Antagoniste


1 septembre 2015

L’avarice Économie États-Unis Revue de presse

The Washington Times

Texas emerges as top destination for Californians fleeing state
The Washington Times

Californians are fleeing the state in unprecedented numbers, and their primary destination is Texas, according to an analysis issued Monday.

About 5 million Californians departed the Golden State between 2004 and 2013, while 3.9 million arrived from other states for a net population loss of roughly 1.1 million, The Sacramento Bee reported Monday, using tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.

The estimated loss in annual income to California? Roughly $26 billion.

Nearly 600,000 Californians wound up in Texas, while about 348,000 Texans moved to California. The other top net recipients of Californians were Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, the analysis found. The graphic also shows that the people leaving California earn more overall than those entering California.

For example, those leaving California for Texas had a combined income of $15 billion, while those leaving Texas for California earned $9.7 billion, meaning that Texas received a windfall of $5.3 billion. Analysts blame a host of factors for the migration, starting with California’s high tax rate and cost of living.

Un autre bel exemple d’avarice fiscale d’un gouvernement…

Au lieu d’imposer raisonnablement ses citoyens, la Californie a voulu se remplir les poches. Résultat: les gens ont quitté la Californie en masse pour aller vivre au Texas, un État qui impose peu les gens. Au Final, la Californie a donc perdu 26 milliards en impôts sur le revenu alors que le Texas a pu augmenter ses recettes fiscales grâce aux nouveaux venus.

Les gouvernements qui imposent trop devraient lire La Fontaine: « l’avarice perd tout en voulant tout gagner ».


31 août 2015

Qui veut faire la bête fait… l’ange ?!? Économie États-Unis

Katrina

Le 28 août 2005, l’ouragan Katrina a frappé de plein fouet La Nouvelle-Orléans.  Dans son sillage, il prendra la vie de  près de 2 000 personnes et faisant plus de 100 milliards en dégâts.

La dévastation causée par l’ouragan Katrina a été telle que dans bien des cas, au lieu de reconstruire on a tout simplement décidé de délocaliser les sinistrés dans une autre ville puisqu’ils puissent se refaire une nouvelle vie.  Des victimes de Katrina ont été relocalisées aussi loin qu’à Salt Lake City dans l’Utah.  La majorité des gens qui ont ainsi été délocalisés était des Afro-Américains.  À l’époque, cela avait scandalisé la gauche qui y a vu une manifestation de racisme, je me rappelle la Bazzo à Radio-Canada qui parlait d’une seconde tragédie…

Dix ans plus tard, des chercheurs se sont intéressés au sort des gens qui ont été délocalisés par Katrina, voici les grandes conclusions:

  • On estime que la délocalisation a permis d’augmenter le revenu médian des familles de 4 400$.
  • Les familles délocalisées se sont retrouvé dans des quartiers avec une plus grande diversité ethnique i.e. ils ne vivaient plus dans un ghetto.
  • Le taux d’emploi a aussi augmenté de manière importante.
  • On a aussi observé une diminution significative d’un indice qui sert à mesurer la prédisposition d’une famille à la pauvreté chronique.
  • La mobilité sociale a aussi été augmentée; des gens qui étaient sous le seul de la pauvreté en Nouvelle-Orléans ont pu accéder à la classe moyenne.

L’ouragan Katrina a été une tragédie, mais les gens qui ont survécu au désastre peuvent aujourd’hui se consoler en se disant que cet ouragan leur a permis de briser les chaînes de leur pauvreté.


26 août 2015

Les intellos et le capitalisme Économie En Vidéos États-Unis

John Mackey, le patron libertarien de Whole Foods (une chaîne d’épicerie bio aux États-Unis), explique pourquoi les intellos détestent le capitalisme:

« It’s sort of where people stand in the social hierarchy, and if you live in a more business-oriented society, like the United States has been, then you have these businesspeople, who they don’t judge to be very intelligent or well-educated, having lots of money, and they begin to buy political power with it, and they rise in the social hierarchy, whereas the really intelligent people, the intellectuals, are less important. And I don’t think they like that. And I think that’s one of the main reasons why the intellectuals have usually disdained commerce: they haven’t seen it, the dynamic, creative force, because they measure themselves against these people, and they think they’re superior, and yet in the social hierarchy they’re not seen as more important. And I think that drives them crazy. »


24 août 2015

La pente glissante Coup de gueule États-Unis Philosophie Revue de presse

The Washington Post

Europe’s sinister expansion of euthanasia
The Washington Post

If you were a psychiatrist and a chronically depressed patient told you he wanted to die, what would you do? In Belgium, you might prescribe this vulnerable, desperate person a fatal dose of sodium thiopental.

