[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.[/quote]
The ignorance is strong in this one.
Yup, minimum wage is horrendously flawed and stupid.
That’s why something like 190 countries and territories has it.
But I’m sure you guys know better… Continue on.
[quote]chrillionare wrote:
removing government from business is a great way to ensure that the number of middle class individuals drastically decreases, labor is undervalued, poverty increases, and the rich get exponentially richer.
if you like the image of the robber baron, this is the position for you.[/quote]
apidly expanding production and creating jobs while constantly lowering prices?
Those bastards!
I am glad someone stopped them.
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.[/quote]
Serious economic theory fail.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.
This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.
They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off 
On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.
Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.
Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.
So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.
I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.
It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice
Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.
See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.
So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.
I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product
Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.
I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEO�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package
I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.
These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,
I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.
I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.
So the market value of a company is not linked to sales, production, legal matters, accounting etc?
And obviously I just used CEO becuase that was the term that the previous example had given. We need to include CFO, COO and CTO in this.
A well run company is an administrative procedure mostly. But making sure everybody does his job and making sure all the bills are paid on time making sure no one is breaking the law, does not make some one buy your product, I do not care how well you run a company that sells condoms for dogs. A company that makes condoms for people if run reasonably well will out produce the company that makes condoms for dogs. The market is the most important factor.
I agree about CFO we also left off the 20 Vice Presidents
Whilst I will admit that the senior management team in a company is often not as important as they think they are, they are way more important than you think they are.
You and I must have a different perspective.
N-O-K-I-A!!!
A-P-P-L-E!!!
M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T!!!
They all have awesome products; Apple and Microsoft were run for a long time by the founders. That is where it is at innovation. The irony that you chose two friends that took the same product in two directions just prove my point even more. I do not know a lot about Nokia; I have had one of their phones and really liked it
If you want to prove your point that a CEO makes a company, tell me one that sells dog shit and makes a handsome profit.
Who do you think makes the decision what to make and sell and how to produce it?
I think Microsoft and Apple had an idea and built their companies around that Idea, research and development is usually not part of the CEOâ??s job description.
I think there are exceptions especially when the founder is CEO and inventor or developer.
I think a good example of my point is Home Depot, when Bernie and Author founded Home Depot they hired people out of the Trades, to insure the had knowledgeable employees . They paid more than other retailers and expected a higher standard of ethics. When Bernie and Author left the experts in retail took over and ran the company into the ground.
I think private companies owned by one or two people would always have the companyâ??s best interest at heart, I could not make the same statement about public corporations.
[/quote]
Maybe not, but these problems are not exactly new.
Ultimately it is the owners responsibility to structure his employments incentives in a way so that they are in sinc with his own goals.
If he fails to do that he will go bankrupt and people who take their role more seriously will take over his business.
Meanwhile though these decisions need to be made by someone and you have posted an example yourself how wrong decisions can ruin a company. It would be hard for a low level employee to do that.
So, if CEO decisions have far reaching consequences you want the very best and those cost money because they are a) in short supply and b) have so much money sooner or later that it takes serious moolah to motivate them to get their ass to work in the morning instead of banging fitness models all day.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
chrillionare wrote:
removing government from business is a great way to ensure that the number of middle class individuals drastically decreases, labor is undervalued, poverty increases, and the rich get exponentially richer.
if you like the image of the robber baron, this is the position for you.
O rly? So in the last hundred years, as you capitalist-hating folks like to say, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer (that’s a massive misnomer, but that’s for another thread). Guess what’s also been happening? I’ll give you a hint: It hasn’t been LESS government interaction and it hasn’t been STATIC either. Think about that for a bit.[/quote]
Actually, capitalism has made poor people much wealthier than they would have been under feudalism.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.
The ignorance is strong in this one.[/quote]
Alex, I’ll take sarcastic responses for $1000
The big problem is that the minimum wage is an unconstitutional FEDERAL mandate that should be a state jurisdiction only. Yes some states have taken it upon themselves to impose a higher minimum wage than the fed gov requires.
