CEO cuts own pay, raises workers' salaries

[IIFFOFRDB]

Lets talk about "to big to fail" "to big to sue" gruberment motors... Ozommunists
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ankruptcy-acts

[lustylad]

Speaking of disturbing pay ratios, if you do the math Hillary Clinton's is 13,000 to 1:


The Hillary Pay Ratio

A new index to chart the gap between political words and deeds.

April 14, 2015 7:30 p.m. ET

Just in time for Wednesday’s nationwide walk-out by fast-food workers to demand a higher minimum wage, Hillary Clinton emailed supporters this week to complain about pay differentials in American business. According to Reuters, Mrs. Clinton griped that “the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes.”

Many of these CEOs can only wish they were rewarded for their time as handsomely as Mrs. Clinton is. The expected 2016 Democratic presidential nominee has been paid as much as $300,000 per speech.

Supporters of Wednesday’s worker rallies are hoping that Mrs. Clinton will endorse their demand for a $15 minimum wage. That’s more than double the current federal minimum of $7.25. And for the sake of argument let’s assume that $15 per hour is what event staff were paid at the venues where Mrs. Clinton spoke. We’ll also assume about 90 minutes of her time for a speech plus a question-and-answer period. Mrs. Clinton’s fee in this scenario would be more than 13,000 times the earnings of the typical worker.

Not many CEOs can come close to scoring that high on the Hillary Ratio—the difference between the highest-paid worker and the typical worker in a given situation (or you could think of this as the gap between Clinton rhetoric and Clinton reality).

Mrs. Clinton said in her Sunday campaign video that the “deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” and she would know based on her taste for amenities and expenses along with her speaking fees. “She insists on staying in the ‘presidential suite’ of luxury hotels that she chooses anywhere in the world, including Las Vegas,” the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote last August. “She usually requires those who pay her six-figure fees for speeches to also provide a private jet for transportation—only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 or larger will do.”

There’s one more way she and husband Bill have stacked the deck in their favor. The average worker—if she could even dream of pulling down $200,000 for an hour of work—would pay taxes on this income; Mrs. Clinton often doesn’t.

By routing speaking fees through their family’s foundation, the Clintons ensure that the money won’t be taxed before it is directed to support foundation travel, meals and promotional events, among other things. The highly compensated political influence peddlers at the top of the untaxed sector of the U.S. economy have found their champion.


.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

And that's only part of the story. The employers forced to pay more for unskilled labor will not only raise their prices, they will also hire fewer workers in the future. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (as Obama proposed last year) would mean 500,000 fewer jobs over the next 12 months.

Minimum wage jobs should be a stepping stone, not a career. I bet nearly everyone on this board worked at such a job at one time in their working lives before moving on to bigger and better things.

Here's the simple economics of it. When the mandatory minimum wage is increased, the associated costs of providing commodities and services also increase; hence, an increase in prices across the market spectrum. Minimum wage earners, such as fast food workers, necessarily, are required to pay more for the food they purchase at Macky D's. Additionally, such fast food workers are required to pay more for their Skittles and Air Jordans, etc., they purchase at Walmart because retailers are similarly forced to pay their clerks and stock boys more. And that's just in the private sector.

Wage/price inflation also hits public sector employees. Their wages and salaries will similarly be increased to offset the rise in prices, and it's the taxpayers―including those minimum wage workers at Macky D's and Walmart―who shoulder the costs of that increase.

And you are correct, statistics show that a mandatory minimum wage does contribute to unemployment. Without wage elasticity, employers are forced to make due with fewer employees.

"The General Theory [Keynes (1936)] argues that workers strongly resist cuts in nominal contractual wage levels. Because of this, after a shock to the economy which reduces the equilibrium level of nominal contractual wages, the contractual wage remains above the equilibrium level and unemployment results."

Plus, when a mandatory minimum wage reaches a certain point, e.g., surpassing the costs of machine technology, mechanization becomes an attractive and relatively inexpensive alternative to flesh and blood employees who consequently find themselves unemployed: replaced by more dependable and less expensive machines.

Originally Posted by shanm

Boo-hoo motherfucker. You should be the last person to comment on what's "offensive and racist". You and your gaggle of dick suckers are the biggest bigots/racists/chauvinists/xenophobes/white-supremacists to exist not only on this board, but anywhere. Don't act like such a prissy little bitch now, you hypocritical worm. Whatever I said pales in comparison to the shit you and your white-hooded sidekick, IBMoron, come up with on a daily basis.
I have nothing against jews. Kissinger is a genocidal maniac and on him the stereotype of power-hungry jew is 100% accurate. I would take a shit on his face if I had the chance to.

