[gogeo]

Your posts remind me of Econ 101, taught by the TA. One class he was explaining how union negotiators decide an "acceptable" wage demand. I don't remember exactly the formula but I believe had to do with marginal return of something or another. That wasn't the point, the glaring weakness of the construct was the point.

"Mr. TA Sir, that's an interesting analysis. I noticed you didn't analyze how it would impact the owners ROI, or whether the business was currently profitable, or would be under the wage assumptions. Will the business be profitable?

We don't know.

Is that a concern?

No.

And on he went.

Far be it from me to be critical of your economic analysis, of facts no less...but you're tossing assumptions like Pike Place fish.

Far be it from me to stand in the way of " analysis," even when the lives and property of others becomes grease for the tracks of your analysis "tank"... but where is the analysis of current profitability and ROI of the business?

Am I the only person to notice that the interests of the business are not of interest?

I hope you're doing well, Mr. TA.

[Sherman Logan]

So the impacts of this proposal on any given business simply cannot be analyzed in advance, and it is not even in theory possible to figure out what they might be.

As I said up front, there are lots of reasons to oppose this proposal, but hyperbole about all the restaurants closing isn’t one of them.

If you object to my admittedly and intentionally simplistic analysis, why don’t you provide one? Why is it necessary to discuss the issue in an intentional fog of vagueness?