Would love to see an experiment where 1 or 2 states completely eliminate the minimum wage. I bet the results would shock the experts.
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors [/quote]
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Some of you talk like everyone has equal opportunity. While its nice to say, its just not true. Like telling a 4 year old that they can be anything they want to be if they work hard enough. Some people just dont have the smarts to be a heart surgeon I dont care how hard they work. Some people dont have the athletic ability to be a NBA player, I dont care how hard they work.
I think it would be more productive, after teaching a child basic reading, writing, and math skills that theyll actually use in everyday life, to find ot what theyre good at and teach them that and have them master that skill.
Some people succeed because of other factors. A lot of people say “start a business” as if its that simple. That takes money, and if you have none, then that avenue is closed to you, even if you are willing to work hard. So to make it seem like someone is lazy because they dont have a certain kind of job is wrong.
Its like if you have a 30 y/o thats an accountant for a financial firm and another 30 y/o ex con that flips hamburgers at Wendys full time. It would be reasonable to say that the accountant is more intelligent than the ex con (I dont mean street smarts I mean real IQ). They both were 4 year old children at some point whom some adult told then that they can be whatever they want to be. Im sure the 30 y/o didnt plan to be flipping burgers at Wendys full time back when he was 4.
You’re confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome. Everyone’s circumstances are different and must overcome different hardships. Welcome to life.
I am sorry that you think I am lumping you together with any one else, I hope it does not make your pussy hurt too badly
The money you got from your economic activity either came from an employer or a customer, If I am guessing properly you employer charges a customer and pays you for your impute on the product
Your fatherâ??s accomplishments are commendable; there is honor in all labor.
I worked for minimum wage in 1971 when Nixon froze wages.
Getting rid of the social net will never happen,
I know you will disagree with me but if some one were to get off their asses and get an education they just may take your job. I have had this discussion with other free market idiots, but I will have at it with you. There are a limited number of jobs. I know that new jobs can be created, but mostly if some one gets a job means also some has lost a job. Just as if you paid me a hundred dollars to dig a ditch I have a hundred dollars that you used to own
[/quote]
How much has the population increased in tha last 20 years? Are all those “new people” unemployed? The economy is not a fixed sum game. New jobs are created every day.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
chrillionare wrote:
removing government from business is a great way to ensure that the number of middle class individuals drastically decreases, labor is undervalued, poverty increases, and the rich get exponentially richer.
if you like the image of the robber baron, this is the position for you.
O rly? So in the last hundred years, as you capitalist-hating folks like to say, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer (that’s a massive misnomer, but that’s for another thread). Guess what’s also been happening? I’ll give you a hint: It hasn’t been LESS government interaction and it hasn’t been STATIC either. Think about that for a bit.
Actually, capitalism has made poor people much wealthier than they would have been under feudalism.[/quote]
I know. Hence the (That’s a massive misnomer) part.
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.
The ignorance is strong in this one.
Alex, I’ll take sarcastic responses for $1000[/quote]
…Are you saying TBT4ever was being sarcastic? Or that I was? I certainly wasn’t, and if TBT was, I apologise <_<
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I would not say it was unethical for McDonalds to pay as little as possible, But I think our Government�??�??�?�¢??s job is to protect people that can not protect them selves.
But who said the world is fair? I answer who said it has to be unfair?
I believe you really feel this way. Big government folks usually do. The answer to all of life’s problems is…more government, right? It’s ALWAYS more government. Always. Every time. Without fail.
Government is an eternally benevolent albeit pervasive force. Gotta have more of it so…that “we” can protect people that cannot (or will not) protect themselves.
“Hi, I’m with the government and I’m here to help you!”
“Bend over. I’ll make this feel good for you. I promise.”
We agree, I think a livable wage could easily be obtained by an increase in minimum wage and Socialized medicine
Deal. Let’s just go with $50K a year for a married couple. $65K for a family of three and 35K for a single. OK? Let’s raise the minimum wage for lettuce pickers in AZ to $50,000 a year. AND give them “free” socialized medicine! Whadda ya say? Will ye sail with me on this voyage, Pitt?[/quote]
I think the Farming Industry is the Epitome of what I am speaking about,
Thirty years ago farming was mostly a family business, most of the employees were not well paid, but they treated with respect.
