Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sales go up and down based on the price, not the other way around.

Yes. I know. I said that:

The more expensive something is the less demand there is for it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

That would make sense if the majority of sales at CostCo were from TV's but they're not, I'd wager that TV sales are one of the lowest selling items at CostCo.

a reply to: Phage

So cost is not affected by demand, demand is affected by cost. I misunderstood your argument but the fact that the price goes up and down regardless of demands goes to show it is a product of artificial scarcity. Basically they use the illusion of scarcity to trick us into paying more for it.

That's what's wrong with the corporate world and the minimum wage argument, they create the illusion of scarcity as far as money and wages go so that they trick people into believing they can't afford higher wages when in reality they can. CostCo is a prime example of it being possible.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You are now talking about the supply part of it.
The point which I was addressing was this:

means more money to spend, which increases volume and offsets the cost of additional wages.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Higher costs = higher prices = less demand.

Using your argument, manipulation of supply would exacerbate that.

a reply to: Phage

Artificial Scarcity is the argument I'm trying to make. It applies to the discussion here as far as minimum wage goes. They create the illusion of scarcity so that they can convince people that they can't afford higher wages. They can, CostCo is a prime example of it being possible.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

They create the illusion of scarcity so that they can convince people that they can't afford higher wages.

That makes no sense. Scarcity increases market value. It means that each cup of coffee is "worth" more. "Artificial" scarcity would be used to increase selling price, not as an "excuse" to reduce costs.

a reply to: Phage

We're not talking about coffee, we're talking about the people who put it into the cup and serve it to the customer.

a reply to: xuenchen

Large chains are horrible for this.

This is why an economy built by and tailored to small business is the only sane choice.

You cant consolidate wealth concentrations into the upper echelon of society, but we dont like monopolies anyway, in any form.

The current system also is bringing us to the brink of oblivion while blaiming it on the average people it screws.

So let the house burn I say. We have built many over the course of our history. This world is led by parasites mad with power. Defend it? Why?

*Truth.

Then when everything is automized, and no one works and has no money to buy crap with, we will make cool things in space age factories that no one can buy.

Then we starve, riot, reset, and die.

Then murphys law ends bunkers, plans and dreams of the survivors.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Phage

We're not talking about coffee, we're talking about the people who put it into the cup and serve it to the customer.

What scarcity are you talking about then?

There is no shortage of people willing to pour and serve coffee. If there were, there would be greater competition for them and wages would be higher.

Remember, lower supply means higher prices?

a reply to: Phage

The supposed scarcity in money for wages. These companies are nowhere near scarce on money yet people believe that they can't afford higher wages. They can, the whole "poor corporations" argument doesn't make any sense when you factor in the sheer amount of money they are making after expenses.

a reply to: Phage

That is nice when we are talking about galvanized pipe. But I think we can agree this line of thinking is why we are in tho position we are in.

Basic life costs just aren't covered by min wage, but the social safety net is now being used to subsidize huge PROFITABLE companies. So what do we do?

a reply to: seasonal

This is the issue, executives see their employees as products and not people, they are just numbers scribbled on a sheet of paper and nothing more.

People can be so selfish and self-centered that it's sad. That's not directed at anyone in this thread just to be clear.

I think that line of thinking is fine when we are talking about 2" galvanized piping. Unfortunately people aren't a commodity, or shouldn't be. This style of dehumanization leads to all sorts of problems-as history shows us.

It also allows people to convince themselves that it is OK to pay people under what it costs to afford the comfortable life. Remember every cup of coffee they sell is tax payer subsidized. But some how you think that is OK?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Phage

The supposed scarcity in money for wages. These companies are nowhere near scarce on money yet people believe that they can't afford higher wages. They can, the whole "poor corporations" argument doesn't make any sense when you factor in the sheer amount of money they are making after expenses.

I don't think anyone says "poor Starbucks" but what people who understand economics say is that without a return on investment there would be no Starbucks. In order to have a return on investment the cost of a product sold cannot be too high in relation to the cost at which it can be sold. If it is, there is no point in operating the business and the business goes away, along with its jobs.

Look at Sports Authority. It's profits went away and so did it. What happened to those profits? Why didn't they just keep raising their prices?

a reply to: seasonal

Basic life costs just aren't covered by min wage, but the social safety net is now being used to subsidize huge PROFITABLE companies. So what do we do?

No. Companies are not subsidized by social programs. People are.

Companies pay income taxes just like I do. Companies pay social security taxes, just like I do.

sometimes I really hate my job, but a computer or robot can't replace me and I get overtime and full benefits

a reply to: Phage

Corporate welfare exist.

Which companies pay those, all of them?

a reply to: Phage

Starbucks is having a better return on investment than they have ever had before, so why not spread the love to the people who give them that return on investment? Greed is what is stopping that from happening.

a reply to: Phage

Without a return on investment there would be no Starbucks...

So who would fill that void?

a reply to: onequestion

Corporate welfare exist.

Please clarify and explain what it has to do with a minimum wage.