The only racist, sheet-wearing moron in a pointy-hood in this forum is you, shamman.

[WombRaider]

Seems you're full of shit, Hankering.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...r0IEq5a9E77NMV

http://www.businessforafairminimumwa...cause-job-loss

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here's the simple economics of it....

Your analysis is correct but the effects go even further... since many negotiated labor rates are linked to the federal minimum (e.g. workers receive 150% of the MW, etc.) the inflation and employment impacts can actually percolate far more broadly throughout the entire economy. Here's an explanation:



Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage

Labor contracts are often tied to the law—and it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.

By Richard Berman

Feb. 25, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union member—at least one who still has a job—earns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.

The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.

The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."

The labor contracts that we examined used a variety of methods to trigger the increases. The two most popular formulas were setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage or mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage.

Other union contracts stipulate that, following a minimum-wage increase, the union and the employer reopen wage talks. The negotiations could pressure employers and unions to hammer out a new contract, regardless of how long their existing contracts last. Presumably the reopened negotiations could also prompt an employer's demand for union givebacks, but that possibility does not seem to scare the unions.

Minimum-wage hikes are beneficial to unions in other ways. The increases restrict the ability of businesses to hire low-skill workers who might gladly work for lower wages in order to gain experience. Union members thus face less competition from workers who might threaten union jobs.

This view is not speculation. A 2004 study in the Journal of Human Resources by economists William Wascher,Mark Schweitzer and David Neumark determined that lower-wage union workers typically see a boost in employment and earned income following a mandated wage hike. Never mind the corresponding drop in jobs and earned income for nonunion minimum-wage workers. They may have been priced out of the jobs they need, but that is not the union's concern—its members have landed higher wages and reduced competition for jobs.

Such considerations are worth keeping in mind when contemplating the president's wage proposal and the fervent Democratic support for similar and often more ambitious measures, such as Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's bill to raise the minimum wage to $9.80. Labor unions spent an estimated $174 million on the 2012 election, with 91% of the money going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Now many union members could see their paychecks grow as the result of a Democrat-backed mandate—even though the overwhelming majority of scholarly evidence says that these wage increases have a negative effect on employment.

Mr. Berman is the executive director of the Center for Union Facts.


.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Your analysis is correct but the effects go even further... since many negotiated labor rates are linked to the federal minimum (e.g. workers receive 150% of the MW, etc.) the inflation and employment impacts can actually percolate far more broadly through the entire economy. Here's an explanation:

Why Unions Want a Higher Minimum Wage

Labor contracts are often tied to the law—and it reduces the competition for lower-paying jobs.

By Richard Berman

Feb. 25, 2013 6:59 p.m. ET

Organized labor's instantaneous support for President Obama's recent proposal to hike the minimum wage doesn't make much sense at first glance. The average private-sector union member—at least one who still has a job—earns $22 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a far cry from the current $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage, or the $9 per hour the president has proposed. Altruistic solidarity with lower-paid workers isn't the reason for organized labor's cheerleading, either.

The real reason is that some unions and their members directly benefit from minimum wage increases—even when nary a union member actually makes the minimum wage.

The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage.

The Labor Department's collective-bargaining agreements file has a limited number of contracts available, so we were unable to determine how widespread the practice is. But the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union says that pegging its wages to the federal minimum is commonplace. On its website, the UFCW notes that "oftentimes, union contracts are triggered to implement wage hikes in the case of minimum wage increases." Such increases, the UFCW says, are "one of the many advantages of being a union member."

The labor contracts that we examined used a variety of methods to trigger the increases. The two most popular formulas were setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage or mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage.

Other union contracts stipulate that, following a minimum-wage increase, the union and the employer reopen wage talks. The negotiations could pressure employers and unions to hammer out a new contract, regardless of how long their existing contracts last. Presumably the reopened negotiations could also prompt an employer's demand for union givebacks, but that possibility does not seem to scare the unions.

Minimum-wage hikes are beneficial to unions in other ways. The increases restrict the ability of businesses to hire low-skill workers who might gladly work for lower wages in order to gain experience. Union members thus face less competition from workers who might threaten union jobs.

