Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Makes Case for $22-an-hour Minimum Wage.

72 posts in this topic

Posted

That's easy to say when you aren't running the cooperation.

You make hammers.

Every hammer costs 5 dollars to make while the wage is 10$ per hour. 3 of those 5 dollars are wage costs. You sell the hammer for 10$ making 5

Government doubles min wage to 20$ per hour. Now your cost of hammers is 8$ and you are only making 2$ per hammer. You have lost over half of your profit.

Do you shrug your shoulders and say, welp thats tough on me, I will just deal.

Or do you sell your hammer for 13$ and keep making that 5$ per?

I would contract with the Government and sell the hammers for 100$ each, but I'm a dick like that.

See you are taking a snapshot. What if the cost to produce a hammer decreased hypothetically by a dollar every year because I could make them faster or cheaper.

If it cost $5 lat year and it cost $4 this year....what are you Johnny Hammer Corp going to do with that extra $1 in profit?

And there's my rub. The hammersmith doesn't deserve the whole portion but the 10% increase but they do deserve some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

See you are taking a snapshot. What if the cost to produce a hammer decreased hypothetically by a dollar every year because I could make them faster or cheaper.

If it cost $5 lat year and it cost $4 this year....what are you Johnny Hammer Corp going to do with that extra $1 in profit?

And there's my rub. The hammersmith doesn't deserve the whole portion but the 10% increase but they do deserve some.

I would go something along the lines of .50 to the worker for his good work and .50 to the owner b.c he is the owner.

But I agree with your reality as of right now 2$ goes to the owner b/c he is the owner and the worker takes a pay cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Supply and demand.

Nobody needs employees right now. And thanks to the government sucking more and more private sector cash out of the system to bankroll their elections, employees will not be needed for a good while. So, who cares, they can sign up or go on disability. Nothing matters any longer. Quit worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would go something along the lines of .50 to the worker for his good work and .50 to the owner b.c he is the owner.

But I agree with your reality as of right now 2$ goes to the owner b/c he is the owner and the worker takes a pay cut.

I'm a big fan of tying people wages to their productivity/profitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Supply and demand.

Nobody needs employees right now. And thanks to the government sucking more and more private sector cash out of the system to bankroll their elections, employees will not be needed for a good while. So, who cares, they can sign up or go on disability. Nothing matters any longer. Quit worrying.

And Kurb...here is the republican response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And Kurb...here is the republican response

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.

Is this a business discussion or a govt discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Is this a business discussion or a govt discussion?

Both. Government dictates to business.

You mean we can't operate out here like the gov operates? Why?

Let's all make $50 per hour. Sounds good to me. If we happen to go out of business, the government will rescue all who get layed off, right?

I know, I am just talking crazy to illustrate the craziness I see. The more we have government stepping in, the more screwed up our country is going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You do know the history of working conditions prior to govt intervention...right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Govt has created more bubbles than its cured.

Behold as I use march madness to make an economic point.

We all see the top 25 polls and then we see the seedings for thr brackets. Then we get RPI and so on.

The macro view is the poll and just a bit further into the details we get strenght of sked etc.

Then I you really want to dig check out the pomroy ratings. It won't match up with the polls that often.

So wages and the living wage argument is like debating who should be 1 or 17 in a poll.

But the Pomroy rating shows you effectiveness of possesions and utilization of turnovers and more or less its hoops sabermetrics.

Point being that when the govt frames the wage argument its always going to be big picture. Which is not very accurate. But, like the polls for hoops, its popular. So we get nowhere.

There is a poverty line but it factors nothing in regards to education or job training or skills or frivolous spending or not investing well you get my point.

I said this in the wealth inequality thread. If the living wage is that important to you then start a company and create the ripple effect.

I'm on my phone but check the article on slate.com about making goods cheaper to make the wage living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If I take inflation out of this equation:

using Sen Warren's comments and the logic from Schmitt, if for low skilled labor where productivity is the same as 1960, can I pay hourly wages in 2013 commensurate of 1960 wages?

Cashier?

Janitorial services?

waiter/waitress?

If I need to adjust min wage for inflation as well, can I lower min wage if deflation occurs?

Need to understand if there are some ground rules we can agree upon before we calculate the wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

that is actually the frustrated conservative's response.

One that is based on what has happened over the last 12 years where the country spends more than it has, and borrows like there is no tomorrow. All rules of economics seem to no longer apply. Need to get re elected? Just promise to give everyone a bunch of stuff and demonize your opponent as one who won't give you as much. Don't have the cash? Who cares. Spend it anyway.

This is the new rules for operating a country.

Deficit spending in itself is not a bad thing and is often needed. There is no rule of economics that says that you have to spend less than you take in.

And if you are frustrated, blame the people who deserve the blame, which is the Republican party. 1980-1992 and 2000-2008 are actually the time frames that fugged up our government spending and revenue forever.

You could make the argument Reagan's huge tax cut and military spending was needed at the time, but the Bush (43rd) tax cuts, taking us to two wars without raising any revenue to pay for it, expansion of medicare without raising any revenue to pay for it. All that fugged us.

You can complain and bitch about Obamacare and the spending that goes with it. But at least it was offset with taxes, fees, and spending restructuring. The Republicans paid for nothing reduced revenue with tax cuts and increased spending astronomically last decade and even though Obama has slowed spending to it slowest rate of growth since the 50's we still are getting crushed.

MW-AR658_spendi_20120521163312_ME.jpg?uuid=3666ead6-a384-11e1-827e-002128049ad6

If you are truly worried about fiscal responsibility it is probably time you do what I and everyone else is starting to do and dump the Republican Party.

If you are full of poo, and aren't really concerned about spending and deficits, and you just want to hate Democrats, then keep carrying the Republican torch, but don't talk about fiscal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites