Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The inside secret is the rich are just MUCH SMARTER with money then the poor.
This is just a reality....More education is the solution.
NO. We hire people, then step back and let them do their job.
So Americans are more productive, but their increased productivity doesn't warrant the wages Americans desire. If Americans want higher wages, they need to find ways to increase their human capital.
WHAT A LINE OF FUCKING BULL SHIT!!!!
Companies increase prices of product to offset costs, but fail to pass the realized employee returns back to their employees.
Prices are increasing not to offset the cost of wages, but the cost of doing business overall. Not only are do they include the wages paid to employees (direct cost) but it also involves many indirect cost. Wages have generally outpaced unit labour cost as a measure of overall productivity.
Generally, high paying jobs have lower labour unit cost because they employ workers who are very skilled who can also ensure that output is high and good wages can be afforded. This is a classic example of Henry Ford's 'Five Dollar a Day' strategy at his first factory in Dearborn, Michigan. Despite the fact that this higher wage was accompanied by an hour decrease, the higher wages was ensured to be accompanied by lower unit labour cost. Wages are becoming a larger component of overall labour cost, but still not the largest compared to all other indirect cost.
As far as profits are concerned, there are no realised profits. Majority of corporations are experiencing all time record profits, but it's on paper. Alot of corporations today operate their business on razor thin margins. But it's quite clear, if you want to pass on the profits to your employees, you have to lower labour cost.
Contrary to what you may believe, a business does not owe you a living.
The inside secret is the rich are just MUCH SMARTER with money then the poor.
This is just a reality....More education is the solution.
NO. We hire people, then step back and let them do their job.
You don't hire anybody, in fact, you probably don't work for anybody either. You're a poser and a mooch. Most of you knuckleheads don't have the first clue how business, capitalism, or economies work. If it weren't for us taxpayers subsidizing your internet service, we could totally eliminate your presence here as trolls and annoyances.
Since 1973 the Big Mac has increased in price 1200%, while minimum wage has only increased 300%. Minimum wage is the base for all wages.
WHAT A LINE OF FUCKING BULL SHIT!!!!
Companies increase prices of product to offset costs, but fail to pass the realized employee returns back to their employees.
Prices are increasing not to offset the cost of wages, but the cost of doing business overall. Not only are do they include the wages paid to employees (direct cost) but it also involves many indirect cost. Wages have generally outpaced unit labour cost as a measure of overall productivity.
Generally, high paying jobs have lower labour unit cost because they employ workers who are very skilled who can also ensure that output is high and good wages can be afforded. This is a classic example of Henry Ford's 'Five Dollar a Day' strategy at his first factory in Dearborn, Michigan. Despite the fact that this higher wage was accompanied by an hour decrease, the higher wages was ensured to be accompanied by lower unit labour cost. Wages are becoming a larger component of overall labour cost, but still not the largest compared to all other indirect cost.
As far as profits are concerned, there are no realised profits. Majority of corporations are experiencing all time record profits, but it's on paper. Alot of corporations today operate their business on razor thin margins. But it's quite clear, if you want to pass on the profits to your employees, you have to lower labour cost.
Contrary to what you may believe, a business does not owe you a living.
WOW! What a fool believes.
Companies have been raising prices to adjust for employees costs but not passing the increase onto employees, but to increase profits, for decades.
American companies are 100% solvent from the Bush/wall street crash, and are making trillions per month playing the market. OBTW; the trillions per month is CASH.
The inside secret is the rich are just MUCH SMARTER with money then the poor.
This is just a reality....More education is the solution.
Prices are increasing not to offset the cost of wages, but the cost of doing business overall. Not only are do they include the wages paid to employees (direct cost) but it also involves many indirect cost. Wages have generally outpaced unit labour cost as a measure of overall productivity.
Generally, high paying jobs have lower labour unit cost because they employ workers who are very skilled who can also ensure that output is high and good wages can be afforded. This is a classic example of Henry Ford's 'Five Dollar a Day' strategy at his first factory in Dearborn, Michigan. Despite the fact that this higher wage was accompanied by an hour decrease, the higher wages was ensured to be accompanied by lower unit labour cost. Wages are becoming a larger component of overall labour cost, but still not the largest compared to all other indirect cost.
As far as profits are concerned, there are no realised profits. Majority of corporations are experiencing all time record profits, but it's on paper. Alot of corporations today operate their business on razor thin margins. But it's quite clear, if you want to pass on the profits to your employees, you have to lower labour cost.
Contrary to what you may believe, a business does not owe you a living.
WOW! What a fool believes.
Companies have been raising prices to adjust for employees costs but not passing the increase onto employees, but to increase profits, for decades.
