Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They increase the prevailing wage, thus creating upward pressure on all worker's wages.

1) they increase a wage but why would it become the prevailing wage or price of labor? Neiman Marcus likes to go higher in price while Wlamart likes to go lower. One price does not cause another.


2) also if you want a higher prevailing wage why not just ask congress to make $100/hour standard for everyone?? Why bother with
the protracted union stuff??



3)also, if the wage cost or raw material cost of any product goes up the price must go up. THis makes everyone poorer. If the price of food goes up we all get poorer not richer. Econ 101 for you day one class one minute one. Sorry

 

[Koios]

They increase the prevailing wage, thus creating upward pressure on all worker's wages.

1) they increase a wage but why would it become the prevailing wage or price of labor? Neiman Marcus likes to go higher in price while Wlamart likes to go lower. One price does not cause another.


2) also if you want a higher prevailing wage why not just ask congress to make $100 standard for everyone?? Why bother with
the protracted union stuff??



3)also, if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. THis makes everyone poorer. IF the price of food goes up we all get poorer not richer. Econ 101 for you day one class one minute one. Sorry








Looking at it in reverse, if wages for public sector workers are cut in half, the prevailing wage drops, making your value in the worker supply and demand equasion less. You fuck them, you fuck yourself. You raise them up, you benefit yourself. A fact, which you are too stupid to grasp.

[/QUOTE]

1) you merely showed your ignorance of what drives the prevailing wage and the supply and demand equasion you apprently love by haven't the basest grasp of.

2) retarded fucking question, previously asked and answered. If you can type, surely you can read too, even if as I suspect, your IQ is down around 105 or so.

3) Markets are dynamic, and prices are driven principally by volume targets, which is a relatively simple model in business for setting end-user prices and dealer margin, but trying to get your pea brain around it would require a team of surgeons and advances in medicine to safely transplant a human brain. Obviously not doable via this forum, or by anyone for that matter. So we'll let if go. K?

 

[whitehall]

It's strange that when the stock market spikes during the Obama administration (however seldom) the left credits Hussein but when the union thugs squeeze municipalities dry the left rants about "corporate profits. Every pension system in the United States depends on "corporate profits". Most small businesses that are barely getting by under tons of federal regulations incorporate to avoid some of the red tape. "corporate profits" r us.

 

[Toro]

it's just that unions are generally bad for capitalism. And unions should not be in the public sector, as they extort taxpayers and destroy competitive bidding on contracts. Even FDR agreed with that.

I generally agree with you on public service unions. I don't agree that unions are generally bad for capitalism. I think they are agnostic for capitalism, with some positives and some negatives.

Nope. All positive, including folks whose employer is our government, who are not indentured servants nor property of the state. They're workers, with every right we have, and the exact same obligations under our tax code.

The thing that Conservatives, and even many Liberals, fail to grasp, despite it's obvious truth in a Consumer Economy, which is what the USA is: our value is not in what we do; it's in what we buy.

Robert Riech, easily the most-eminent political economist of our generation, wrote a book recently, in which he advocated all Americans get a minimum of $50,000. Those not working get it all; those working and making less would be supplimented. Those making more, are already there, and get nothing. But everyone can consume at a $50 grand a year level, at a minimum, exploding the market. Novel concept, which I'm not in complete agreement with, since I think it borders on a level that might disincentivize too great a percentage of our workforce. But the economics are incredibly sound.

Consider the problem with poverty: needs not being served, when we have a market based entirely on meeting needs. Consumer need, is the lifeblood of businesses. And the more doing so, increases the effects of supply and demand, making the market more free market-like. When markets contract, businesses seek policies that diminish the effects of supply and demand, to create more profit from what they have, rather than going after market opportunity. This effect, is sometimes called, metaphorically, looking for rembrandts in the attic. And it leads to rent-seeking, as we call it in economics, where larger pieces of what's there are taken, by government mandate / policies, driving prices up for consumers, without adding value or production. Not a good thing.

