- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/30/14 at 10:47 am to bigblake
quote:
Supposedly it goes like this:
Increase in MW give Mary 500 bucks a year more to spend.
Mary has a thing about shoes, so she buys 500 bucks worth of shoes at Pay Less.
The jump in sales motivates the owner of Pay Less to hire an extra worker.
Thus, a middle class job is created.
I know a lot of people will jump on you so but your argument is very common. $500 more in shoes, or food, or whatever.
$500 is really only revenue, the contribution margin is what retailer is really concerned about.
Let's just assume there is a 50% COGS.
Now we have $250. Let's leave out all Cost Accounting because it could get confusing and just say all of that all $250 goes to the profit line. After the 35% tax, $162.50 is actual earnings after tax.
In summary:
$500 in revenue where:
$250 to China & shipping company
$87.50 to government
$162.50 in profit
I'm illustrating the leakage where you cannot simply increase someone's wage, and then they spend 100% of the increase to balance it out.
Why even go that far into it? If an increase in minimum wage gives Mary $500 extra, then $500 is missing somewhere else in the economy. There is no net increase of wealth, only a transfer. Since Mary wasn't worth that $500 on her own, we've just wasted some economic potential by giving it to her.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News