Laws of economics are as immutable as gravity

[Crepitus]

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

Are you clsimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes it would.

 

[martybegan]

People are paid what they are worth.

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

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[DOTR]

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

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Why is it...and this is always true...that these complainers about minimum wage always want to import more Mexicans to fill jobs and drive wages down?
There is only one answer...and it pretty.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[Crepitus]

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Why is it...and this is always true...that these complainers about minimum wage always want to import more Mexicans to fill jobs and drive wages down?
There is only one answer...and it pretty.

Why do you think I want to import more Mexicans?

 

[martybegan]

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[Flash]

The "Law" of Economics that these stupid Moon Bats never seem to understand is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

They think everything should be free and don't understand the consequences of the filthy government stealing money from the productive economy for them.

 

[Flash]

"If the government gives me free health care, food stamps, college tuition, Obamaphones, guaranteed minimal income and housing subsidies what could possibly go wrong?"

 

[DOTR]

Do you pay extra at store even if you can?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Maybe the CEO of YUM brands produces 500 times the value of the 15 year old slapping sauce on a taco.

 

[pinqy]

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

Are you clsimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes it would.

Ok, explain how a CPA’s wage is in any way tied to the minimum wage.

 

[Crepitus]

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.
A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

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

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

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

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.

 

[Crepitus]

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.
A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

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

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

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

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.

Maybe the CEO of YUM brands produces 500 times the value of the 15 year old slapping sauce on a taco.

And maybe he doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Exactly correct, except that none of those would be permanent except the going out of business thing and even then another, better run, company would fill the gap pretty quickly.
A. You don't have a clue what Marxism is.

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

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

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

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?

 

[danielpalos]

The "Law" of Economics that these stupid Moon Bats never seem to understand is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

They think everything should be free and don't understand the consequences of the filthy government stealing money from the productive economy for them.

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

 

[danielpalos]

"If the government gives me free health care, food stamps, college tuition, Obamaphones, guaranteed minimal income and housing subsidies what could possibly go wrong?"

How high does the minimum wage need to be, to cover the cost?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

 

[Flash]

The "Law" of Economics that these stupid Moon Bats never seem to understand is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

They think everything should be free and don't understand the consequences of the filthy government stealing money from the productive economy for them.

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

You dumb Moon Bat.

The money to pay for all that filthy free shit comes from someplace else. Money that was already being spent and invested in the productive economy. Unless the money is borrowed, which means it is stolen from our retirement or from our children.

You stupid Moon Bats are just as ignorant of Economics as you are of History, The Constitution, Biology, Ethics and Climate Science.

 

[Flash]

"If the government gives me free health care, food stamps, college tuition, Obamaphones, guaranteed minimal income and housing subsidies what could possibly go wrong?"

How high does the minimum wage need to be, to cover the cost?

You are confused Moon Bat.

The oppressive government should never be in the business of forcing a "minimum wage". Not only is that unlawful oppression but that fucks up the market in labor, resulting in automation and reduced jobs. It is happening all over the country where the stupid Moon Bats have forced minimum wages to be higher than the Labor Market.

I don't give a shit what you make. That is between you and your employer. I sure as hell don't want be forced by the oppressive government to paying your welfare bills because you are too damn sorry to provide for your own living.

No minimize wage and no welfare, just liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

The "Law" of Economics that these stupid Moon Bats never seem to understand is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

They think everything should be free and don't understand the consequences of the filthy government stealing money from the productive economy for them.

higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

You dumb Moon Bat.

The money to pay for all that filthy free shit comes from someplace else. Money that was already being spent and invested in the productive economy. Unless the money is borrowed, which means it is stolen from our retirement or from our children.

You stupid Moon Bats are just as ignorant of Economics as you are of History, The Constitution, Biology, Ethics and Climate Science.

what free shit? higher paid labor can afford to pay for first world stuff.