Today the Corporate farm has squeezed out all the family farms by beating the price down. In doing so the only way for the corporate farm to survive is on the back of their employees.
They have beaten down wages to such a low level that no intelligent American would work for so little. So they have to hire immigrant worker that will tolerate low wages and abuses
There has to be a collective voice in America that demonizes poor. Saying they are lazy and poor by their own fault. In order to sooth the conscience of the masses. If it were not that collective voice I think Americans would be appalled at treating other humans to substandard living.
To answer your question, I think we could get Americans back into the agricultural industry if they paid in the thirty thousand dollar range, they would also have to work in habitable, livable buildings to house employees.
That would have a snow ball effect on wages; People would be leaving the burger flipping jobs, for the onion fields. Mickey Ds would have to pay more if they wanted to keep employees, Also we would have to pay more for food.
That is not perfect but in my opinion it is better than letting the free market dictate to us
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Razorslim wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.
The ignorance is strong in this one.
Alex, I’ll take sarcastic responses for $1000
…Are you saying TBT4ever was being sarcastic? Or that I was? I certainly wasn’t, and if TBT was, I apologise <_<[/quote]
The way I read it was that TBT4ever was agreeing with the previous poster by using irony. Only TBT4ever knows for sure.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Getting rid of the social net will never happen,
Because lazy, entitled people can vote too.
pittbulll wrote:
I know you will disagree with me but if some one were to get off their asses and get an education they just may take your job. I have had this discussion with other free market idiots, but I will have at it with you. There are a limited number of jobs. I know that new jobs can be created, but mostly if some one gets a job means also some has lost a job. Just as if you paid me a hundred dollars to dig a ditch I have a hundred dollars that you used to own
First of all, if you gave me $100 to dig a ditch, you did so under your own volition and therefore I have taken nothing from you against your will and owe you nothing more than the digging of that ditch in return. The exchange of $100 for the digging of a ditch is the economic activity (work) and I have no responsibilities to you outside of that nor do you have any to me.
Now, to address your other (horribly flawed) argument, you are operating under the assumption that the demand for labor is fixed. Economic growth creates more jobs that pay more. There were far fewer high paying jobs in 1900 than there are today. By the same hand, more people possessing specific skills and the initiative to use them for financial gain. Now, if you get into the realm of a shrinking economy-like the one resulting from widespread dependence on social welfare and the subsequent low productivity-then there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around.
More and more people are receiving higher education over the past 30 years, so by your logic, employment of new college graduates should be shrinking due to an increase in the labor supply. This, however, is the opposite of the trend. The lifelong value of a college degree continues to rise.
Your lack of understanding with regards to these very simple economic concepts is astounding.[/quote]
First of all , I never said anything about taking some oneâ??s money against their will , I was making a point that if I paid you a hundred dollars to dig a ditch , you did not create that money out of thin air , I gave it to you and I no longer have it.
We agree economic growth creates more jobs, but with out growth there are no new jobs, and in a recession there are a shrinking number of jobs
There is an increasing amount of education being required for jobs that do not require education, I believe it to be a bench mark of intelligence, factual or not.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
TBT4ver wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Getting rid of the social net will never happen,
Because lazy, entitled people can vote too.
pittbulll wrote:
I know you will disagree with me but if some one were to get off their asses and get an education they just may take your job. I have had this discussion with other free market idiots, but I will have at it with you. There are a limited number of jobs. I know that new jobs can be created, but mostly if some one gets a job means also some has lost a job. Just as if you paid me a hundred dollars to dig a ditch I have a hundred dollars that you used to own
First of all, if you gave me $100 to dig a ditch, you did so under your own volition and therefore I have taken nothing from you against your will and owe you nothing more than the digging of that ditch in return. The exchange of $100 for the digging of a ditch is the economic activity (work) and I have no responsibilities to you outside of that nor do you have any to me.
