Minimum Wage: Part II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

You know what is wrong with the Mcdonalds exercise right there?

Most of their employees have way more in the way than just paying for bricks and mortar. They know shit about supply chain, unless you consider getting a case of burgers out of the freezer supply chain, and when you change the scale of the operation, you change everything. Sourcing, how payroll is handled, advertisement, hygiene- It’s like comparing apples to orchards.

That isn’t even considering that it does take some skill to cook well, which has been dumbed out of their processes. They assemble objects, not cook food.

242

[quote]phaethon wrote:
For example if you don’t want to pay me part of the productivity increase then I’ll buy my own software etc and go straight to your customers and undercut you (keeping a portion of the increase and passing the rest on to the customer).[/quote]

And you’ll quickly find out that being in the owner’s seat isn’t quite as nice as you envision based on the way you post.

You will have to take people with you in order to service them the same way your former employer did, at least in volume.

Then again, if you didn’t want to run your own company, you could just ask for a raise.

Yeah, it is called overhead.

Every company has it, and McDonalds has a lot of it.

lol

First off, rent isn’t even likely to be your biggest expense. Wages and Salaries will after product costs. After that you might have rent, but even then, it depends on a couple factors.

I like how you disparage all landowners. And by like I mean find absolute comedy. Because I assume you want to people to take all the risk, pay for, maintain and let you use the building, without you paying anything.

That is high comedy. Why should you pay for your use of the building? How outrageous to expect you to pay for something you use!

ummm… Yeah, no. Not the case.

Even if the company owns the land and building they typically charge themselves rent. Because the building is in a different company.

[quote]
Well really what other fair alternative is there to compensate the less fortunate [/quote]

Um, how about they improve their lives?

Innovation doesn’t come about from sitting around on your ass all day. It comes from incentive. Providing for lazy people that want to sit around, effectively making people who work their slave, is the opposite of incentive.

This is economics 101

[quote]for agreeing to our private property based theft of natural resources (property, farm land, raw resources, etc)?

The other two alternatives are communism (I don’t think any of us want that) or our current system of pretending that the current allocation of natural resources is somehow just and moral (head in the sand and incredibly immoral but a natural human reaction/coping mechanism and at least we are tech’ing our way out of it just like we did with slavery)[/quote]

WTF are you smoking? You been digging into Pitt’s stash?

The alternative to everyone having the opportunity to own property is that only the elite own property. Human’s have tried that, quite a few times since the dawn of civilization. It ended badly.

243

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It also shows an exponential growth in high paying jobs in the area,[/quote]

I thought the discussion was about minimum wage ?
[/quote]

You posted the fucking graph. I just pointed out what is shows man.

244

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well really what other fair alternative is there to compensate the less fortunate for agreeing to our private property based theft of natural resources (property, farm land, raw resources, etc)?
[/quote]

If you believe that property is theft, then how do you suggest one get the approval of the other 7 billion people on Earth each time he needs a sip of water? How does he get approval to use the air he breathes? Each time he takes a step? Who determines how much of each of those resources another is entitled to? If he is standing on a piece of ground, has he stolen it?

If everyone owns everything, then the answer to those questions is important. If nobody owns anything, then everyone almost immediately dies.

245

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If nobody owns anything, then everyone almost immediately dies.[/quote]

Yes, because the people holding the guns, shoot you.

Lol.

This isn’t even a rational discussion right now.

246

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well really what other fair alternative is there to compensate the less fortunate for agreeing to our private property based theft of natural resources (property, farm land, raw resources, etc)?
[/quote]

If you believe that property is theft, then how do you suggest one get the approval of the other 7 billion people on Earth each time he needs a sip of water? How does he get approval to use the air he breathes? Each time he takes a step? Who determines how much of each of those resources another is entitled to? If he is standing on a piece of ground, has he stolen it?

