Laws of economics are as immutable as gravity

[DOTR]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

so what; that minimum Standard can be fixed by Government.

No it can’t. Move along comrade.

 

[danielpalos]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

so what; that minimum Standard can be fixed by Government.

No it can’t. Move along comrade.

in right wing fantasy, you are always right.

Government has the power to fix Standards for our republic.

 

[martybegan]

Any time the cost of any commodity is arbitrarily raised above its true economic value, three things will result:

(1). The consumers' usage of that commodity will be reduced,
(2). The consumers will seek alternatives, and
(3). A "black market" will be created for that commodity.

Consider: Let's say that the legislature of Pennsylvania, in a fit of healthy enthusiasm, decrees that a single-serving-size bag of potato chips will henceforth carry a tax of $5. (Larger containers proportionately larger tax). What will happen?

(1). Consumers of potato chips will eat less of them,
(2). Potato chip consumers will seek out other salty snacks, and
(3). Small-time entrepreneurs will start making potato chips in their basement and selling them out of the trunks of their cars.

Let's say the national Minimum Wage is increased to $15. Base-level services are a commodity.

(1). The consumers of MW employment (i.e., employers) will use less of it. Hours and headcount reduced.
(2). Employers will look to automation and other options to employment of people, and
(3). Employers will start contracting out services formerly done by employees to less scrupulous employers who may not obey the law, strictly speaking. Or paying people under the counter.

The laws of economics are pretty much valid.

You forget one other impact, that the higher wage will attract more competent persons, leaving the original jobholder unemployed.

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

So does socialism. It's called the gulag.

 

[danielpalos]

Any time the cost of any commodity is arbitrarily raised above its true economic value, three things will result:

(1). The consumers' usage of that commodity will be reduced,
(2). The consumers will seek alternatives, and
(3). A "black market" will be created for that commodity.

Consider: Let's say that the legislature of Pennsylvania, in a fit of healthy enthusiasm, decrees that a single-serving-size bag of potato chips will henceforth carry a tax of $5. (Larger containers proportionately larger tax). What will happen?

(1). Consumers of potato chips will eat less of them,
(2). Potato chip consumers will seek out other salty snacks, and
(3). Small-time entrepreneurs will start making potato chips in their basement and selling them out of the trunks of their cars.

Let's say the national Minimum Wage is increased to $15. Base-level services are a commodity.

(1). The consumers of MW employment (i.e., employers) will use less of it. Hours and headcount reduced.
(2). Employers will look to automation and other options to employment of people, and
(3). Employers will start contracting out services formerly done by employees to less scrupulous employers who may not obey the law, strictly speaking. Or paying people under the counter.

The laws of economics are pretty much valid.

You forget one other impact, that the higher wage will attract more competent persons, leaving the original jobholder unemployed.

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

So does socialism. It's called the gulag.

There are no true capitalist economies; all economies have the socialism of Government and that form of mixed market economy.

 

[DOTR]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

so what; that minimum Standard can be fixed by Government.

No it can’t. Move along comrade.

in right wing fantasy, you are always right.

Government has the power to fix Standards for our republic.

Your faith in government is immense. Can they legislate gravity to make objects fall upwards?

 

[danielpalos]

You forget that Labor still needs to be accomplished. Less labor usually means less productivity.

And, what you omit, is that the rise in the minimum wage is merely a cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

Not at all. Some jobs are only worth a minimum payment.

so what; that minimum Standard can be fixed by Government.

No it can’t. Move along comrade.

in right wing fantasy, you are always right.

Government has the power to fix Standards for our republic.

Your faith in government is immense. Can they legislate gravity to make objects fall upwards?

Does it matter? 1929 already happened.

 

[Crepitus]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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.

Even for you that was a stupid thing to say.

What do you think is stupid about it.

 

[Crepitus]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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.

 

[Crepitus]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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.

lol. Is Crepitus a parody account? It’s hard to tell with these people at times because even when not parodies they try to twist and corrupt ideas.

Don't be stupier than you have to be son, it makes us all look bad.

 

[martybegan]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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

 

[Crepitus]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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?

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[martybegan]

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?

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

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.

 

[DOTR]

They made the politically correct decision. But workers suffer for wrong economic decisions.

Whole Foods reportedly cuts worker hours to make up for its new $15-an-hour wage

View attachment 249156

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

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

 

[martybegan]

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?

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.