- 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
re: Bank Of America - Minimum Wage to be $25 hr/50K yr
Posted on 9/21/23 at 3:04 am to sidewalkside
Posted on 9/21/23 at 3:04 am to sidewalkside
Better that BoA and BoA pay 100% of their production costs than doing what every other low wage employer does and rely on the tax payer to provide a stipend to their employees so the employee can make their nut. Why so many people have a problem with a company paying their entire cost of production out of their revenue is beyond logic. The employee is either paying their way through life through wages or wages and public assistance. Why it irks so many that fewer people will be reliant on public assistance is staggering to the imagination, especially when you look into those persons politics….all conservatives yet enamored with the idea of employers relying on public assistance to subsidize production costs.
1
Posted on 9/21/23 at 3:09 am to FuzzyBearE
quote:
It's a pie in the sky dream - if you increase the minimum wage, then minimum prices for EVERYTHING will increase. If the worker now make $25/hour to make my hamburger - My hamburger will now cost like $10 so that the company can still profit. Hence no real world gain for anybody. Workers
There is no economic theory that suggests an increase in production costs drives a corresponding increase in market price. If there such a theory and it was actually a fundamental economic law there’d be no need to manage costs…management would have no function if production costs automatically or in any way impacted market price
Posted on 9/21/23 at 3:59 am to justaniceguy
quote:
I don’t know where you live but 50k would be more than enough for me to get by and have some to put in savings. You can always buy a used car with cash you know…
South Louisiana used to be this way, but with the looming insurance crisis escalating insurance costs for homeowners and auto insurance will become simply unaffordable forcing more people into section 8 if available or rent.
Already, I am seeing rental costs increase beyond what I am currently paying for a mortgage that could be paid off in 5 years. I have been contemplating using some of the equity to purchase a vacant lot next door to me, but I keep saying to myself, just not at these interest rates.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 4:04 am to Tarps99
This will feed inflation, it’s like a never ending loop if bad decisions, and reactions. I see why the doomers are where they are….
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:08 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Why so many people have a problem with a company paying their entire cost of production out of their revenue is beyond logic.
If the company is publicly traded, loss of revenue will likely result in its devaluation and thus adversely affect stock holders.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:14 am to cyarrr
quote:
If the company is publicly traded, loss of revenue will likely result in its devaluation and thus adversely affect stock holders.
cost =/= revenue.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:17 am to cyarrr
quote:
If the company is publicly traded, loss of revenue will likely result in its devaluation and thus adversely affect stock holders
Do you even ESG score?
quote:
There is no economic theory that suggests an increase in production costs drives a corresponding increase in market price. If there such a theory and it was actually a fundamental economic law there’d be no need to manage costs…management would have no function if production costs automatically or in any way impacted market price
Also this price is set to bring in the most revenue, not to offset costs. If a Bagel is gonna bring in the most revenue selling for $2.95 because at $3.05 it sells less units, they aren't gonna raise the price because they have to pay their employees more, because they already have set the optimal price.
They raise prices when they feel like it will no longer decrease demand enough to offset the profit per sale.
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 5:22 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:20 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
There is no economic theory that suggests an increase in production costs drives a corresponding increase in market price.
Cost Push Inflation-
Higher costs of production can decrease the amount of total production in the economy. Since the demand for goods hasn't changed, the price increases from production are passed onto consumers creating cost-push inflation.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:22 am to pankReb
quote:
cost =/= revenue.
He said the company is taking from revenue to cover cost
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:34 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
Automation and AI will be taking on the responsibility and tasks that would normally be performed by people making less than $50,000/year. For other things, they will outsource to a company willing to provide people/services for less than $25/hr
And the execs in their ivory towers will gladly take in the extra cash saved.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:36 am to ConfusedHawgInMO
quote:
Granted it was in the early 90s but I remember thinking if I ever make $50k/yr that I will have more money than I know what to do with. I can't imagine trying to build a life and raise a family on $50k today.
I was making mid 40’s between 2005-2009 and was comfortable. I’d freaking starve today if I was still making that
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:39 am to AwgustaDawg
quote:
There is no economic theory that suggests an increase in production costs drives a corresponding increase in market price.
yeah, just common sense. stfu
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:42 am to cyarrr
quote:
He said the company is taking from revenue to cover cost
yes....and the revenue that a company brings in doesn't change when the cost of doing business changes.
Profit is the thing that you're looking for.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:45 am to cyarrr
quote:
Since the demand for goods hasn't changed, the price increases from production are passed onto consumers creating cost-push inflation.
What is the "goods" that BoA produces and how much is the cost of said "goods"?
Posted on 9/21/23 at 5:56 am to pankReb
quote:
What is the "goods" that BoA produces and how much is the cost of said "goods"?
He wasn’t specifically addressing Bank of America when he made that comment.
Also, are you saying a decrease in revenue will not affect a company’s profitability?
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 5:57 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 6:00 am to cyarrr
quote:
He wasn’t specifically addressing Bank of America when he made that comment.
quote:
Better that BoA and BoA pay 100% of their production costs than doing what every other low wage employer does and rely on the tax payer to provide a stipend to their employees so the employee can make their nut. Why so many people have a problem with a company paying their entire cost of production out of their revenue is beyond logic.
He quite literally was specifically addressing BoA.
quote:
Also, are you saying a decrease in revenue will not affect a company’s profitability?
I still don't think you understand what revenue means. Higher cost of labor has absolutely nothing to do with revenue.
The revenue does not change.
I urge you to read the above two sentences as many times as it takes for you to understand it.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 6:12 am to pankReb
quote:
He quite literally was specifically addressing BoA.
And I urge you to read, as many times as it takes you understand, the following:
He stated -
“There is no economic theory that suggests an increase in production costs drives a corresponding increase in market price.”
“no economic theory”
Nothing about banks in that comment.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 6:20 am to cyarrr
quote:
Better that BoA and BoA pay 100% of their production costs than doing what every other low wage employer does and rely on the tax payer to provide a stipend to their employees so the employee can make their nut. Why so many people have a problem with a company paying their entire cost of production out of their revenue is beyond logic. The employee is either paying their way through life through wages or wages and public assistance. Why it irks so many that fewer people will be reliant on public assistance is staggering to the imagination, especially when you look into those persons politics….all conservatives yet enamored with the idea of employers relying on public assistance to subsidize production costs.
Where....in this post that YOU replied to....includes anything about "no economic theory"? Follow the replies and that's the post you're responding to.
I notice you omitted your confusion regarding cost/revenue in this post so I'm going to assume that's been cleared up....which is good. This is basic 9th grade econ but it's always a win if you learn something new
Posted on 9/21/23 at 6:30 am to pankReb
Holy shite, my original post to him was in response to this comment. Look at his original post and my response.
Decreased revenue will indirectly affect.
Decreased revenue will indirectly affect.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 6:34 am to cyarrr
quote:
Decreased revenue will indirectly affect.
the revenue does not decrease.
This cannot be stated in any simpler terms. You keep confusing revenue and profit.
revenue - costs of production = profit.
Higher cost does not change revenue. It changes profit.
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 6:36 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News