If everyone owns everything, then the answer to those questions is important. If nobody owns anything, then everyone almost immediately dies.[/quote]

the answer to those questions is a simple, but often forgotten, concept :

247

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It also shows an exponential growth in high paying jobs in the area,[/quote]

I thought the discussion was about minimum wage ?
[/quote]

You posted the fucking graph. I just pointed out what is shows man. [/quote]

i posted many graphs

248

@ beans google it hit images and see the mountain of evidence

249

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans google it hit images and see the mountain of evidence [/quote]

If it’s on the internet it must be true!

250

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ beans google it hit images and see the mountain of evidence [/quote]

If it’s on the internet it must be true![/quote]

Lol, right. Read the source on the productivity graphic he posted.

Some dude’s “interpretation” of unpublished data.

Pardon me while I don’t put any faith in that.

251

When it backs up what I have observed over my life , I would say it is true

252

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When it backs up what I have observed over my life , I would say it is true [/quote]

Well, that’s great and all, but there are people from the same socioeconomic strata living places you haven’t that have had the exact opposite experiences in their lives and they would say their observations are true as well.

253

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well really what other fair alternative is there to compensate the less fortunate for agreeing to our private property based theft of natural resources (property, farm land, raw resources, etc)?
[/quote]

If you believe that property is theft, then how do you suggest one get the approval of the other 7 billion people on Earth each time he needs a sip of water? How does he get approval to use the air he breathes? Each time he takes a step? Who determines how much of each of those resources another is entitled to? If he is standing on a piece of ground, has he stolen it?

If everyone owns everything, then the answer to those questions is important. If nobody owns anything, then everyone almost immediately dies.[/quote]

the answer to those questions is a simple, but often forgotten, concept :

[/quote]

Who determines damage? Again, we’re back to needing the approval of 7 billion people to do anything.

254

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
For example if you don’t want to pay me part of the productivity increase then I’ll buy my own software etc and go straight to your customers and undercut you (keeping a portion of the increase and passing the rest on to the customer).[/quote]

And you’ll quickly find out that being in the owner’s seat isn’t quite as nice as you envision based on the way you post.

You will have to take people with you in order to service them the same way your former employer did, at least in volume.

Then again, if you didn’t want to run your own company, you could just ask for a raise.
[/quote]

The point is that it is relatively easy to do so. There aren’t many incidental barriers in software.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
First off, rent isn’t even likely to be your biggest expense. Wages and Salaries will after product costs. After that you might have rent, but even then, it depends on a couple factors.
[/quote]

…missing the point again. The biggest competition killer is land access (i.e. rent) because it is the biggest barrier/risk to entry for small competitors.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I like how you disparage all landowners. And by like I mean find absolute comedy. Because I assume you want to people to take all the risk, pay for, maintain and let you use the building, without you paying anything.
[/quote]

I don’t disparage landowners. I’m simply saying that land is a massive barrier for competition in a lot of fields.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

It is hard to improve your life when you are working your ass off just to make ends meet.

What makes you think if we had a basic income a lot of people would sit on their asses all day? There are countries with much stronger safety nets that still have good workforce participation. People want more than the basic necessities in life. The only thing a basic income would do is stop employers from exploiting and mistreating the poor and desperate.

255

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You know what is wrong with the Mcdonalds exercise right there?

Most of their employees have way more in the way than just paying for bricks and mortar. They know shit about supply chain, unless you consider getting a case of burgers out of the freezer supply chain, and when you change the scale of the operation, you change everything. Sourcing, how payroll is handled, advertisement, hygiene- It’s like comparing apples to orchards.

That isn’t even considering that it does take some skill to cook well, which has been dumbed out of their processes. They assemble objects, not cook food.

[/quote]

I’m not trying to say that a random McDonalds employee could create the next McDonalds if not for land access! Instead you would see a lot more smaller operations earning a living wage and fewer billion dollar giants (or perhaps billion dollar giants who passed on a lot of the productivity increases because they needed to keep employees happy).