Between October 2007 and December 2011, 100 people went to a clinic in Belgium’s Dutch-speaking region with depression, or schizophrenia, or, in several cases, Asperger’s syndrome, seeking euthanasia. The doctors, satisfied that 48 of the patients were in earnest, and that their conditions were “untreatable” and “unbearable,” offered them lethal injection; 35 went through with it.

These facts come not from a police report but an article by one of the clinic’s psychiatrists, Lieve Thienpont, in the British journal BMJ Open. All was perfectly legal under Belgium’s 2002 euthanasia statute, which applies not only to terminal physical illness, still the vast majority of cases, but also to an apparently growing minority of psychological ones. Official figures show nine cases of euthanasia due to “neuropsychiatric” disorders in the two-year period 2004-2005; in 2012-2013, the number had risen to 120, or 4 percent of the total.

Next door in the Netherlands, which decriminalized euthanasia in 2002, right-to-die activists opened a clinic in March 2012 to “help” people turned down for lethal injections by their regular physicians. In the next 12?months, the clinic approved euthanasia for six psychiatric patients, plus 11 people whose only recorded complaint was being “tired of living,” according to a report in the Aug. 10 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.

In 2013, euthanasia accounted for one of every 28 deaths in the Netherlands, three times the rate of 2002. In the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, one of every 22 deaths was due to euthanasia in 2013, a 142 percent increase since 2007. Belgium has legalized euthanasia for children under 12, though only for terminal physical illness; no child has yet been put to death.

Au Québec, vous pouvez déjà parier qu’on verra ce genre de dérive un jour ou l’autre… Le désir du gouvernement de diminuer les coûts du système de santé, combiné à une population docile qui trouvera normal qu’au nom du bien commun on tue au lieu de soigner, rend cette réalité inévitable.


19 août 2015

Les p’tits pains du PQ Arguing with Idiots Canada Coup de gueule Économie En Chiffres États-Unis Québec

Cette semaine, les péquistes ont fait un caca nerveux d’une extraordinaire proportion quand Philippe Couillard a osé déclarer qu’il était fédéraliste.  Pauvres péquistes, ils ont déjà été oubliés que si le PLQ a été élu en 2014 c’est précisément pour cette raison…  M’enfin…

Et pendant ce temps, le boss de Quebecor a voulu nous convaincre que la séparation c’était une bonne chose parce que le Québec avait le 27e PIB/habitant le plus élevé de la planète…   Il faut vraiment être né pour un p’tit pain pour s’imaginer qu’une 27e place est quelque chose d’honorable…  Il n’y a pas de médaille de bronze pour la 27e place, pas plus que pour la 26e…  Une 27e place met le Québec à la traîne de la majorité des pays industrialisés…  Mais cette performance semble satisfaire le boss de Quebecor…

Mais pour s’amuser un brin, et surtout pour pouvoir comparer des pommes avec des pommes, imaginons que tous les États et provinces de l’Amérique du Nord décident de devenir un pays.  En pareil car, où se classerait le Québec ?  Voici la réponse:

Quebec Loser

Le modèle québécois a fait du Québec l’un des endroits les plus pauvres en Amérique du Nord, 57e position sur 61… Et les péquistes voudraient faire un pays avec ça… Il faut vraiment être né pour un p’tit pain pour être fier d’un bilan économique aussi médiocre.