This view is not speculation. A 2004 study in the Journal of Human Resources by economists William Wascher,Mark Schweitzer and David Neumark determined that lower-wage union workers typically see a boost in employment and earned income following a mandated wage hike. Never mind the corresponding drop in jobs and earned income for nonunion minimum-wage workers. They may have been priced out of the jobs they need, but that is not the union's concern—its members have landed higher wages and reduced competition for jobs.

Such considerations are worth keeping in mind when contemplating the president's wage proposal and the fervent Democratic support for similar and often more ambitious measures, such as Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's bill to raise the minimum wage to $9.80. Labor unions spent an estimated $174 million on the 2012 election, with 91% of the money going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Now many union members could see their paychecks grow as the result of a Democrat-backed mandate—even though the overwhelming majority of scholarly evidence says that these wage increases have a negative effect on employment.

Mr. Berman is the executive director of the Center for Union Facts.


.

+1

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Seems you're full of shit, Hankering.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...r0IEq5a9E77NMV

http://www.businessforafairminimumwa...cause-job-loss

You'd be the one who has supped too much on excrement, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[T]he Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will cost 500,000 jobs.

Hurting Those It’s Meant to Help

The minimum wage is constantly sold as good for workers, or minorities or women. In truth, it hurts the most vulnerable and those its well-intentioned sponsors intend to help.

A study by Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither evaluated the effect of minimum wage increases on low-skilled workers during the recession and found that minimum wage increases between December 2006 and December 2012 “… reduced the national employment-population ratio by 0.7 percentage points.”4 That amounts to about 1.4 million jobs.
https://mises.org/library/yes-minimu...e-unemployment

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Seems you're full of shit, Hankering.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...r0IEq5a9E77NMV

http://www.businessforafairminimumwa...cause-job-loss

I would say you're the one who is full of it, undercunt. This is one of the most heavily researched economic questions I know of. There are plenty of studies out there. One economist looked at all of them and here's what he found:

University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He reports that 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."

It would appear the author of your second link cherry-picked from the 15% of the studies claiming to find no negative effect on employment while ignoring the other 85%.

Most of the studies claiming no negative employment effect focus on relatively small increases in the minimum wage - e.g. 10% or so - where it is harder to measure the impact against the noise of everything else going on in the economy. Or they compare states with different minimums - which isn't instructive on the federal level. I don't know any reputable economists who argue that steeper increases (50-100%) in the federal MW would not choke off employment.


http://www.creators.com/conservative...imum-wage.html

.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[SIZE="3"] [COLOR=black] Here's the simple economics of it. When the mandatory minimum wage is increased, the associated costs of providing commodities and services also increase; hence, an increase in prices across the market spectrum. Minimum wage earners, such as fast food workers, necessarily, are required to pay more for the food they purchase at Macky D's. Additionally, such fast food workers are required to pay more for their Skittles and Air Jordans, etc., they purchase at Walmart because retailers are similarly forced to pay their clerks and stock boys more. And that's just in the private sector.

Wage/price inflation also hits public sector employees. Their wages and salaries will similarly be increased to offset the rise in prices, and it's the taxpayers―including those minimum wage workers at Macky D's and Walmart―who shoulder the costs of that increase.

And you are correct, statistics show that a mandatory minimum wage does contribute to unemployment. Without wage elasticity, employers are forced to make due with fewer employees.

I already answered this horseshit earlier. Here, I'll quote it again. It's obvious you have no clue how "simple economics" works. If you want to quote one school of economics as absolute proof of whatever you're arguing then you really are dumb as shit. You would be the laughing stock of every academic if you ever tried this outside of a hooker board.

Originally Posted by shanm

yes, but here's the simple economics of it. When you raise the minimum wage, not every commodity goes up by the same amount. For example, the engineers making your car don't earn minimum wage, nor do the majority of workers making your car in the factory, therefore the prices of you car won't go up, at least by as much. That means that the people with higher minimum wage would better be able to afford the car without raising the price of the car. Raised standards of living, raised spending; helps the economy out overall. This is just an abstract example, you can apply it to most everyday items that you buy.
Secondly, think about it like this. Five workers work at a fast food restaurant making minimum wage. In about an hour, they serve 20 customers. Raising the min wage for those 5 workers will mean the rising cost is spread between the 20 customers, and so, if the prices should rise, it would be much less than the increase in costs caused by minimum wage.