The truth is you don’t need to know a lot about supply chain management if you are operating a market stall sized operation. You need to make good food with an affordable markup in a hygienic way. Better food, better wages, happier people: whats not to love?

256

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Well really what other fair alternative is there to compensate the less fortunate for agreeing to our private property based theft of natural resources (property, farm land, raw resources, etc)?
[/quote]

If you believe that property is theft, then how do you suggest one get the approval of the other 7 billion people on Earth each time he needs a sip of water? How does he get approval to use the air he breathes? Each time he takes a step? Who determines how much of each of those resources another is entitled to? If he is standing on a piece of ground, has he stolen it?
[/quote]

Tricky situation isn’t it. A solution that works well is a little concept called private property. It happens to work well within our capitalist system and provides us with a good pragmatic solution.

The problem is when people forget that its value comes from its mostly good outcomes and start considering it an inherent right.

Having a strong social safety net has also been shown to provide mostly good outcomes and yet many Americans consider it theft. In reality it is no more theft than private property is theft.

257

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You know what is wrong with the Mcdonalds exercise right there?

Most of their employees have way more in the way than just paying for bricks and mortar. They know shit about supply chain, unless you consider getting a case of burgers out of the freezer supply chain, and when you change the scale of the operation, you change everything. Sourcing, how payroll is handled, advertisement, hygiene- It’s like comparing apples to orchards.

That isn’t even considering that it does take some skill to cook well, which has been dumbed out of their processes. They assemble objects, not cook food.

[/quote]

I’m not trying to say that a random McDonalds employee could create the next McDonalds if not for land access! Instead you would see a lot more smaller operations earning a living wage and fewer billion dollar giants (or perhaps billion dollar giants who passed on a lot of the productivity increases because they needed to keep employees happy).

The truth is you don’t need to know a lot about supply chain management if you are operating a market stall sized operation. You need to make good food with an affordable markup in a hygienic way. Better food, better wages, happier people: whats not to love?[/quote]

That is a great thing and I will gladly pay more for something better, and more often too. Nine times out of ten I’ll take a hoagie from my favorite shop than a subway, and the only reason that tenth one happens is when my favorite place is out of range.

I just don’t consider small businesses to be in competition with huge corporations. I think that they are entirely different markets that appeal to completely different types of people all together with an occasional convergence out of convenience.

258

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
When it backs up what I have observed over my life , I would say it is true [/quote]

Well, that’s great and all, but there are people from the same socioeconomic strata living places you haven’t that have had the exact opposite experiences in their lives and they would say their observations are true as well.[/quote]

I know it is a liberal media and all (EYE ROLL) but what I hear what you say is incorrect

Just curious how old are you and in what geography do you live ?

259

[quote]phaethon wrote:
The biggest competition killer is land access (i.e. rent) because it is the biggest barrier/risk to entry for small competitors.[/quote]

Again, rent won’t be your biggest expense. How many times would you like me to type that before you read it?

If something isn’t your biggest expense, it isn’t your biggest risk, nor is it your biggest barrier.

In certain instances, location can be a rather daunting “barrier”, depending on the industry, but you can work around location issues.

Finding office and/or retail space for a small operation is not even remotely close to the hardest part of starting a business, nor the greatest risk.

[quote]
I don’t disparage landowners. [/quote]

The works you used to describe them say differently.

[quote]

It is hard to improve your life when you are working your ass off just to make ends meet.[/quote]

OMG, you mean, life isn’t easy? Boo Hoo.

Common sense.

Links?

I dont’ agree the “poor and desperate” are exploited. Certainly not in America. Anyone that shits in water cleaner than half the world’s population’s drinking water is not exploited.

Even then your plan here would then just exploit the middle and upper classes, by taxing them to pay for those that won’t work on their own.

I’m ignoring the fact that this just creates massive inflation and a need for outrageous tax rates.

260

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Links?

[/quote]