Source:
OCDE
OECD Regions at a Glance


18 août 2015

Les subventions Canada Économie Election 2015 États-Unis Mondialisation

Subvention AgricoleDans le débat sur la gestion de l’offre, les défenseurs de ce système injuste font souvent valoir l’argument qu’un pareil système est nécessaire pour se protéger des Américains qui subventionnent massivement leur agriculture.

Vraiment ?

Selon un rapport de l’OCDE publié vendredi dernier, pour la période 2012-2014, les subventions agricoles au Canada ont représenté 11,2% du revenu des agriculteurs. Aux États-Unis, cette proportion est de… 8,2% ! Vous avez bien lu, contrairement à ce qu’on veut nous faire croire, l’agriculture au Canada est plus subventionnée que celle aux États-Unis ! Donc non seulement les Canadiens sont appauvris par le système de gestion de l’offre, mais en plus ils doivent payer des taxes et des impôts pour soutenir un programme de subventions plus généreux que celui des Américains ! Bref, on se fait avoir de tous les côtés !

De plus, il faudrait comprendre que si les subventions canadiennes à l’agriculture sont néfastes pour les contribuables canadiens, les subventions américaines nous avantagent !

Pourquoi ?

Les États-Unis, en subventionnant leurs produits agricoles, font en sorte que ces derniers sont moins chers. Résultat: j’économise lorsque je fais mon épicerie. En bref, si les Américains sont assez bêtes pour payer des taxes dans le but de réduire ma facture d’épicerie, c’est leur problème, ce n’est pas moi qui vais leur dire d’arrêter !

Par contre, pas question qu’on utilise mes taxes pour subventionner les producteurs d’ici afin que les Américains payent leurs aliments moins chers…

Source:
OCDE
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015


18 août 2015

Le bilinguisme Économie États-Unis Mondialisation Revue de presse

The Charlotte Observer

Charlotte employers seeking more bilingual staff
Th eCharlotte Observer

In yet another sign of Charlotte’s growing immigrant workforce, a new kind of job fair is being held Friday, to recruit only people who speak more than one language.

Organizers believe it may be the first of many to come.

The Bilingual Customer Service Career Fair at the Latin American Coalition on Central Avenue will include such employers as Verizon, Chipotle, Goodwill and the Charlotte Hornets interviewing people for potential jobs.

Coalition officials say the idea for the fair grew from increased demand in the community for people who are bilingual, particularly those who speak Spanish and English.

The job fair comes at a time when recent U.S. Census Bureau data shows Mecklenburg County’s Hispanic growth rate continues to boom. The non-white Hispanic population grew 14.8 percent between 2010 and last year, more than double the white growth rate. Hispanics are now 12.7 percent of the county’s population, an estimated 128,473 people among 1.01 million residents.

Faith Josephs of the Latin American Coalition says the job fair was created in response to companies in the community that are seeking customer service employees who speak multiple languages. Most of the potential jobs require a high school diploma, through college level education is also being sought.

“This is a sign that Charlotte is changing. A career fair of employers seeking bilingual job candidates is unique, but more and more these companies are finding themselves with Spanish speaking customers,” said Josephs. “A lot (of immigrants) don’t realize what a skill it is to speak more than one language professionally, but it’s very highly sought.”

Dans le sud des États-Unis, les méchants red necks sont plus ouverts au bilinguisme que les péquistes…


6 août 2015

Dieu merci pour la bombe En Vidéos États-Unis Philosophie

Le 6 et 9 août 1945, les États-Unis utilisaient l'arme atomique pour contraindre le Japon à une reddition inconditionnelle mettant ainsi fin à la 2e guerre mondiale. La commémoration de cet événement passe obligatoirement par une dénonciation des idées reçues entourant cet événement.

Question: Que serait-il arrivé si le président Truman avait refusé d’utiliser la bombe atomique pour mettre fin à la guerre avec le Japon ?

Réponse: Un carnage sans précédant dans l’histoire de l’humanité…

Voici quelques extraits, du fascinant documentaire « The Final Battle », qui expliquent comment l’utilisation de la bombe atomique a permis de sauver des vies.

