Laws of economics are as immutable as gravity

[Crepitus]

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

So the forces that made the first company go out of business would magically disappear because why?

The issue with a high minimum wage, i.e. a living wage is paying someone MORE than they are worth, by force, not less.

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

Current circumstances are different from decades ago.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

So the forces that made the first company go out of business would magically disappear because why?

The issue with a high minimum wage, i.e. a living wage is paying someone MORE than they are worth, by force, not less.

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

why should we Care if Lousy capitalists who can Only make it on Cheap labor in our first world economy, fail?

I agree to a certain extent. The labors of the many support the few at the top, when there really should be plenty for all.

 

[DOTR]

So the forces that made the first company go out of business would magically disappear because why?

The issue with a high minimum wage, i.e. a living wage is paying someone MORE than they are worth, by force, not less.

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

You’d love Venezuela’s. They have 4 minimum wage hikes per month.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

You’d love Venezuela’s. They have minimum wage hikes per month.

why only complain when the Poor may benefit; you didn't complain about price inflation for fuel.

 

[DOTR]

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

You’d love Venezuela’s. They have minimum wage hikes per month.

why only complain when the Poor may benefit; you didn't complain about price inflation for fuel.

Gas is a nickel a gallon in Venezuela. Now if only they had something to eat...

 

[danielpalos]

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

You’d love Venezuela’s. They have minimum wage hikes per month.

why only complain when the Poor may benefit; you didn't complain about price inflation for fuel.

Gas is a nickel a gallon in Venezuela. Now if only they had something to eat...

What a difference good management can make. How much was fuel in Hooverville in 1929?

 

[danielpalos]

FDR's social programs modernized our economy and the war ensured full employment. Command economics all the way.

 

[Supposn]

So they were overstaffed?
Or are they just planning to sell less?
Or were the employees inefficient?

ItFitzMe, good points. Commercial enterprises are not required to hire or retain any individuals.
If they cannot legally manage their affairs in a manner to comply with the federal minimum wage rate, it's to our nation's net benefit that they cease to operate rather than net undermining our nation's economy.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

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

… I suppose but will not waste my time searching to confirm, if you are or aren't among those explicitly referring to economic concepts as economic “laws”... Due to the economic concept of “wage differentials”, to the extent of the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power and its legal enforcement in the USA, it also to some extent bolsters all other than USA's minimum wage rate.

DOTR, governments should strive for their maximum net benefits. I'm among those considering our nation's population's maximum and sustainable living standards should be our nation's economic policies' primary purpose. I also believe the USA could more likely achieve that purpose if independent participants competed within our nation's marketplaces.

There are others of contrary opinions. They consider maximum sustainable profits for investors should be our economic policies primary purpose and that in turn would lead to our nation's maximum and sustainable living standards. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Maximum sustainable profits for investors does not absolutely require marketplace participants to independently compete. On the contrary, investors prefer certainty and competitive marketplaces are very much uncertain. Although those stressing free enterprise are always speaking of competitive marketplaces and maximum living standards, profits are investors' primary concerns. Both sustained profits and competition cannot always be maximized.

Maximum sustainable profits for investors does not absolutely require democracy. Investors profits, (particularly for politically well-connected investors) are more certain and greater within more totalitarian government jurisdictions. To the extent that employees have “inalieable rights” their employers' are subject to some restrictions as to how they're permitted to profit.


Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[MAGAman]

Who didn’t see this coming...

why bother with corporate tax cuts.

To increase employment, and reduce exporting jobs.

IOW, MAGA.

 

[DOTR]

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

… I suppose but will not waste my time searching to confirm, if you are or aren't among those explicitly referring to economic concepts as economic “laws”... Due to the economic concept of “wage differentials”, to the extent of the federal minimum wage rate's purchasing power and its legal enforcement in the USA, it also to some extent bolsters all other than USA's minimum wage rate.

DOTR, governments should strive for their maximum net benefits. I'm among those considering our nation's population's maximum and sustainable living standards should be our nation's economic policies' primary purpose. I also believe the USA could more likely achieve that purpose if independent participants competed within our nation's marketplaces.

There are others of contrary opinions. They consider maximum sustainable profits for investors should be our economic policies primary purpose and that in turn would lead to our nation's maximum and sustainable living standards. This is not a distinction without a difference.

Maximum sustainable profits for investors does not absolutely require marketplace participants to independently compete. On the contrary, investors prefer certainty and competitive marketplaces are very much uncertain. Although those stressing free enterprise are always speaking of competitive marketplaces and maximum living standards, profits are investors' primary concerns. Both sustained profits and competition cannot always be maximized.

