service around. $11 an hour starting wage. Fast food business model. Cheeseburger, soda and fries for $5.

Food quality: http://www.in-n-out.com/menu/food-quality.aspx

Very limited range. Specifically, a 1-day drive from the distribution center. Understandable, since it allows them to use refrigerated trucks instead of freezer trucks, keeps their food fresh, and limits transportation costs. Pretty good business plan, actually, but it sux that I can't have one in Texas. It's OK. we have BBQ.

They do have a distribution center in Texas for In-n-Outs in Texas. Their business model works. And they are expanding. And believe me, it works like crazy.

And the fact that they pay higher than minimum wage starting wages indicates that they hire (or keep) only skilled and efficient workers. Which is backed up by their speed and quality. Go into your local In-n-Out. Ask 'em what their turnover rates are, and if they hire 14-year old kids.

[firefop]

They do have a distribution center in Texas for In-n-Outs in Texas. Their business model works. And they are expanding. And believe me, it works like crazy.

And the fact that they pay higher than minimum wage starting wages indicates that they hire (or keep) only skilled and efficient workers. Which is backed up by their speed and quality. Go into your local In-n-Out. Ask 'em what their turnover rates are, and if they hire 14-year old kids.

I should also point out that their business model is based on biblical principles. They don't hire lazy/dis-honest workers. They also do drug testing and full background checks. The business model would fail if it didn't include superior service.

[myrkul]

They do have a distribution center in Texas for In-n-Outs in Texas. Their business model works. And they are expanding. And believe me, it works like crazy.

And the fact that they pay higher than minimum wage starting wages indicates that they hire (or keep) only skilled and efficient workers. Which is backed up by their speed and quality. Go into your local In-n-Out. Ask 'em what their turnover rates are, and if they hire 14-year old kids.

I should also point out that their business model is based on biblical principles. They don't hire lazy/dis-honest workers. They also do drug testing and full background checks. The business model would fail if it didn't include superior service.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect. This:

The business model would fail

Does not follow this:

They don't hire lazy/dis-honest workers. They also do drug testing and full background checks.

In fact, firing or not hiring lazy and dishonest workers, and doing full background checks would lead to exactly the opposite. The drug testing is sort of a wash, since off-duty activities don't necessarily alter on-duty ones. But it's their prerogative.

Ever think that maybe the superior service came from the fact that they only hire people worth hiring?

[Richy_T]

Ever think that maybe the superior service came from the fact that they only hire people worth hiring?

There are a lot of people who simply aren't worth hiring at minimum wage. The result is that they end up not working. Therefore they end up sponging off the government and therefore voting Democrat. It's win-win for the left.

[Rassah]

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

[myrkul]

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

lol... No. Well, probably not. Efficient workers mean efficient production. Efficient production means you can make more burgers, faster. More burgers, faster, means you can price them cheaper, and thus sell more. And the prices aren't exactly lower than the competition. A double-double (two meat, two cheese) is ~$3.00 (source). A Double (two meat, two cheese) from McDonalds is ~$1.29. I haven't tasted In-N-Out's burgers, but it's probably worth the extra $1.70.

EDIT: it's up to $3.15...http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prices-297781-costs-year.html

[Rassah]

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

lol... No. Well, probably not. Efficient workers mean efficient production. Efficient production means you can make more burgers, faster. More burgers, faster, means you can price them cheaper, and thus sell more. And the prices aren't exactly lower than the competition. A double-double (two meat, two cheese) is ~$3.00 (source). A Double (two meat, two cheese) from McDonalds is ~$1.29. I haven't tasted In-N-Out's burgers, but it's probably worth the extra $1.70.

EDIT: it's up to $3.15...http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prices-297781-costs-year.html

Oh, so, you mean higher wages DOES mean higher costs and thus higher prices? Well, that example just got busted

[myrkul]

None of which still answers how they can sell good burgers, with good service, and pay high wages, while still selling burgers cheaper than the competition. Something somewhere simply doesn't add up. Maybe they have the same business plan as Los Pollos Hermanos?

lol... No. Well, probably not. Efficient workers mean efficient production. Efficient production means you can make more burgers, faster. More burgers, faster, means you can price them cheaper, and thus sell more. And the prices aren't exactly lower than the competition. A double-double (two meat, two cheese) is ~$3.00 (source). A Double (two meat, two cheese) from McDonalds is ~$1.29. I haven't tasted In-N-Out's burgers, but it's probably worth the extra $1.70.

EDIT: it's up to $3.15...http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prices-297781-costs-year.html

Oh, so, you mean higher wages DOES mean higher costs and thus higher prices? Well, that example just got busted

To be fair, some of those higher costs are food costs, since the owner is committed to buying local. That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

I do wonder, though, which products were you speaking about, FirstAscent?

The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds.