Pour reprendre la conclusion Paul Fussell, historien et soldat durant la 2e guerre mondiale: dieu merci pour la bombe…


6 août 2015

Des vies ont été sauvées En Citations États-Unis Philosophie

Le 6 et 9 août 1945, les États-Unis utilisaient l'arme atomique pour contraindre le Japon à une reddition inconditionnelle mettant ainsi fin à la 2e guerre mondiale. La commémoration de cet événement passe obligatoirement par une dénonciation des idées reçues entourant cet événement.

William Manchester

Extrait des mémoires de William Manchester, historien et vétéran de la guerre du Pacifique:

"After the campaign on the Indonesian island of Biak, the enemy withdrew into deep caverns. Rooting them out became a bloody business which reached its ultimate horrors in the last months of the war. You think of the lives which would have been lost in an invasion of Japan’s Home Islands— a staggering number of Americans but millions more of Japanese—and you thank God for the atomic bomb."


6 août 2015

Un outil pour la paix En Citations États-Unis Philosophie

Le 6 et 9 août 1945, les États-Unis utilisaient l'arme atomique pour contraindre le Japon à une reddition inconditionnelle mettant ainsi fin à la 2e guerre mondiale. La commémoration de cet événement passe obligatoirement par une dénonciation des idées reçues entourant cet événement.

Japan Longest Day

Extrait du livre Japan’s Longest Day:

Kōichi Kido, conseiller de l’empereur Hirohito en 1945:
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war."

Hisatsune Sakomizu, secrétaire du chef de cabinet japonais en 1945:
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."


5 août 2015

Difficile mais nécessaire États-Unis Philosophie

Le 6 et 9 août 1945, les États-Unis utilisaient l'arme atomique pour contraindre le Japon à une reddition inconditionnelle mettant ainsi fin à la 2e guerre mondiale. La commémoration de cet événement passe obligatoirement par une dénonciation des idées reçues entourant cet événement.

"President Truman's decision to use the new weapons stopped a war that would otherwise have raged savagely on, and made possible the transformation of Japan from vicious aggressor to peaceful democracy."

The Boston Globe
The A-Bomb as lifesaver

An article in the radical journal CounterPunch, for example, labels the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ''the worst terror attacks in history," and trots out the old canard that their real purpose was to intimidate the Soviet Union.

But the vast majority of Americans who lived through World War II would have regarded such glib judgments as preposterous. Paul Fussell, the historian and literary critic, spoke for millions when he titled his famous essay on the end of the Pacific war ''Thank God for the Atom Bomb." […]

''On Okinawa, only weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed each other," Fussell wrote. A 21-year-old infantry officer, he had already been wounded twice in Europe; ''the very idea of more combat made me breathe in gasps and shake all over." So when the atom bombs were dropped, ''we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live. We were going to grow to adulthood after all."

More than ever before, the historical record confirms what those soldiers knew in their gut: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hideous as they were, shortened the war that Japan had begun and saved an immensity of lives. Far from considering itself essentially defeated, the Japanese military was preparing for an Allied assault with a massive buildup in the south. It was only the shock of the atomic blasts that enabled Japanese leaders who wanted to stop the fighting to successfully press for a surrender. […]

President Truman's decision to use the new weapons stopped a war that would otherwise have raged savagely on, and made possible the transformation of Japan from vicious aggressor to peaceful democracy. Six decades after August 1945, it is clear: The bomb made the world a better place.

"We owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse."

The New York Times
Blood on Our Hands?

There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?" […]

While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives." The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate.

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb — on Tokyo. […]

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.


5 août 2015

Un mal nécessaire États-Unis Philosophie

Le 6 et 9 août 1945, les États-Unis utilisaient l'arme atomique pour contraindre le Japon à une reddition inconditionnelle mettant ainsi fin à la 2e guerre mondiale. La commémoration de cet événement passe obligatoirement par une dénonciation des idées reçues entourant cet événement.

“I cannot imagine that anyone who could have been president would have failed to use atomic bombs.”