As to your second point, you're right. Minimum wage jobs are usually jobs for people to gain experience and possibly go to college and earn a degree. But they can't do that when they are spending every waking minute of their lives working their ass off to support their families. They need time to maybe eat with their families, need time to attend classes, study and gain other skills that might get them OUT of earning minimum wage

A lot (and increasing number) of people work multiple jobs to support themselves on minimum wage. People who work at Mcdonalds, walmart etc, are more often than not working more than one shift. As such, the minimum wage is not raised year by year to reflect rising costs of inflation. Let's say that you live on chocolate bars costing $10, and your yearly wage is also $10. Next year, that chocolate bar will cost $11, while your wage might still be the same if you are on minimum wage. If not you, then the next person just entering the job market on minimum wage will not be able to afford the same chocolate bar that you lived on. Lower standards of living. Why is it, that someone who was making minimum wage 20 years ago has a better standard of living than someone working on minimum wage now. Doesn't seem like equal opportunity to me.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Plus, when a mandatory minimum wage reaches a certain point, e.g., surpassing the costs of machine technology, mechanization becomes an attractive and relatively inexpensive alternative to flesh and blood employees who consequently find themselves unemployed: replaced by more dependable and less expensive machines.

This is a valid point. It can be taken as one of the possible downsides of increasing minimum wage.
See, what you don't understand is that economics is a social science. It is not chemistry. When one idea is applied in economics, it has both positives and negatives and it's hard to tell what the end result would be without implementing it first. Therefore, arguing economics with one "fact" or another is exceedingly stupid. It is one of the premier fields where decisions are made on a consensus of expert opinion. Right now, that consensus seems to indicate that raising the wages will help. You will excuse me if I don't take the word of a dipshit on a hooker board over someone who devotes his/her entire life to the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...duces-poverty/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

I already answered this horseshit earlier. Here, I'll quote it again. It's obvious you have no clue how "simple economics" works. If you want to quote one school of economics as absolute proof of whatever you're arguing then you really are dumb as shit. You would be the laughing stock of every academic if you ever tried this outside of a hooker board.

This is a valid point. It can be taken as one of the possible downsides of increasing minimum wage.
See, what you don't understand is that economics is a social science. It is not chemistry. When one idea is applied in economics, it has both positives and negatives and it's hard to tell what the end result would be without implementing it first. Therefore, arguing economics with one "fact" or another is exceedingly stupid. It is one of the premier fields where decisions are made on a consensus of expert opinion. Right now, that consensus seems to indicate that raising the wages will help. You will excuse me if I don't take the word of a dipshit on a hooker board over someone who devotes his/her entire life to the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...duces-poverty/

Your answer was stupidly wrong because you ignored how price increases would happen across the board ... not just in the fast food industry, shamman, and don't forget how unemployment can arise when industry outsources to other countries when the price for domestic labor becomes too steep.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I would say you're the one who is full of it, undercunt. This is one of the most heavily researched economic questions I know of. There are plenty of studies out there. One economist looked at all of them and here's what he found:

University of California, Irvine economist David Neumark has examined more than 100 major academic studies on the minimum wage. He reports that 85 percent of the studies "find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers."

It would appear the author of your second link cherry-picked from the 15% of the studies claiming to find no negative effect on employment while ignoring the other 85%.

Most of the studies claiming no negative employment effect focus on relatively small increases in the minimum wage - e.g. 10% or so - where it is harder to measure the impact against the noise of everything else going on in the economy. I don't know any reputable economists who argue that steeper increases (50-100%) would not choke off employment.


http://www.creators.com/conservative...imum-wage.html

.

Who the fuck is talking about a 50-100% increase? Jesus Christ, is that the number you have to hit to make it worse for the economy?
So if paying them more is problematic, what is your solution? I see you pointing out problems, but not offering any answers. Pointing out the problem is the easy part.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your answer was stupidly wrong because you ignored how price increases would happen across the board ... not just in the fast food industry, shamman, and don't forget how unemployment can arise when industry outsources to other countries when the price for domestic labor becomes too steep.

Total bullshit. How is McDonalds going to outsource, you fucking mope. They'll go to total robotics before they do that. You've got to be one of, if not the, dumbest motherfucker on this whole thing. Doesn't your act ever get old? I mean, goddamn, that shit has to get old after awhile. Once you grubered odumbo minioned so many times, it just must be a chore to keep it up for appearance sake at this point.

