Laws of economics are as immutable as gravity

[DOTR]

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Again, not so. People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

Again so. By definition.

 

[DOTR]

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Again, not so. People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

The crux of the issue is raising the minimum too high results in the employee's added value to the product/service being less than what they are being paid.

At that point, the choices are raise prices, cut profit, automate, hire better employees, or go out of business.

Or accept the fact that some jobs are not intended to raise a family on. When I was a kid McDonalds was where teens learned to work and earned gas and movie money. That was before it became the go to job for single mothers with no education who now complain they can’t raise families working there.
Duh.

 

[pinqy]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Based on how many hours/week? The majority of minimum wage workers work part time, and the majority of minimum wage workers are either under the age of 25 or are married living with their spouses.

$25/hour doesn’t help part timers, and isn’t necessary for most students and married

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

 

[Crepitus]

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

That only impacts the lowest end jobs, and those jobs require the least skill. They are supposed to be bridges to higher paying, more responsible jobs, not careers.

I would rather the government pay some support to working people, than to pay support to people who don't work.

The idea is to get them off that support to self sustaining jobs. not stay as a fry cook for 25 years.

Not so. Starting wage effects ever job up the scale.

The problem is it can drop people off the end of the scale because if you have to pay more a person, why not hire a more skilled one.

And the one who drops off the end is the one who get government assistance until he lands another job. Excess labor is a problem that historically has always solved itself by creating new markets and opportunity.

 

[danielpalos]

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Government can clam they are worth a certain minimum wage, by fiat.

 

[DOTR]

Actually, the standard economist answer to everything is “it depends.”
For example, Henry Ford demonstrated under some circumstances raising pay can lower labor costs. But those circumstances were 9 hour days on an assembly line, and that sucks so bad that absenteeism was high and turnover was huge (requiring costs to train new employees and slowdown of production).
By making $5 a day possible (not everyone got that much) over $2.25/day, absenteeism an turnover dropped because no one wanted to risk losing their job when they wouldn’t be able to find anything even half as good.

So......IF the increase in wages is offset by a reduction in other costs (e.g. training costs of turnover) and/or increase in productivity, AND the wages are significantly higher than competitors, THEN increasing wages is a good idea.

Anyone who ever stepped foot in Whole Foods, or any grocery store, would know that for them, the pay raise would not reduce any other costs or result in higher productivity.

But the idiotic “living wage” supporters don’t recognize that if everyone increase wages, then you gain no benefits, only higher costs.

And in any case something has to compensate for the increased labor costs.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

Is that do? So if the government stops subsidizing then wages will rise? I’m all for that. Cut em off.
Do you even think before you regurgitate Marxism?

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Based on how many hours/week? The majority of minimum wage workers work part time, and the majority of minimum wage workers are either under the age of 25 or are married living with their spouses.

$25/hour doesn’t help part timers, and isn’t necessary for most students and married

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so that the Poor can afford our First World economy.

 

[pinqy]

People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

All businesses, not just big businesses. Hell, family run businesses and farms don’t have to pay family members anything at all.

And employees try to get the largest amount they think they can get away with. That’s what negotiation means.

 

[martybegan]

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

That only impacts the lowest end jobs, and those jobs require the least skill. They are supposed to be bridges to higher paying, more responsible jobs, not careers.

I would rather the government pay some support to working people, than to pay support to people who don't work.

The idea is to get them off that support to self sustaining jobs. not stay as a fry cook for 25 years.

Not so. Starting wage effects ever job up the scale.

The problem is it can drop people off the end of the scale because if you have to pay more a person, why not hire a more skilled one.

And the one who drops off the end is the one who get government assistance until he lands another job. Excess labor is a problem that historically has always solved itself by creating new markets and opportunity.

The places that have the most issues with this have the worst regulations and impediments for creating new markets and opportunities.

Then you get the typical progressive response, "the solution to problems caused by too much government is more government"

 

[pinqy]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Based on how many hours/week? The majority of minimum wage workers work part time, and the majority of minimum wage workers are either under the age of 25 or are married living with their spouses.

$25/hour doesn’t help part timers, and isn’t necessary for most students and married

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so that the Poor can afford our First World economy.

I read that the first dozen times you posted that. You really don’t need to repeat yourself

 

[Crepitus]

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Again, not so. People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

The crux of the issue is raising the minimum too high results in the employee's added value to the product/service being less than what they are being paid.

At that point, the choices are raise prices, cut profit, automate, hire better employees, or go out of business.

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.

If whole foods cannot survive as a company without the government subsidizing their employees then they will fail and a company that can will take their place.

No company is irreplaceable.

You kids are real big on saying let the market work, why don't you try it for a change.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

Is that do? So if the government stops subsidizing then wages will rise? I’m all for that. Cut em off.
Do you even think before you regurgitate Marxism?

A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

B. That's not what I said at all.

 

[Crepitus]

People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

All businesses, not just big businesses. Hell, family run businesses and farms don’t have to pay family members anything at all.

And employees try to get the largest amount they think they can get away with. That’s what negotiation means.