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The best worst option
Richard B. Frank*, Volume 61, Number 4, July/August 2005

I believe a sober assessment of ends, means, and costs demonstrate that the atomic bombs were the worst way to end the Pacific War—except all the others. Therefore, had the decision been mine to make, I would have authorized the use of atomic bombs. The U.S. war aim of “unconditional surrender” constituted the essential legal authority to abolish the old order in Japan, thereby transforming military victory into an enduring peace. The Japanese, however, pursued two minimal goals: preservation of the Imperial institution and of the entrenched militaristic order.

Far from regarding their situation as hopeless, Japanese leaders crafted a military-political strategy called "Ketsu Go" to secure their twin war aims. "Ketsu Go" rested on the premise that inflicting heavy losses during the initial invasion would shatter brittle American resolve. The Japanese shrewdly anticipated that southern Kyushu (Japan’s third largest island) would be the U.S. beachhead and packed it with defenses. Against this backdrop, U.S. diplomatic concessions acted not as a one-way ratchet toward peace, but as concrete vindication for the hardliner’s central premise of vulnerable American will.

U.S. leaders confronted an extensive menu of options. Naval and air officers advocated continuation of the ongoing campaign of bombardment and blockade. This strategy contemplated killing Japanese by the tens or hundreds of thousands with bombs and shells, and by the millions through starvation. U.S. decision makers looked to complement bombardment and blockade with an invasion followed by Soviet entry. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 defined the ultimate American nightmare not as the invasion, but the peril that, even if the Japanese government surrendered, Japan’s armed forces would not. The prospect of defeating some five million unyielding Japanese in the Home Islands, on the Asian continent, and throughout the Pacific far overshadowed the potential losses in the initial invasion of Japan.

By July and the first days of August 1945, radio intelligence demonstrated that southern Kyushu bristled with Japanese forces that far exceeded prior U.S. estimates. A radio intelligence assessment passed to senior policy makers on July 27 stated that, based on review of both the diplomatic and the military intercepts, it was clear that Japan would never submit to terms acceptable to the United States as long as the Imperial Army remained confident in "Ketsu Go". That is the most succinct and accurate assessment of the realities of 1945 as one can find. Given these revelations, I cannot imagine that anyone who could have been president would have failed to use atomic bombs.

The realization that the planned invasion of Kyushu was no longer feasible also undercut any American confidence that Soviet intervention could be decisive, since Gen. George Marshall had tied its impact to the success of the U.S. invasion. More importantly, Japanese military leaders did not regard Soviet entry as the end because the Soviets lacked the sea lift to deliver their massive armies and tactical air forces to the Home Islands. Accordingly, Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu, the chief of staff of the Imperial Army, told the emperor that Soviet entry made no difference for "Ketsu Go". More ominously still, the Imperial Army rebounded from news of an imminent Soviet entry with a plan to eliminate any vestige of civilian government and rule from Imperial headquarters. This stroke would have eradicated the legal basis for the emperor’s intervention. And absent the emperor’s intervention, there was no sure path to peace.

This brings us to costs. The bombs killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Japanese—many from the horrifying effects of radiation that U.S. policy makers were ignorant of in 1945. The alternatives were worse. Beyond the military losses, the Soviet Union’s initial intervention in the war against Japan ultimately cost the lives of between 340,000 and 500,000 Japanese, overwhelmingly noncombatants. Had the war not ended when it did, many more would have perished. The blockade would have killed millions.

Finally, we now know that ending the war by August 15 was crucial. By then, a new August 13 targeting directive that sought the destruction of Japan’s railroads through strategic bombings would have gone into effect. Coupled to the annihilation of shipping and a desperate food shortage, this directive would have locked Japan inexorably on a course to a massive famine. Ghastly as the bombs were, the grim reality is that no other combination of events would have produced an enduring peace at less cost.

*Richard B. Frank is the author of Downfall: The End of the Japanese Imperial Empire (1999), which won the 2000 Harry S. Truman Book Award.

Et pour ceux qui pensent que les bombardements d'Hiroshima et de Nagasaki n'étaient pas nécessaires parce que le Japon était sur le point de se rendre, je vous conseille cet autre article de Richard B. Frank (cliquez sur le lien):

Cliquez ici pour lire la suite »


23 juillet 2015

Le sable bitumineux… américain ! Économie Environnement États-Unis Revue de presse

National Post

Utah set to be home of first oilsands mine project in U.S. by end of 2015
National Post

Despite fierce opposition from American environmental groups, the first commercial oilsands mine in the United States is just months away from starting up after receiving final regulatory approvals from officials in Utah late last week.