Employee cost includes wages. Employee compensation has increased at a very fast pace relative to the cost of labour. Currently, the employee compensation is a larger portion of labour cost than ever before. Compared to other indirect cost such as the cost of compliance, taxes and regulatory burdens, it's a pretty significant factor. I just finished showing this to you, so I don't know what else you require of me...
Aside from that, wages has generally increased as well as labour cost. Corporations are more profitable despite the increase cost. Not because of it.
American companies are 100% solvent from the Bush/wall street crash, and are making trillions per month playing the market. OBTW; the trillions per month is CASH.
Which market are you referring to? The Stock Market? The largest stock exchange in the United States only accounts for $22 Billion worth of trading volume a day, which is $600 Billion a month. That's not trillions. Not even 'a' trillion. Perhaps you are pontificating.
Also you must realise that simply investing is not 'cash' and doesn't equate to any realised gain. When positions remain open, that is investors are profitable on paper. When a corporation funnels Billions in profits offshore, that is unrealised gain and these corporations are profitable on paper only. Repatriating these profits to America may turn these unrealised profits into unrealised losses.
Are you lying again, boss??? Is that why you have no source. What is the name of the public insurance organization???
The largest stock exchange in the United States only accounts for $22 Billion worth of trading volume a day, which is $600 Billion a month. That's not trillions. Not even 'a' trillion. Perhaps you are pontificating.
Trust me.....it's trillions.
Boss isn't lying. He really believes these things. If Glenn Beck says it, Boss believes it. If Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh says it, he believes it. If Ron Paul says it, he hears it as if it were the voice of God. Boss is the stereotypical right-wing, Libertarian lemming whose primary orientation is greed and his personal philosophy is constructed around the Gordon Gekko frame of mind.
For him the enemy is not the plutocrat whose fortune derives from usurious practices and tax evasion. His enemy is the fellow whose factory job has been sent to China or Mexico and has become homeless. To Boss, this fellow is a lazy bum looking for a handout. Boss will tell us all the wealthy are not usurious tax evaders, yet he presumes all the poor to be lazy bums seeking handouts from him.
Boss isn't one of a kind. He is one of many.
Since 1973 the Big Mac has increased in price 1200%, while minimum wage has only increased 300%. Minimum wage is the base for all wages.
That's generally called inflation. The cost of a Big Mac is determined by the amount of ingredients used to make it and the labour hours at the average industrial wage. Probably the biggest component of the Big Mac recipe is the meat. Or in this case, Feeder Cattle:
The market usually determines the price for a good or a service. It's really no different and should be no different with wages.
WOW! What a fool believes.
Companies have been raising prices to adjust for employees costs but not passing the increase onto employees, but to increase profits, for decades.
Employee cost includes wages. Employee compensation has increased at a very fast pace relative to the cost of labour. Currently, the employee compensation is a larger portion of labour cost than ever before. Compared to other indirect cost such as the cost of compliance, taxes and regulatory burdens, it's a pretty significant factor. I just finished showing this to you, so I don't know what else you require of me...
Aside from that, wages has generally increased as well as labour cost. Corporations are more profitable despite the increase cost. Not because of it.
American companies are 100% solvent from the Bush/wall street crash, and are making trillions per month playing the market. OBTW; the trillions per month is CASH.
Which market are you referring to? The Stock Market? The largest stock exchange in the United States only accounts for $22 Billion worth of trading volume a day, which is $600 Billion a month. That's not trillions. Not even 'a' trillion. Perhaps you are pontificating.
Also you must realise that simply investing is not 'cash' and doesn't equate to any realised gain. When positions remain open, that is investors are profitable on paper. When a corporation funnels Billions in profits offshore, that is unrealised gain and these corporations are profitable on paper only. Repatriating these profits to America may turn these unrealised profits into unrealised losses.
If you were an actual one percenter, you'd know that the net cost of a Big Mac has only risen 240% since the mid 70's, so your 'analogy' is a bit flawed.
Trust me.....it's trillions.
Since 1973 the Big Mac has increased in price 1200%, while minimum wage has only increased 300%. Minimum wage is the base for all wages.
That's generally called inflation. The cost of a Big Mac is determined by the amount of ingredients used to make it and the labour hours at the average industrial wage. Probably the biggest component of the Big Mac recipe is the meat. Or in this case, Feeder Cattle:
The market usually determines the price for a good or a service. It's really no different and should be no different with wages.
Great....more Big Mac Economics. It's not a reliable metric to gauge inflation, nor where exchange rates are headed down the road.
