Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

[Rshermr]

If oil companies were really oligopolies and had pricing power then why would they ever let the price of gas decline? Yet we've seen major swings over the last 5 years. So that argument is a fail.

not to mention that if price ever rose much they would immediately be replaced by natural gas or electric cars which are already on the road just waiting for opportunity to strike. You always have to worry about your competition and would-be competition in a capitalist economy.

Good job, ed. You just explained why the price of gas does not continually increase. Price is inelastic, but not perfectly inelastic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Simple enough. Because their method of raising prices is to raise, then lower. Not direct, continual raising. Because the oil companies know that the public gets used to a high price, then irate as it gets too high, and then happy again when the price declines part way. It is a repeat process. I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke.

Go look up oligopoly. It is classic oligopoly.

And wonder why, when the supply is higher and demand lower than it has been for years, the price has gone up, in general.

well dear, does a classic oligopoly mean few competitiors or few competitors heavily or liberally regulated so there is, in effect, little competition??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If oil companies were really oligopolies and had pricing power then why would they ever let the price of gas decline? Yet we've seen major swings over the last 5 years. So that argument is a fail.

not to mention that if price ever rose much they would immediately be replaced by natural gas or electric cars which are already on the road just waiting for opportunity to strike. You always have to worry about your competition and would-be competition in a capitalist economy.

Good job, ed. You just explained why the price of gas does not continually increase. Price is inelastic, but not perfectly inelastic.

so does that mean you want a liberal take over so we have in effect a monopoly or does it mean you want government to encourage Republican capitalistic competition?

 

[auditor0007]

I am always amazed when liberals toss this idea of a living wage around, like there's no consequences. Say you raise the minimum wage up to $20 bucks an hour on average. How many businesses do you think can absorb that extra expense without raising prices bigtime or outsourcing jobs or going out of business? Say they raise prices to cover the higher labor costs, how competitive does that make foreign products here? How attractive will US goods be at a higher price overseas? The day this is tried is the day we enter a depression greater than the one in the 1930s.

I'm not interested in the minimum wage paying a living wage. Btw, what is considered a living wage? What I do know is that even with the recent increases in the minimum wage, it still is $2 per hour below what it was at it's highest point in 1968, I believe. That is $2 per hour in buying power. In 2006, before any increases had been approved, the buying power of the minimum wage reached its lowest point since inception. It is interesting how all wages have stagnated over the last few decades. When we compare all wages to the minimum wage, it becomes apparent that there actually is some correlation. Just something to think about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple enough. Because their method of raising prices is to raise, then lower. Not direct, continual raising. Because the oil companies know that the public gets used to a high price, then irate as it gets too high, and then happy again when the price declines part way. It is a repeat process. I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke.

Go look up oligopoly. It is classic oligopoly.

And wonder why, when the supply is higher and demand lower than it has been for years, the price has gone up, in general.

So companies want prices to fluctuate wildly? Really? Where do they teach this stuff? You were at a high level at BP. You cleaned the commodes.

 

[Papageorgio]

Simple enough. Because their method of raising prices is to raise, then lower. Not direct, continual raising. Because the oil companies know that the public gets used to a high price, then irate as it gets too high, and then happy again when the price declines part way. It is a repeat process. I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke.

Go look up oligopoly. It is classic oligopoly.

And wonder why, when the supply is higher and demand lower than it has been for years, the price has gone up, in general.

So companies want prices to fluctuate wildly? Really? Where do they teach this stuff? You were at a high level at BP. You cleaned the commodes.

Not sure why any business would love wild fluctuations, most businesses like the steady, predictable pricing and demand.

 

[ReallyMeow]

I dont see why the opposite of gouging would be wild fluctuation. And again, its not the gas companies rigging the market so much as the speculators. sometimes these are the same people, but often its just a pile of money from wall st that decides its going to find out what happens when it buys up all of the wheat, or steel.

 

[joewp]

I say, since slave owners had to pay for shelter, food and basic medical care for their investment, the least today's employers could do is pay a wage for a week's work that can enable the worker to pay for rent, food, clothing and medical care.

Heck, even circuses pay for the care, shelter and feeding of their elephants. Employers should be required to do the same for their "human resources".