“We’ll be in production later in the fall with commercial production before the end of the year,” U.S. Oil Sands Inc. chief executive Cameron Todd said in a phone interview Tuesday. Calgary-based U.S. Oil Sands is working through the summer to complete a 2,000-barrel-per-day oilsands mine in eastern Utah, which would make it the first commercial oilsands mine in the United States when it begins producing later this year.

Todd noted that oilsands deposits have been used in the U.S. in the past, including in the construction of the first roads in Utah, but have never been mined on a commercial scale. The Uinta basin in the northeastern and central southeastern of the state has more than 50 identified oil sands deposits, with an estimated total of 20 to 32 billion barrels of oil in place.

The company is using a solvent derived from citrus in oranges to extract the oil from the oilsands ore, which Todd said, helps eliminate the need for large tailings ponds like those in northern Alberta. If it’s successful, the company may seek to monetize its technology through licensing agreements with oilsands mine operators around Fort McMurray, he said.

At a cost of $60 million, the capital cost of the mine in Utah will be roughly $30,000 per barrel of new capacity and will likely operate at a cost under $30 per barrel. Once U.S. Oil Sands proves that the company’s extraction method can work, Todd said the company could increase the size of the mine by 10,000 bpd and potentially build other oilsands mines on bitumen deposits in the States and around the world.

Une compagnie de Calgary qui va contribuer à la création d’une industrie exploitant les sables bitumineux aux États-Unis en utilisant une technologie qui réduit la pollution et qui permet de produire à 30$ le baril !

Temps dur pour les alter-mondialistes, les technophobes et les enverdeurs !


16 juillet 2015

Quand le marché évolue Économie En Chiffres Environnement États-Unis

Deux chiffres intéressants sur lesquels je suis tombé cette semaine:

Essence Voiture

Depuis 1996, le nombre de voitures a augmenté de 21%, mais le nombre de stations-service a diminué de 18% !

Ces chiffres semblent contradictoires, mais quand on sait que la consommation en essence des voitures est passée de 8,25L/100 km en 1996 à 6,53 L/100 km en 2012 (une diminution de 21%) on peut comprendre pourquoi le nombre de stations-service diminue même si le nombre de voitures augmente !

Source:
U.S. Department of Energy
Maps and Data


15 juillet 2015

Quelqu’un doit payer Économie États-Unis Revue de presse

Chicago Tribune

Chipotle ties San Francisco price hike to minimum wage increase
Chicago Tribune

It San Francisco is any indication, Chipotle fans in Chicago might want to keep an eye on the price they’re paying for their burrito bowls, as the city’s minimum wage continues to climb in coming years.

In its weekly survey of 10 Chipotle markets, Chicago-based William Blair found that Chipotle raised prices in half of the markets that the investment firm surveyed — San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases occurred due to the rising cost of beef.

The city by the bay, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging 10.5 percent, and William Blair theorizes « the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of the increased minimum wages. » In contrast, prices in Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis and Orlando each rose about half a percentage point, nearly entirely due to higher beef prices.

San Francisco’s minimum wage was $10.74 an hour in 2014, rose to $11.05 at the start of the year, and increased again to $12.25 in May. Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold says the chain’s pricing varies around the country due to the cost of doing business but that the price increases in San Francisco were « done in part to offset higher labor costs. »

« California, and San Francisco in particular, has a high cost of doing business, » he said. « In San Francisco, for example, our occupancy costs are about double the Chipotle average as a percentage of sales, and our menu prices there are right around the average for Chipotle restaurants around the country, so increases to wages can have a greater impact than they might elsewhere. » San Francisco’s minimum wage is due to rise gradually to $15 in 2018.

Un bon rappel que quand on augmente le salaire minimum, quelqu’un doit payer et ce quelqu’un, c’est toujours le consommateur puisque le salaire fait partie du coût de production…