From the post.
And they couldn't sell anything in addition to books? Or change their selection to reduce their overhead? Or buy/sell used books?
I don't know, I'm not them. But "we can't raise those prices, and we couldn't lower our expenses" always sounds like a bit of a copout.
They do that. In the bookselling business, these are called "sidelines". Borderlands has several, including postcards, greeting cards, small gifts, journals, local art, etc. They've tried many others as well that haven't been profitable for whatever reason (which they then have to eat the cost of.) New sidelines are a gamble for that reason.
> Or change their selection to reduce their overhead?
This is an oversimplification, but selection doesn't involve overhead in the usual sense because unsold books can be returned to the publisher. Anyway, their focus on sci-fi/fantasy and mystery books is a large part of what makes them special and beloved, rather than just another generalist bookstore.
> Or buy/sell used books?
They do that.
> I don't know, I'm not them. But "we can't raise those prices, and we couldn't lower our expenses" always sounds like a bit of a copout.
I've been to several of their sponsor meetings and spoken with the owner on a few occasions. Alan is very open and transparent about the bookstore's finances. If I recall correctly, because of the way publishers eat of the cost of unsold books, the store's expenses are dominated by labor and rent in that order (with utilities and credit card processing fees a distant 3rd and 4th). Everything else is basically rounding errors in the store budget. It's like trying to cut the Federal Budget without touching healthcare entitlements or defense - there's no way to make a meaningful dent. See also: Amdahl's Law.
When labor makes up about half of your costs, changes to the minimum wage affect you disproportionately compared to many other kinds of business.
Is it, though? Isn't it what kills freemium websites?
A) Minimum wage increases helps everyone overall by increasing the wage floor.
B) Increases in minimum wage are correlated with greater disposable income, even when put into context with inflation and goods prices increases (basically price of goods may go up a little, but labor wasn't a large portion of their cost to begin with).
Here are some articles after a brief search: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/05/25/warren-b...] [http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25936] [https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/04/02/mi...] - a little either or but EITC does more to amplify small increases to minimum wage than the opposite.
I do think the minimum wage should be increased but by a more reasonable amount and then track inflation every five years or something. I just think EITC is a much more targeted tool. Additionally, raising minimum wage doesn't help if most of the jobs are automated away but EITC still helps.
You make several statements I can take issue with, but the most interesting is to imply that if someone else makes more money, other people are devalued.
I think that's an interesting argument in a world where executive compensation has grown continually, and workers income has decreased, while GDP has continued to shrink. http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-ann... (click max, then trend under the bar graph button)
I urge you to look at the non partisan Congressional Budget Office's discussion of a federal minimum wage hike. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
Separately, there is a separate question of the (many) consequences or raising the minimum wage. A lot of smart people think that EITC and other programs are a better way to redistribute wealth. I happen to agree. If a small business has to raise prices, that doesn't generally affect the upper middle class and wealthy. They don't tend to shop at Walmart.
EITC is a much better way to redistribute this wealth and it puts money in the people's pockets who need it most.