Now, to address your other (horribly flawed) argument, you are operating under the assumption that the demand for labor is fixed. Economic growth creates more jobs that pay more. There were far fewer high paying jobs in 1900 than there are today. By the same hand, more people possessing specific skills and the initiative to use them for financial gain. Now, if you get into the realm of a shrinking economy-like the one resulting from widespread dependence on social welfare and the subsequent low productivity-then there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around.
More and more people are receiving higher education over the past 30 years, so by your logic, employment of new college graduates should be shrinking due to an increase in the labor supply. This, however, is the opposite of the trend. The lifelong value of a college degree continues to rise.
Your lack of understanding with regards to these very simple economic concepts is astounding.
But I thought all economic activity was a zero sum game? There’s no way that BOTH parties in that ditch digging example are benefiting.
I get money, he gets a ditch. I receive money in return for my time. He gives money in return for getting the ditch without expending his time. One’s time is a finite resource so that time has a monetary value.
Are there many more of you guys? No wonder our country is in so much trouble.[/quote]
By george I think he’s got it
Got what? That you don’t understand simple economic principles?
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.
This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.
They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.
Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.
Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.
So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.
I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.
It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice
Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.
See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.
So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.
I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product
Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.
I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEO�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package
I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.
These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,
I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.
I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.
So the market value of a company is not linked to sales, production, legal matters, accounting etc?
And obviously I just used CEO becuase that was the term that the previous example had given. We need to include CFO, COO and CTO in this.
A well run company is an administrative procedure mostly. But making sure everybody does his job and making sure all the bills are paid on time making sure no one is breaking the law, does not make some one buy your product, I do not care how well you run a company that sells condoms for dogs. A company that makes condoms for people if run reasonably well will out produce the company that makes condoms for dogs. The market is the most important factor.
I agree about CFO we also left off the 20 Vice Presidents
Whilst I will admit that the senior management team in a company is often not as important as they think they are, they are way more important than you think they are.
You and I must have a different perspective.
N-O-K-I-A!!!
A-P-P-L-E!!!
M-I-C-R-O-S-O-F-T!!!
They all have awesome products; Apple and Microsoft were run for a long time by the founders. That is where it is at innovation. The irony that you chose two friends that took the same product in two directions just prove my point even more. I do not know a lot about Nokia; I have had one of their phones and really liked it
If you want to prove your point that a CEO makes a company, tell me one that sells dog shit and makes a handsome profit.
Who do you think makes the decision what to make and sell and how to produce it?
I think Microsoft and Apple had an idea and built their companies around that Idea, research and development is usually not part of the CEO�¢??s job description.
I think there are exceptions especially when the founder is CEO and inventor or developer.
I think a good example of my point is Home Depot, when Bernie and Author founded Home Depot they hired people out of the Trades, to insure the had knowledgeable employees . They paid more than other retailers and expected a higher standard of ethics. When Bernie and Author left the experts in retail took over and ran the company into the ground.
I think private companies owned by one or two people would always have the company�¢??s best interest at heart, I could not make the same statement about public corporations.
Maybe not, but these problems are not exactly new.
Ultimately it is the owners responsibility to structure his employments incentives in a way so that they are in sinc with his own goals.
If he fails to do that he will go bankrupt and people who take their role more seriously will take over his business.
Meanwhile though these decisions need to be made by someone and you have posted an example yourself how wrong decisions can ruin a company. It would be hard for a low level employee to do that.
So, if CEO decisions have far reaching consequences you want the very best and those cost money because they are a) in short supply and b) have so much money sooner or later that it takes serious moolah to motivate them to get their ass to work in the morning instead of banging fitness models all day.
[/quote]
These problems that are not new are problems all the same. And still need fixing
As far as the business going bankrupt because he giving no employment incentives is silly. That may work if we were in a job market where there are more jobs than workers,
As far as CEOâ??s making or breaking a company, I know it happens. But most companies are not made or broke by the CEO. The market is a much bigger predictor than CEO as far as a companyâ??s success or failure