"Most economists believe that an increase in the minimum wage causes higher prices and lower employment. This belief rests partly on empirical evidence, but also on the view that labor markets are competitive; if markets are competitive, then increases in the minimum wage should both raise prices and reduce employment. However, a number of studies in the last decade have challenged these beliefs. Some of these studies have argued that the market for low-skilled labor has special characteristics that undermine the traditional economic consensus. They claim that the market for low-skilled labor isn’t competitive and employers have the power to set wages. As a result, an increase in the minimum wage will not necessarily lead to employment loss."

You need to get with the times you oafish dipshit.

https://www.epionline.org/studies/r100/

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who the fuck is talking about a 50-100% increase? Jesus Christ, is that the number you have to hit to make it worse for the economy?
So if paying them more is problematic, what is your solution? I see you pointing out problems, but not offering any answers. Pointing out the problem is the easy part.

$15 per hour is a 100%+ increase from $7.25, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Total bullshit. How is McDonalds going to outsource, you fucking mope. They'll go to total robotics before they do that. You've got to be one of, if not the, dumbest motherfucker on this whole thing. Doesn't your act ever get old? I mean, goddamn, that shit has to get old after awhile. Once you grubered odumbo minioned so many times, it just must be a chore to keep it up for appearance sake at this point.

"Most economists believe that an increase in the minimum wage causes higher prices and lower employment. This belief rests partly on empirical evidence, but also on the view that labor markets are competitive; if markets are competitive, then increases in the minimum wage should both raise prices and reduce employment. However, a number of studies in the last decade have challenged these beliefs. Some of these studies have argued that the market for low-skilled labor has special characteristics that undermine the traditional economic consensus. They claim that the market for low-skilled labor isn’t competitive and employers have the power to set wages. As a result, an increase in the minimum wage will not necessarily lead to employment loss."

You need to get with the times you oafish dipshit.

https://www.epionline.org/studies/r100/

Keynes, Mises.org, The Wall Street Journal and the CBO say you're full of shit, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your answer was stupidly wrong because you ignored how price increases would happen across the board ... not just in the fast food industry, shamman, and don't forget how unemployment can arise when industry outsources to other countries when the price for domestic labor becomes too steep.

This is the third time I'm quoting my own post you dense mother fucker. Pay close attention this time. The question you keep prattling again and again is answered here.

Originally Posted by shanm

When you raise the minimum wage, not every commodity goes up by the same amount. For example, the engineers making your car don't earn minimum wage, nor do the majority of workers making your car in the factory, therefore the prices of you car won't go up, at least by as much. That means that the people with higher minimum wage would better be able to afford the car without raising the price of the car. Raised standards of living, raised spending; helps the economy out overall. This is just an abstract example, you can apply it to most everyday items that you buy.
Secondly, think about it like this. Five workers work at a fast food restaurant making minimum wage. In about an hour, they serve 20 customers. Raising the min wage for those 5 workers will mean the rising cost is spread between the 20 customers, and so, if the prices should rise, it would be much less than the increase in costs caused by minimum wage.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by shanm

This is the third time I'm quoting my own post you dense mother fucker. Pay close attention this time. The question you keep prattling again and again is answered here.

You're the dense mutha fucker, shamman, because even law firms and engineers pay custodians, etc., minimum wage, you stupid jackass, and any increase in costs are passed on to the consumers -- and that includes minimum wage earners; thus, negating any financial boon they thought they gained by such government intrusion. Despite mandatory minimum wage increases since 1955, there has been no substantial change in the purchasing power of a minimum wage earner.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who the fuck is talking about a 50-100% increase? Jesus Christ, is that the number you have to hit to make it worse for the economy?
So if paying them more is problematic, what is your solution? I see you pointing out problems, but not offering any answers. Pointing out the problem is the easy part.

The current federal MW is $7.25, undercunt. Can you do the math? My calculator says $10.10 would spell a 39% hike.

If you understood economics at all, you would know it is a discipline that teaches us how to make choices and measure trade-offs. I don't necessarily have a problem with those who argue for a higher minimum wage (for political or even "social justice" reasons) if they are intellectually honest and don't deny the negative side-effects. Just say in your opinion the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Others can disagree and explain why. If you had any economics training, you could point out flaws in the methodology of some of the studies done on the subject, assuming you knew how to do this in good faith and on a professional level (which I have seen no sign of).

As for solutions, undercunt, they are fairly obvious. Raise your employable skill set and keep it sharp and you will never have to settle for a MW job. It's a free country and nobody is stopping you, except maybe Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren when they sap your motivation by telling you everything is rigged against you.

.