It's not clear, nor has the argument been laid out by the business, that 8.25% is necessary because of (and only because of) the MW increase.
See the thing that lefties dont understand about this is that even a small amount of inflation 8.25% becomes a huge tax increase on people who dont have alot of money. If you make 30k per year, odds are every dime you make gets spent, odds are that you pay little to no income tax, but for the purposes of this argument lets say a person making 30k per year pays 10% income tax which is overly generous on my part, well if you add 8% to everything they purchased, you essentially doubled that persons taxes. If you were to come out and say you were doubling the income tax on the poor, people would most certainly say that was "Dramatic"
I don't get this. If I have one employee, and I pay him $7.50 an hour, and I have fixed costs (let's simplify all other costs into one basket called Fixed) of $10.00 an hour, then I need to charge $17.50 to break even. If you bump the one employee to $15.00 an hour, then I need to charge $25.00 an hour to break even or I have to pack it in. What is so hard to understand? The $6.93 on the receipt is labeled "living wage" and the business is telling you it is because of the increase in MW. Are you saying they are distorting that or making it up? If so, do you have proof of this?
The business owner can say whatever he wants to say on his receipts. One argument that I've shown is for the cost of a burger at McDonalds, based on their overall cost structure. Your example is assigning a much larger share of your product's sale price to labor.
Ok, so what we have here on one hand is a receipt showing a charge the business is claiming to be due to minimum wage increase. On the other hand, we have you, Ricter, saying it's false without any proof at all. Hmm...this is a tough one.
dont forget ricter lives in the Krugman world where business magically pases on taxes and wage increases... and yet magically the consumer keeps buying the same amount. Unfortunately that was the idea with the 10% Luxury Tax. Which cost american boat builders their way of life and their industry. http://townhall.com/columnists/walt.../ignorance,_stupidity_or_connivance/page/full When Congress imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. What actually happened is laid out in a Heartland Institute blog post by Edmund Contoski titled "Economically illiterate Obama, re: Corporate Jets" (7/12/2011). Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.