And we do things now, trying to help grow consumption: credit is loosened, or like now, we borrow from our future retirement (2% drop in payroll taxes) to get us spending more today. Also, tax credits and rebates move us to buy stuff, from those who have it to sell and can influence policy, i.e. GE with expensive lightbulbs that save energy, but really don't cost justify for typical consumers. So EPA pays rebates to retailers, who take it off the price, letting you buy up to four, for 20% of the cost.

So looking at the poor and unemployed, in that light: need not being served. You'll see that empowering them, so they can meet their need, is a huge boom to those who serve the need, and drive the economy and jobs forward. And rather that $50 K for everyone, I'd advocate immediate upping of the Minimum Wage to around $12 / hour, and get welfare, SSI and UI recipients to something near to that level, but so close as to be equal: circa $9 / hr / x40 / x 52 ... just under $19 K a year.

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all, far better than simply a few union workers, principally in public service sector jobs, boosting only slightly, and not by much, the prevailing wage ... which in aggregate, has been moving backward most of the last 1/3 century.

Our wealth is not derived from what we buy. Our wealth is derived from technological innovation.

Demand has everywhere and always existed. It exists in the poorest nations on earth as much as it does in America. Demand does not explain wealth.

Wealth is derived from producing more with less. We are wealthier when, at the same cost, we can produce 10 bushels of crops an acre than we are when we can only produce 1 bushel an acre. Of course, there is demand for food, but there is always demand for food. But we are richer if we produce more for the same amount or less.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1) you merely showed your ignorance

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor. Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down??

 

[Koios]

I generally agree with you on public service unions. I don't agree that unions are generally bad for capitalism. I think they are agnostic for capitalism, with some positives and some negatives.

Nope. All positive, including folks whose employer is our government, who are not indentured servants nor property of the state. They're workers, with every right we have, and the exact same obligations under our tax code.

The thing that Conservatives, and even many Liberals, fail to grasp, despite it's obvious truth in a Consumer Economy, which is what the USA is: our value is not in what we do; it's in what we buy.

Robert Riech, easily the most-eminent political economist of our generation, wrote a book recently, in which he advocated all Americans get a minimum of $50,000. Those not working get it all; those working and making less would be supplimented. Those making more, are already there, and get nothing. But everyone can consume at a $50 grand a year level, at a minimum, exploding the market. Novel concept, which I'm not in complete agreement with, since I think it borders on a level that might disincentivize too great a percentage of our workforce. But the economics are incredibly sound.

Consider the problem with poverty: needs not being served, when we have a market based entirely on meeting needs. Consumer need, is the lifeblood of businesses. And the more doing so, increases the effects of supply and demand, making the market more free market-like. When markets contract, businesses seek policies that diminish the effects of supply and demand, to create more profit from what they have, rather than going after market opportunity. This effect, is sometimes called, metaphorically, looking for rembrandts in the attic. And it leads to rent-seeking, as we call it in economics, where larger pieces of what's there are taken, by government mandate / policies, driving prices up for consumers, without adding value or production. Not a good thing.

And we do things now, trying to help grow consumption: credit is loosened, or like now, we borrow from our future retirement (2% drop in payroll taxes) to get us spending more today. Also, tax credits and rebates move us to buy stuff, from those who have it to sell and can influence policy, i.e. GE with expensive lightbulbs that save energy, but really don't cost justify for typical consumers. So EPA pays rebates to retailers, who take it off the price, letting you buy up to four, for 20% of the cost.

So looking at the poor and unemployed, in that light: need not being served. You'll see that empowering them, so they can meet their need, is a huge boom to those who serve the need, and drive the economy and jobs forward. And rather that $50 K for everyone, I'd advocate immediate upping of the Minimum Wage to around $12 / hour, and get welfare, SSI and UI recipients to something near to that level, but so close as to be equal: circa $9 / hr / x40 / x 52 ... just under $19 K a year.

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all, far better than simply a few union workers, principally in public service sector jobs, boosting only slightly, and not by much, the prevailing wage ... which in aggregate, has been moving backward most of the last 1/3 century.

Our wealth is not derived from what we buy. Our wealth is derived from technological innovation.

Demand has everywhere and always existed. It exists in the poorest nations on earth as much as it does in America. Demand does not explain wealth.