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple enough. Because their method of raising prices is to raise, then lower. Not direct, continual raising. Because the oil companies know that the public gets used to a high price, then irate as it gets too high, and then happy again when the price declines part way. It is a repeat process. I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke.

Go look up oligopoly. It is classic oligopoly.

And wonder why, when the supply is higher and demand lower than it has been for years, the price has gone up, in general.

"I worked at a relatively high level with BP in Anchorage, and to the folks there it is a joke."

Ah, so now you're admitting to being stoned at work, Tommy? That explains so much!

 

[Oldstyle]

You gotta love, Rshermr...if you talk economics...then he'll tell you that he taught the subject at the college level. You want to talk about the price of oil? Guess what? Amazingly...he used to be an executive with BP!!! A regular Renaissance man, our Tommy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont see why the opposite of gouging would be wild fluctuation. And again, its not the gas companies rigging the market so much as the speculators. sometimes these are the same people, but often its just a pile of money from wall st that decides its going to find out what happens when it buys up all of the wheat, or steel.

OK, so it isnt' oil companies as oligopolies. It's eevul Wall St guys speculating.
Hint, when gas prices go down people lose money.

I doubt you're the dumbest poster here. But that's only because the bar is so low.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And again, its not the gas companies rigging the market so much as the speculators.

I wish to rig a market, speculate, and get rich. Can you tell me how this is done exactly?????????

If you have trouble answering you have to consider that its because you're a liberal.

 

[ReallyMeow]

What are you saying? That there is no such thing as a cornered market?

Cornering the market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Rabbi]

What are you saying? That there is no such thing as a cornered market?

Cornering the market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. We're saying you're full of shit and don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[Indofred]

Should all jobs be required to pay at least a living wage?

Assume a living wage for the area, not a national one-size-fits-all standard.

Why or why not?

No.
The free market should determine wages.
This is the only way a business can run, not with greedy unions wanting more than their worth and government interfering in business.

 

[ReallyMeow]

What are you saying? That there is no such thing as a cornered market?

Cornering the market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. We're saying you're full of shit and don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

You're full of shit and don't have the first clue to what you;re talking about. The wealth doesnt trickle down, tax the rich.

 

[The Rabbi]

What are you saying? That there is no such thing as a cornered market?

Cornering the market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No. We're saying you're full of shit and don't have the first clue as to what you're talking about.

You're full of shit and don't have the first clue to what you;re talking about. The wealth doesnt trickle down, tax the rich.

Corporatism, man. Occupy Wall St, dude.

 

[Bill Angel]

If a job paid a worker a living wage, then that worker would not need to collect food stamps and other forms of government assistance to feed their famlies and pay the rent. That reduces their dependency on government assistance programs, which should appeal to Republicans and the wealthy.

 

[dblack]

If a job paid a worker a living wage, then that worker would not need to collect food stamps and other forms of government assistance to feed their famlies and pay the rent. That reduces their dependency on government assistance programs, which should appeal to Republicans and the wealthy.

Not really, in as much as a living wage requirement would be, essentially, 'government assistance'.


But let me ask you something. The question has been put a number of ways in this thread, but advocates of living wage proposal have steered around it. If increasing the minimum wage would have no negative effects on others, or on the economy in general; if, as some here are suggesting, raising the minimum wage is actually net benefit to society, then why not raise it really significantly? Why not mandate a 'living well wage', and requiring that all workers make at least $100/hr? Then we'd all be rich, right?

 

[Bill Angel]

If a job paid a worker a living wage, then that worker would not need to collect food stamps and other forms of government assistance to feed their famlies and pay the rent. That reduces their dependency on government assistance programs, which should appeal to Republicans and the wealthy.

Not really, in as much as a living wage requirement would be, essentially, 'government assistance'.


But let me ask you something. The question has been put a number of ways in this thread, but advocates of living wage proposal have steered around it. If increasing the minimum wage would have no negative effects on others, or on the economy in general; if, as some here are suggesting, raising the minimum wage is actually net benefit to society, then why not raise it really significantly? Why not mandate a 'living well wage', and requiring that all workers make at least $100/hr? Then we'd all be rich, right?

The problem would be with inflation. If someone could go to Texas and make $100 an hour working in the oil industry, one can imagine what the cost of housing in Texas would be like. And also the cost of meals in good restaurants.