Ralphs, Food 4 Less to close 25% of Long Beach stores over extra $4 per hour

https://www.fox13news.com/news/ralp...ong-beach-stores-following-hero-pay-ordinance

HYPERLINK has full story

snip

LONG BEACH, Calif. - Ralphs and Food 4 Less, both owned by the parent company Kroger, announced Monday that they will be closing 25% of their stores in Long Beach after the city council passed an ordinance requiring companies with over 300 employees nationwide to pay employees an extra $4 per hour...................

The irreparable harm that will come to employees and local citizens as a direct result of the City of Long Beach’s attempt to pick winners and losers, is deeply unfortunate," continued the company spokesperson. "We are truly saddened that our associates and customers will ultimately be the real victims of the city council’s actions."

end snip

Sad, we've seen this before as Democrats get emboldened and target the Dreaded Private Sector (DPS). I'll never understand why Democrat voters fail to learn the lessons of the past. Prior to Covid (and the politics involved to injure the common folk), the unemployment rate was low and even Democrat voters could pick and choose jobs offered by those who struggled to grow businesses. Here we see "Democrat compassion" that once again hurts the common folk

vote Democrat= hurt business and the common folk

 

If a business can’t function while paying a living wage then it doesn’t deserve to function.

 

Capitalism, other stores will open now as there will be new demand

 

please elaborate on living wage and be as clear as possible, for example:

a: employees must be able to afford rent within xx miles from employer and there must be xxx sq feet per inhabitant of residence

b: employee must be able to afford a vehicle for each licensed driver and vehicle must be xxxxx

c: employee must be able to have every cable tv channel and x tv's per resident and tv must be a minimum of xx size

d: employee must be able to afford to buy new Apple phone each year

you can't just toss out the tired and nebulous term of "living wage" without first defining it

 

Living wage for whom? Do you know the demographics of the majority of the less than 3% of the workforce who actually ONLY make minimum wage? Under 25.

Since when is it the employer's responsibility to make sure that an employee has enough money to support their lifestyle?

So according to what you posted, people are better off without a job=NO income (business closing) then earning money that may not provide a 'living wage' (which I would be interested in seeing defined).

What happens when there is an increase in COGs without an increase in production?

 

COGs, there you go talking common sense, please stop

 

And they too will encounter the same issue.

What happens to those who worked hard and received raises based on their hard work, who suddenly are making less then the new MW? What supports that that increase in overhead (COGs)?

Why stop at $15 if the ultimate goal is to support someone's lifestyle? Why have employers been deemed the provider of that support?

 

To me it looks like a excuse for a business decision that was made before 1-19. I say it's a sad day in hell when a store can't nickel here, dime there to make up for $4.00 an hour.

 

yeah, wages used to be 50 cents an hours when my grandparents were growing up, people said the same things then... but here we are

we won't stop at $15, the min wage needs to keep up with inflation, as the cost of living rises, so must the min wage

I would tie the min wage raises to the cost of living increases congress passes for themselves every year

 

I agree

 

HHS has already sufficiently defined what a living wage is. It took two minutes on Google to find it for you.

 

There’s a lot of people who earn more than minimum wage but still far less than a living wage. Your 3% number is an attempt to hide how many people are living in poverty in the US, which is 10.5 percent of the population.

It is the responsibility of an employer to pay a livable wage. They’re not responsible for their employee’s budgeting after that.

More people with more money to spend is good for the economy. Some businesses wouldn’t be able to get by. Tough. Other businesses will fill the holes in the market. Jobs come and go and we can’t leave people living in unending poverty just because some jobs will be lost in the short term.

A minimum wage that adequately meets people’s needs wouldn’t significantly increase the cost of goods.

 

The whole point of a new minimum wage is that no one would be earning less than that. Why are you confused? And increasing the minimum wage would improve everyone’s wages. Make $15 doing a hard job? Well now you have bargaining power. When you can go work at a Taco Bell for the same pay, your employer suddenly has a lot fewer cards to play against you when it comes to wage negotiations.

Employers aren’t obligated to support a lifestyle. They should be required to pay a living wage though. At the minimum.

 

When the cost of living was the equivalent of that 50 cents an hour, it wasn't any different. Trying to compare the two pretty much falls flat.

While ignoring the other points I brought up, you bring up what the DC weasels make, and the raises they vote themselves, along with lifetime bennies, all at your and my expense. That would be an instant savings to the taxpayers, but we both know the government will find other ways to spend it. WE (intentionally capitalized) have allowed DC too much power, and they have gladly taken it.