Except that all the power in the negotiating lies with the companies.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Based on how many hours/week? The majority of minimum wage workers work part time, and the majority of minimum wage workers are either under the age of 25 or are married living with their spouses.

$25/hour doesn’t help part timers, and isn’t necessary for most students and married

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so that the Poor can afford our First World economy.

I read that the first dozen times you posted that. You really don’t need to repeat yourself

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand, is the economic justification.

 

[pinqy]

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

Are you clsimi

People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

All businesses, not just big businesses. Hell, family run businesses and farms don’t have to pay family members anything at all.

And employees try to get the largest amount they think they can get away with. That’s what negotiation means.

Except that all the power in the negotiating lies with the companies.

Is that why we have doctors, plumbers, engineers, carpenters, working for minimum wage?

In all cases, wages depend on the supply of labor at any given wage and the demand for that labor at any given wage. Any individual worker or business can only deviate if there is something different from the norm.

 

[Crepitus]

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

Are you clsimi

People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

All businesses, not just big businesses. Hell, family run businesses and farms don’t have to pay family members anything at all.

And employees try to get the largest amount they think they can get away with. That’s what negotiation means.

Except that all the power in the negotiating lies with the companies.

Is that why we have doctors, plumbers, engineers, carpenters, working for minimum wage?

In all cases, wages depend on the supply of labor at any given wage and the demand for that labor at any given wage. Any individual worker or business can only deviate if there is something different from the norm.

The bottom wage, the floor, the starting point, effects every level all the way up.

BTW, what you are doing is called "the argument of the extremes" and is a sure sign you don't have a reasonable answer to the post.

 

[pinqy]

Based on how many hours/week? The majority of minimum wage workers work part time, and the majority of minimum wage workers are either under the age of 25 or are married living with their spouses.

$25/hour doesn’t help part timers, and isn’t necessary for most students and married

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so that the Poor can afford our First World economy.

I read that the first dozen times you posted that. You really don’t need to repeat yourself

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand, is the economic justification.

Higher paid labor raises costs to the employer (who does not benefit from increased tax revenue) and does not increase demand for the employers goods to offset increase costs.

 

[martybegan]

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Again, not so. People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

The crux of the issue is raising the minimum too high results in the employee's added value to the product/service being less than what they are being paid.

At that point, the choices are raise prices, cut profit, automate, hire better employees, or go out of business.

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.

You can't impose a high minimum wage and then say "let the market work"

That's retarded, even for a retard like you.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

Is that do? So if the government stops subsidizing then wages will rise? I’m all for that. Cut em off.
Do you even think before you regurgitate Marxism?

A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

B. That's not what I said at all.

You assume another company could do the same thing, but they would face the same base issue, having to pay someone more than the worth of their labor input.

 

[danielpalos]

you may be missing the point. it is a simple cost of living adjustment so the Poor can afford our first world economy.

I know what the intent is. That doesn’t change the fact that minimum wage does not necessarily mean poor.

And for the poor working part time, $15/hr is not a living wage.

So in the name of helping people who need it, employers would have to pay twice current wages mostly to people who don’t need it or it’s not enough.

I don’t consider that particularly efficient

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so that the Poor can afford our First World economy.

I read that the first dozen times you posted that. You really don’t need to repeat yourself

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand, is the economic justification.

Higher paid labor raises costs to the employer (who does not benefit from increased tax revenue) and does not increase demand for the employers goods to offset increase costs.

Employers get to deduct Labor costs.

 

[pinqy]

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

Are you clsimi

People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

All businesses, not just big businesses. Hell, family run businesses and farms don’t have to pay family members anything at all.

And employees try to get the largest amount they think they can get away with. That’s what negotiation means.

Except that all the power in the negotiating lies with the companies.

Is that why we have doctors, plumbers, engineers, carpenters, working for minimum wage?

In all cases, wages depend on the supply of labor at any given wage and the demand for that labor at any given wage. Any individual worker or business can only deviate if there is something different from the norm.

The bottom wage, the floor, the starting point, effects every level all the way up.

No, it doesn’t. You can eliminate the minimum wage altogether and that wouldn’t change salaries for skilled labor.

 

[Crepitus]

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

People are paid what they are worth.

Again, not so. People are paid what the big corporations want to pay which is the lowest amount they can get away with.

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

The crux of the issue is raising the minimum too high results in the employee's added value to the product/service being less than what they are being paid.

At that point, the choices are raise prices, cut profit, automate, hire better employees, or go out of business.

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.

Wages are artificially low thanks to pressure from the big corporate interests.

Wages are low for certain jobs due to an excess number of people who can do the job, and the low value the employee adds to the final product or service.

No, wages are artificially low because the government subsidizes the workers pay so Walmart (for example) can pay them less.

You guys who piss and moan about "entitlements" should be all over this. Why should the government be bearing the burden that belongs to the employers?

Is that do? So if the government stops subsidizing then wages will rise? I’m all for that. Cut em off.
Do you even think before you regurgitate Marxism?

A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

B. That's not what I said at all.

You assume another company could do the same thing, but they would face the same base issue, having to pay someone more than the worth of their labor input.

No, I assume another company would pay the laborer the worth of his labor input instead of less.