For example, in Norway, a McDonald's employee over the age of 21 gets around $25/HR USD. I'm sure Chinese and Indian McDonald's employees earn orders of magnitude less. It also doesn't adequately address equilibrium rates.
Neither is the CPI, but it has a better idea of where consumer prices have gone, given particular consumer sentiments. The cost of living is rising. People are spending more, not because they actually have more to spend, but because things just cost more. Consumers are getting poorer and consumer items are getting more expensive. The Big Mac Index reflects all of this, however, according to the CPI, it's all in their heads.
You're not going to give anyone a good reason to trust the CPI over their own eyes.
The Big Mac in Norway is nearly $7 USD, which indicates that Norwegian Krone currency is 66% overvalued against the US dollar.
Neither is the CPI, but it has a better idea of where consumer prices have gone, given particular consumer sentiments. The cost of living is rising. People are spending more, not because they actually have more to spend, but because things just cost more. Consumers are getting poorer and consumer items are getting more expensive. The Big Mac Index reflects all of this, however, according to the CPI, it's all in their heads.
You're not going to give anyone a good reason to trust the CPI over their own eyes.
The CPU is more accurate than the Big Mac Index. Many people seem to confuse expenditures with inflation. For example, if the price of consumer gasoline increases, that could be described as inflationary pressure. Actual expenditures are not important, what we need to look at is the change over a given time period. We can have no change in expenditures and still have 1%-2% inflation. The CPI measures the changes in prices, not what we spend.
For example, I purchase the same amount of bread, while my gasoline prices have increased, but I buy the same amount of gasoline (zero change in the market basket). The only way I can do this is by tapping my savings.
The Big Mac index includes input costs which arent traded. These costs dont reach parity on an international level so to speak. We can define some of these costs as labor costs, rent, heating, water, insurance, etc. There also competition, transport costs, inflation, taxes, etc. which make this even more of a turd.
PPP does tell us that the price of one item in a certain curreny should be on par or the same in another currency through the exchange rate. There isnt a rule of thumb since we have other variables involved. If we look at a time period, such as over X amount of years, when we adjust for inflation, then relative PPP does seem to work for some countries.
Neither is the CPI, but it has a better idea of where consumer prices have gone, given particular consumer sentiments. The cost of living is rising. People are spending more, not because they actually have more to spend, but because things just cost more. Consumers are getting poorer and consumer items are getting more expensive. The Big Mac Index reflects all of this, however, according to the CPI, it's all in their heads.
You're not going to give anyone a good reason to trust the CPI over their own eyes.
The CPU is more accurate than the Big Mac Index. Many people seem to confuse expenditures with inflation. For example, if the price of consumer gasoline increases, that could be described as inflationary pressure. Actual expenditures are not important, what we need to look at is the change over a given time period. We can have no change in expenditures and still have 1%-2% inflation. The CPI measures the changes in prices, not what we spend.
For example, I purchase the same amount of bread, while my gasoline prices have increased, but I buy the same amount of gasoline (zero change in the market basket). The only way I can do this is by tapping my savings.
I don't think anyone is confusing expenditures as inflation. They might notice that they are spending more as a percentage of their disposable income on a particular consumer item, but they may notice that these consumer goods have increased. They may assume that they are earning less than they use to, hence the support for wages increases. So maybe you have a point there. The CPU can report that the price for coffee has decreased by -0.3%, in the meanwhile, coffee shops such as Starbucks are increasing their prices on all beverages.
Often what happens in the CPI is that everything is Hedonically Adjusted for quality. Even if you believe a consumer good has increased in price, the product improvement overlays the increase in the price. By this measurement, prices can fall (as they should), but external factors keeps these prices from finding their true equilibrium.
The Big Mac index includes input costs which aren’t traded. These costs don’t reach parity on an international level so to speak. We can define some of these costs as labor costs, rent, heating, water, insurance, etc. There also competition, transport costs, inflation, taxes, etc. which make this even more of a turd.
PPP does tell us that the price of one item in a certain curreny should be on par or the same in another currency through the exchange rate. There isn’t a rule of thumb since we have other variables involved. If we look at a time period, such as over X amount of years, when we adjust for inflation, then relative PPP does seem to work for some countries.
The price of a Big Mac can reflect any of those particular cost. The wages are higher in Norway, but then again, so are the prices. I only used the $7 USD parity Big Mac to illustrate this. PPP is meant to equilbriate purchasing powers, and Norway generally has a larger purchasing power than the United States, but it doesn't mean that Norway's reflects their overall standard of living.
It's amazing that one of most competitive nations in the world appears to have the most overvalued Big Mac in terms of currency!
It's amazing that one of most competitive nations in the world appears to have the most overvalued Big Mac in terms of currency!