One thing to keep in mind. The impact of increasing MW without offsetting production will raise the price of goods, effectively making those making MW, still unable to support their lifestyle on what the make. The erstwhile bottom of the ladder.

 

Apparently you can't resist the insults. There is no confusion, unless it's on your part.

What happens when COGs (of which labor is a part) cost rise, but no additional production occurs? The cost of the individual item rises.

The new MW is still the bottom of the ladder, while the cost of goods rises to support the additional costs in production. The person who chooses to stay at MW (and it is a choice) will not have increased buying power other than momentary.

Your example of Taco Bell is precisely what drives wages, along with availability of labor. MW is a starting block as a person learns skills.

 

Please read. The 3% I stated was generous.

Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Once again, when did it become the employers responsibility to pay a 'living wage'? When did the individual lose responsibility for their own lives? Please define a 'living wage'.

Is $15 an hour the same in NYC as it is in a town with a population of 5,000? If so, then please explain the actual cost of living that justifies a one-size-fits-all assumption of $15.

Your statements seem to imply that 'other businesses will fill holes in the market' without consideration that they too will have the same issue of COGs/price. The MW earners will still be at the bottom of the financial ladder, and unfortunately for those who do nothing to increase their value in the marketplace, will stay there, and likely end up in poverty.

 

They were already paying the employees an extra $2 per hour and, as they stated, the locations were already struggling. It is a sadder day in hell when people think people deserve an extra $6 an hour for no reason.

 

umm, I asked the poster, and since you too are a Democrat voter, perhaps explain your version of a living wage. Keep in mind that in some parts of this nation, $15 per hour you could live well while in others, it doesn't cover rent if you insist on living near work in a good place

one size doesn't fit all so please fill in the requirements and then w can figure out what a "living wage" should be for example in San Fran compared with areas in SD where you can find rents for $600 per month or less, so please be specific because you are not being compassionate trying to put some inane dollar figure when the dollar figure should vary from town to town.

what are your min lifestyle requirements that must be supported by a "living wage"?

 

Kroger is getting ready for Amazon type stores.
They halted construction of one near me because of that.

 

It’s not an insult and I don’t know what to tell you if you feel that it is. “Oh well?” Seems appropriate.

Productivity and production has been out pacing wage growth for decades. In increase in the minimum wage would be a corrective action at this point.

Contrary to your assessment, working minimum (or close to it) wage is not a choice for the vast majority of people in that position. When you work forty hours a week, barely making enough to get by you lack the time, energy, or capital to meaningfully advance in society. Why not get a degree? With what money? The poor are constantly chastised for borrowing money they can’t pay back. They don’t have the time on a full work schedule to move through college courses at a reasonable pace and they can’t reduce their hours to accommodate because they can’t afford to live on less. And god forbid they have a child at home or any other family member that needs some form of care. It’s a virtual impossibility.

What skills is a person learning while working at Taco Bell aside from how to make tacos? If you’re applying for a job at a major law firm do you list Taco Bell on your resume? No? Why not?

 

I’m not obligated to waste my time defining all of your criteria just for you to pick it apart based on one exception or another. The object was to define a livable wage, and I supplied that.

You’re right that money travels further in some areas than others. That’s why it is a minimum wage. It is the Areas where the cost of living is higher should pay more to offer equivalent compensation. The jobs have to be done, and if cities/states with high cost of living want those jobs to be done then they need to make it possible for people to work those jobs without being forced to live in poverty.

A living wage must give a person the ability to pay for shelter within a reasonably travel time to their work, purchase food, purchase clothing, and put away money in savings for unexpected expenses.

 

https://www.epi.org/publication/why...$107 billion,business activity and job growth.

Today, in all areas across the United States, a single adult without children needs at least $31,200—what a full-time worker making $15 an hour earns annually—to achieve a modest but adequate standard of living.12 By 2025,workers in these areas and those with children will need even more, according to projections based on the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator.13


12. Based on calculations from the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator, which measures the income a family needs to attain a secure yet modest standard of living in all counties and metro areas across the country
13. Congressional Budget Office projections for the consumer price index were applied to the Economic Policy Institute’s Family Budget Calculator.

 

Good post.

 

wait.............you want the top down, big govt, Democrat version where people who have never had to meet a payroll make rules for everyone, and now you want local markets to vary. So which is it? DO you want big oppressive, top-down Democrat govt or the free-market that brought us to where you have cheap cell service, cheap tv's, and a fast Internet on which to make brilliant posts in forums

 

so the more children that you have, the more the employer should pay you? Is that correct?