[MoonShadow]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

This is factually inaccurate.  Pure oxygen, particularly at the partial pressures that would occur anywhere near Earth atmostpheric (~14.5 pounds per square inch) is poisonous, very dangerous, and potentially fatal.  Particularly for someone who might pass out.  We humans (not all animals can do this, BTW, most actually cannot) have a great deal of mental control over out own breathing, but only while awake.  CO2 is used by the body to determine when to actually cycle breath, but the presence of pure oxygen in the lungs, and the lack of CO2 of some small percentage, tricks the system into waiting to breath until the CO2 that is coming back from the bloodstream is high enough to trigger a breath.  The problem is that the detection of CO2 is delayed for many reasons, so while the lungs aren't really running low on oxygen, the stagnation of the oxygen in the lungs, combined with it's elevated concentration in the bloodstream, contributes to oxygen toxicity syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

While I know that this is off-topic, I can't stand to see falsehoods go unchallenged.  Please return to your regularly scheduled topic thread.

[myrkul]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

This is factually inaccurate.  Pure oxygen, particularly at the partial pressures that would occur anywhere near Earth atmostpheric (~14.5 pounds per square inch) is poisonous, very dangerous, and potentially fatal.

Your logical fallacy is...

Oxygen makes up slightly less than 21% of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 less than .04%. Even replacing all CO2 with oxygen wouldn't be enough to noticeably change the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere

100% Oxygen however, is lethal, not because we'd fail to breathe, but because the oxygen itself would kill us.

[SgtSpike]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

Every time I take a trip through CA, I make sure I stop at an In-N-Out at least once.

[bb113]

Did you read the paper I posted? The one about not finding any correlation between wage floors and unemployment rates?

Can you explain why there is no correlation, when the basic law of supply and demand says there should be?

Flawed research.

So I actually did look at the paper...

1) That paper does not make the claim First Ascent says it does (it claims to have detected publication bias, not "no correlation")
2) That paper is flawed research, and this has been reported in the literature. However it looks like they accidentally came to the correct conclusion
(they had a 50-50 chance of doing this)
3) The claim first ascent is making is supported by other different literature, in fact the same literature that debunks that first paper.

See:
Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis
Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x
47:2 June 2009 0007–1080 pp. 406–428


Welcome to the confused world of academia.

Card and Krueger’s meta-analysis of the employment effects of minimum wages
challenged existing theory. Unfortunately, their meta-analysis confused publication
selection with the absence of a genuine empirical effect. We apply
recently developed meta-analysis methods to 64 US minimum-wage studies and
corroborate that Card and Krueger’s findings were nevertheless correct. The
minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias,
which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimumwage
effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of
a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.

(P)ublication bias is leading to a new formulation of Gresham’s law — like bad
money, bad research drives out good. (Bland 1988: 450)

[myrkul]

That they're competitive at all is a minor wonder, IMO.

Not to me.  They make damn good burgers.  Zero comparison to McD's or Burger King.  They're competitive for the same reason true "restaurant" burger joints are competitive.

Well, I meant "that they have competitive prices," but from everything I've heard, they definitely are worth the additional cost.

[MoonShadow]

it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.

This is factually inaccurate.  Pure oxygen, particularly at the partial pressures that would occur anywhere near Earth atmostpheric (~14.5 pounds per square inch) is poisonous, very dangerous, and potentially fatal.

Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsense.  I wasn't making any comment about whatever topic he was referring to, other than to point out that he was factually incorrect in his use of it.  I do not, and have not, made an judgement about the topic at hand.

Oxygen makes up slightly less than 21% of Earth's atmosphere. CO2 less than .04%. Even replacing all CO2 with oxygen wouldn't be enough to noticeably change the percentage of O2 in the atmosphere.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_gases_make_up_the_earth%27s_atmosphere

100% Oxygen however, is lethal, not because we'd fail to breathe, but because the oxygen itself would kill us.

You didn't actually read either his post, nor all of my response, did you?  Read what you quoted, from him above, and all of what you didn't quote from my response, and you'll discover that your not even arguing in the same room.

[myrkul]

Read what you quoted, from him above, and all of what you didn't quote from my response, and you'll discover that your not even arguing in the same room.

Sure. Care to point out where in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

You found this?

CO2 is used by the body to determine when to actually cycle breath, but the presence of pure oxygen in the lungs, and the lack of CO2 of some small percentage, tricks the system into waiting to breath until the CO2 that is coming back from the bloodstream is high enough to trigger a breath.  The problem is that the detection of CO2 is delayed for many reasons, so while the lungs aren't really running low on oxygen, the stagnation of the oxygen in the lungs, combined with it's elevated concentration in the bloodstream, contributes to oxygen toxicity syndrome.

'cause I don't see it. I do see a lot of pulmonary effects, most notably irritation, but I also see references to "48 hours on pure oxygen..." Is that on sleep deprivation, as well?