Wealth is derived from producing more with less. We are wealthier when, at the same cost, we can produce 10 bushels of crops an acre than we are when we can only produce 1 bushel an acre. Of course, there is demand for food, but there is always demand for food. But we are richer if we produce more for the same amount or less.

Our wealth, pay, etc, derives from what others buy, unless you're purchasing goods your own company sells.

It's a consumer-based economy. None too complicated to grasp, I'd think.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

????

also if you want a higher prevailing wage why not just ask congress to make $100/hour standard for everyone?? Why bother with
the protracted union stuff that may make wages go down??

 

[Koios]

1) you merely showed your ignorance

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor. Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down??

No; I didn't, Ed. Try that readin' thing again, which I'm confident you have in ya.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

3) Markets are dynamic, and prices are driven principally by volume targets, which is a relatively simple model in business for setting end-user prices and dealer margin,

if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.

 

[Koios]

I generally agree with you on public service unions. I don't agree that unions are generally bad for capitalism. I think they are agnostic for capitalism, with some positives and some negatives.

Nope. All positive, including folks whose employer is our government, who are not indentured servants nor property of the state. They're workers, with every right we have, and the exact same obligations under our tax code.

The thing that Conservatives, and even many Liberals, fail to grasp, despite it's obvious truth in a Consumer Economy, which is what the USA is: our value is not in what we do; it's in what we buy.

Robert Riech, easily the most-eminent political economist of our generation, wrote a book recently, in which he advocated all Americans get a minimum of $50,000. Those not working get it all; those working and making less would be supplimented. Those making more, are already there, and get nothing. But everyone can consume at a $50 grand a year level, at a minimum, exploding the market. Novel concept, which I'm not in complete agreement with, since I think it borders on a level that might disincentivize too great a percentage of our workforce. But the economics are incredibly sound.

Consider the problem with poverty: needs not being served, when we have a market based entirely on meeting needs. Consumer need, is the lifeblood of businesses. And the more doing so, increases the effects of supply and demand, making the market more free market-like. When markets contract, businesses seek policies that diminish the effects of supply and demand, to create more profit from what they have, rather than going after market opportunity. This effect, is sometimes called, metaphorically, looking for rembrandts in the attic. And it leads to rent-seeking, as we call it in economics, where larger pieces of what's there are taken, by government mandate / policies, driving prices up for consumers, without adding value or production. Not a good thing.

And we do things now, trying to help grow consumption: credit is loosened, or like now, we borrow from our future retirement (2% drop in payroll taxes) to get us spending more today. Also, tax credits and rebates move us to buy stuff, from those who have it to sell and can influence policy, i.e. GE with expensive lightbulbs that save energy, but really don't cost justify for typical consumers. So EPA pays rebates to retailers, who take it off the price, letting you buy up to four, for 20% of the cost.

So looking at the poor and unemployed, in that light: need not being served. You'll see that empowering them, so they can meet their need, is a huge boom to those who serve the need, and drive the economy and jobs forward. And rather that $50 K for everyone, I'd advocate immediate upping of the Minimum Wage to around $12 / hour, and get welfare, SSI and UI recipients to something near to that level, but so close as to be equal: circa $9 / hr / x40 / x 52 ... just under $19 K a year.

And indeed, supporting more unionization, will help drive up the prevailing wages for us all, far better than simply a few union workers, principally in public service sector jobs, boosting only slightly, and not by much, the prevailing wage ... which in aggregate, has been moving backward most of the last 1/3 century.

Our wealth is not derived from what we buy. Our wealth is derived from technological innovation.

Demand has everywhere and always existed. It exists in the poorest nations on earth as much as it does in America. Demand does not explain wealth.

Wealth is derived from producing more with less. We are wealthier when, at the same cost, we can produce 10 bushels of crops an acre than we are when we can only produce 1 bushel an acre. Of course, there is demand for food, but there is always demand for food. But we are richer if we produce more for the same amount or less.

That's not true. What it does is raise production relative to wealth; in short, folks now buy more with the same wealth. The benefit then, is more production is needed, driving more hiring, for producers, those who transport and those who sell.