Maximum sustainable profits for investors does not absolutely require democracy. Investors profits, (particularly for politically well-connected investors) are more certain and greater within more totalitarian government jurisdictions. To the extent that employees have “inalieable rights” their employers' are subject to some restrictions as to how they're permitted to profit.


Respectfully, Supposn​

You know I actually spent about 18 or 20 minutes when I first came here trying out solutions. But you are dealing with liberal political animals here...and that is their whole life and focus. An obsession with ideology and power.
But there are solutions. They just don’t always involve handouts and theft.

 

[DOTR]

Who didn’t see this coming...

why bother with corporate tax cuts.

To increase employment, and reduce exporting jobs.

IOW, MAGA.

Seems to be working. WINNING!

 

[martybegan]

So the forces that made the first company go out of business would magically disappear because why?

The issue with a high minimum wage, i.e. a living wage is paying someone MORE than they are worth, by force, not less.

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

No, it isn't because it raises the overall cost of things, which then requires more salary, which raises the cost of things.....

 

[martybegan]

So the forces that made the first company go out of business would magically disappear because why?

The issue with a high minimum wage, i.e. a living wage is paying someone MORE than they are worth, by force, not less.

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

Current circumstances are different from decades ago.

The economic forces are the same. Sorry, but the whole idea of a living wage just creates stagnation in the lower job markets, or in some cases eliminates them entirely.

 

[Crepitus]

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

No, it isn't because it raises the overall cost of things, which then requires more salary, which raises the cost of things.....

Oh but it is. Prices will not necessarily go up. There is a point where people will stop buy the product, or move to a less expensive alternative.

 

[danielpalos]

Who didn’t see this coming...

why bother with corporate tax cuts.

To increase employment, and reduce exporting jobs.

IOW, MAGA.

lol. capital based morality?

Government is socialism. CEOs of firms leaving for cheaper labor should get paid in they currency of the country they re-locate to, on a one to one basis until that CEO helps that nation achieves first world parity and their currency achieves parity with the US dollar, so that CEO can realize their first world worth.

 

[Crepitus]

No, they wouldn't. The new company would leaner and more efficient. Maybe the make $800,000 in profits instead of $900,000. Maybe the CEO only makes 500 times what the average employee makes instead of 1000. Maybe the savings is somewhere we haven't even thought of yet, but it will happen.

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

Current circumstances are different from decades ago.

The economic forces are the same. Sorry, but the whole idea of a living wage just creates stagnation in the lower job markets, or in some cases eliminates them entirely.

I'm afraid that's not true. The jobs must still be done, the companies will adjust.

 

[martybegan]

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

No, it isn't because it raises the overall cost of things, which then requires more salary, which raises the cost of things.....

Oh but it is. Prices will not necessarily go up. There is a point where people will stop buy the product, or move to a less expensive alternative.

And that gets a bunch of people laid off, and the whole exercise of raising the costs via living wage concepts comes to it's inevitable conclusion.

I reality, the minimum wage will always be zero.

 

[martybegan]

That's a big assumption, and the only reason you are making it is because you don't like the real answer, where no such company will happen, because no one wants to enter a business where your costs are mandated to be higher than the output from those costs.

And profit margins for the type of businesses impacted are usually far thinner than that, and the people running the companies don't make 500 times the value of their lowest worker.

You guys have a hard on for places like Wal-Mart and Amazon and end up killing small businesses more effectively that the warehouse corporations can.

The typical unintended consequences usually found when progressives start thinking they are smart.

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

Current circumstances are different from decades ago.

The economic forces are the same. Sorry, but the whole idea of a living wage just creates stagnation in the lower job markets, or in some cases eliminates them entirely.

I'm afraid that's not true. The jobs must still be done, the companies will adjust.

And they will adjust by hiring people worth the value they have to pay, or by replacing them with robots, in whole or part.

In the end the people who suffer are the ones being "helped".

 

[danielpalos]

I'm sorry but those things just are not true. Just looked up average CEO pay and I over estimated a bit. It's 365 times average company employee. Not lowest employee, average. So maybe they make 100 times instead of 365. Profit margins Are huge in huge companies. They make billions of dollars in profits every year. And if it is a needed/wanted service or product someone else will step up. They always do.

Or maybe you just let economics work and keep the minimum wage as just that, and not force living wages onto jobs that don't deserve them.

it is a simple cost of living adjustment so Labor can afford our first world economy.

No, it isn't because it raises the overall cost of things, which then requires more salary, which raises the cost of things.....

Oh but it is. Prices will not necessarily go up. There is a point where people will stop buy the product, or move to a less expensive alternative.

And that gets a bunch of people laid off, and the whole exercise of raising the costs via living wage concepts comes to it's inevitable conclusion.

I reality, the minimum wage will always be zero.

in the short run? unemployment compensation can automatically stabilize that social inefficiency for the capital bottom line.