Consider what happens when you can buy twice as many corn on the cob for the same dough. More tonnage for shippers, and more work to display it on the produce aisle, not to mention you'll use more of them plastic bags packing it up and the checkout folks might put you in two bags instead of one. The folks who make bags are delighted at the increased use of them. But nowhere was wealth increased. The same dollars are handled and zipping through the economy at a high monetary velocity point, where the real value lies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No; I didn't, Ed. Try that readin' thing again, which I'm confident you have in ya.

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor or the union wage became the prevailing wage.

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

 

[Koios]

3) Markets are dynamic, and prices are driven principally by volume targets, which is a relatively simple model in business for setting end-user prices and dealer margin,

if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.

Sure. But wage cost does not go up when volume increases, and can, and does often, go down. It's a percentage, Ed. Did they cover percentage math when you were in school?

 

[Koios]

No; I didn't, Ed. Try that readin' thing again, which I'm confident you have in ya.

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor or the union wage became the prevailing wage.

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

Rather than you recasting what I said, just quote it, verbatim. Then I'll expand on it if you wish. K?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our wealth is not derived from what we buy. Our wealth is derived from technological innovation.

our wealth from the stone age to here is of course derived from technological innovations and expressed in what we can buy as a result of the innovations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No; I didn't, Ed. Try that readin' thing again, which I'm confident you have in ya.

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor or the union wage became the prevailing wage.

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

Rather than you recasting what I said, just quote it, verbatim. Then I'll expand on it if you wish. K?

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

3) Markets are dynamic, and prices are driven principally by volume targets, which is a relatively simple model in business for setting end-user prices and dealer margin,

if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.

Sure. But wage cost does not go up when volume increases, and can, and does often, go down.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! Do you have any idea why you are changing the subject to volume increases when it is not remotely related??

ONce again: if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[Mr Natural]

if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.

Sure. But wage cost does not go up when volume increases, and can, and does often, go down.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! Do you have any idea why you are changing the subject to volume increases when it is not remotely related??

ONce again: if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

So let me see if I've this straight. Somehow we'd all be a lot better off if we made less money?


And he wonders why we call him Special Ed.

 

[Koios]

you said a wage increase from a union action drove up all wages or the price of all labor or the union wage became the prevailing wage.

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

Rather than you recasting what I said, just quote it, verbatim. Then I'll expand on it if you wish. K?

Why not explain why you think that would drive up wages rather than drive them down? or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Trying to change the subject fools no one

You're right. Waiting for you to respond to what I did say is folly. Just get on with moving it forward.

So in re: it raises the prevailing wage which puts upward pressure on wages, here's how:

Tangible: HR departments rely heavily on surveys of the PREVIALING WAGE (what's being paid for similar work, on average ... well, median, not average.)

Intangible: garbage collector makes $60 grand or whatever. No fucking way I get a good manager and pay them half what a goddamn garbage man makes.

Tangible/Intangible: state patrol get's a whopper raise, since their union grew a pair and acted on the behalf of folks paying dues. Imagine that. Earning their union pay. But anyway, now you think city and county cops ain't paying attention, and bringing it up when chatting with the city or country next time their contract is up for re-negosh? Fuck me if they don't.

For the great unwashed: cops and garbage men are making X, where does that move the value perception on the rest of us?

Are you getting a sense? Wait; don't answer; I already know.

 

[Koios]

if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.

Sure. But wage cost does not go up when volume increases, and can, and does often, go down.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! Do you have any idea why you are changing the subject to volume increases when it is not remotely related??

ONce again: if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

I'm tired of reading that bullshit response, ad nasseum. Surely, it's getting tedious for you to type it; yeah?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sure. But wage cost does not go up when volume increases, and can, and does often, go down.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!! Do you have any idea why you are changing the subject to volume increases when it is not remotely related??

ONce again: if the wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

I'm tired of reading that bullshit response, ad nasseum. Surely, it's getting tedious for you to type it; yeah?

10th time:
if the union wage cost or raw material cost goes up the price must go up. This makes everyone poorer. Please don't try to change the subject again and assume it is not obvious that you are evading.