[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
[/quote]
Maybe you should not eat that Big Mac 
But on a serious note would you spend two dollars rather than ninety nine cents for a Big Mac?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
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 father�¢??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
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]
I am not sure what the actual population rate is, but I would bet most of it is immigration, legal and illegal. Right now the Job market is losing jobs 2.6 million so far
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Got what? That you don’t understand simple economic principles?[/quote]
No I do not think you got that
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
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 father�?�¢??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
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.
I am not sure what the actual population rate is, but I would bet most of it is immigration, legal and illegal. Right now the Job market is losing jobs 2.6 million so far
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/[/quote]
So, you understand that losing jobs is BAD. Right?
Then why do you continue to support a policy whose primary is to created a condition under which fewer people are employed? Did you not think of that or did your mind overheat and stop working before you got that far?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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
[/quote]
The market fixes it. It is called “bankruptcy”.
We are in a job market where there are more jobs than workers. At least as far as the job market goes when it comes to real talent-
That is why they get incentives and those for whom there are less jobs dont.
As I have posted Nokias management decided to go from rubber booths to cell phones, so who decided which market to enter?
Also, some markets may expand rapidly, but that hardly means that YOUR company will benefit. For every Google, and Nokia there are dozen of failed companies that hardly benefit from the expanding market even though they are in the exact same market!
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
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 father�??�?�¢??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
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.
I am not sure what the actual population rate is, but I would bet most of it is immigration, legal and illegal. Right now the Job market is losing jobs 2.6 million so far
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/
So, you understand that losing jobs is BAD. Right?
Then why do you continue to support a policy whose primary is to created a condition under which fewer people are employed? Did you not think of that or did your mind overheat and stop working before you got that far?[/quote]
Holy shit, you agree with me losing jobs is bad. To think how that must stress reasoning abilities
Now we are back to your opinion versus my opinion. I think I am right and you are a Dick head
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
Maybe you should not eat that Big Mac But on a serious note would you spend two dollars rather than ninety nine cents for a Big Mac?
[/quote]
Maybe he would.
Unfortunately he cannot spend that dollar twice so it will be missed somewhere else.
And thats bad because it means that someone, somewhere loses his job.
It is just that you see the happy McDonalds worker while you do not see the worker who loses his job because the dollar was spent on BicMacs.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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 CEO�?�¢??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 company�?�¢??s success or failure
It is a process where capital is transferred to those who can from those who cannot.
That is why they get incentives and those for whom there are less jobs dont.
As I have posted Nokias management decided to go from rubber booths to cell phones, so who decided which market to enter?
Also, some markets may expand rapidly, but that hardly means that YOUR company will benefit. For every Google, and Nokia there are dozen of failed companies that hardly benefit from the expanding market even though they are in the exact same market!
[/quote]
I think it would be a boon to the labor market if they were to start with the lowliest of jobs, which would probably be the lettuce picker, and in that special case allow the free market to work. Disallow any migrant workers to work the field and they would have to pay a wage that would attract employees and then treat the labor they do get right.
I know I am not that old, but when I grew up everybody had a job. In the sixties all mothers were stay at home. And the family lived on Dadâ??s wages
In the seventies all the Mothers went to work, and lived a little better than the sixties.
There were so many jobs the companies had to hire High School students because that was the biggest labor pool available
Now you have both Mom and Dad working and no one is getting ahead, and most are losing ground fast. Every year productivity goes up and up and up, year after year. Wages have been stagnant for middle class since the sixties. But that top one percent is making astounding gains.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
Maybe you should not eat that Big Mac But on a serious note would you spend two dollars rather than ninety nine cents for a Big Mac?
Maybe he would.
Unfortunately he cannot spend that dollar twice so it will be missed somewhere else.
And thats bad because it means that someone, somewhere loses his job.
It is just that you see the happy McDonalds worker while you do not see the worker who loses his job because the dollar was spent on BicMacs.[/quote]
Of course he can not spend that dollar twice he would have to spend another dollar he carries in his wallet.
I do not understand the rest of this post ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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 CEO�??�?�¢??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 company�??�?�¢??s success or failure
It is a process where capital is transferred to those who can from those who cannot.
That is why they get incentives and those for whom there are less jobs dont.
As I have posted Nokias management decided to go from rubber booths to cell phones, so who decided which market to enter?
Also, some markets may expand rapidly, but that hardly means that YOUR company will benefit. For every Google, and Nokia there are dozen of failed companies that hardly benefit from the expanding market even though they are in the exact same market!
I think it would be a boon to the labor market if they were to start with the lowliest of jobs, which would probably be the lettuce picker, and in that special case allow the free market to work. Disallow any migrant workers to work the field and they would have to pay a wage that would attract employees and then treat the labor they do get right.
I know I am not that old, but when I grew up everybody had a job. In the sixties all mothers were stay at home. And the family lived on Dadâ??s wages
In the seventies all the Mothers went to work, and lived a little better than the sixties.
There were so many jobs the companies had to hire High School students because that was the biggest labor pool available
Now you have both Mom and Dad working and no one is getting ahead, and most are losing ground fast. Every year productivity goes up and up and up, year after year. Wages have been stagnant for middle class since the sixties. But that top one percent is making astounding gains.
[/quote]
I think you know what would happen.
If you raise the wages of lettuce pickers, it would only mean that lettuce would no longer be produced in the US and then noone has a job.
If you believe that it is wrong that families can no longer live off of one income Id look to those who take away half their paycheck in the name of compassion.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
Maybe you should not eat that Big Mac But on a serious note would you spend two dollars rather than ninety nine cents for a Big Mac?
Maybe he would.
Unfortunately he cannot spend that dollar twice so it will be missed somewhere else.
And thats bad because it means that someone, somewhere loses his job.
It is just that you see the happy McDonalds worker while you do not see the worker who loses his job because the dollar was spent on BicMacs.
Of course he can not spend that dollar twice he would have to spend another dollar he carries in his wallet.
I do not understand the rest of this post ?
[/quote]
Unless he has a magic wallet he can only spend so much.
What he spends on a BigMac he cannot spend anywhere else.
So, if you raise the wages of burger flippers and even if McDonalds was able to pass that on to customers all that would happen is that someone somewhere else loses his job so that the burger flipper can have a higher income.
Ironically the burger flipper does not even benefit that much because burgers just became more expensive so now he can buy less burgers for his salary even though he nominally earns more.
I lost my job because minimum wage went up from 6.55 to 7.25 in July. It seems my employer didn’t think my work was worth the extra dollar. They were total bitches.
[quote]KyleT wrote:
I lost my job because minimum wage went up from 6.55 to 7.25 in July. It seems my employer didn’t think my work was worth the extra dollar. They were total bitches.[/quote]
It seems the government didn’t think your work was worth anything.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Using your reasoning abilities , I would say this is stupid , if Mac Donald�??�?�¢??s can not pay it�??�?�¢??s workers a wage they can live on then maybe they should not be allowed to employ people
Wages are proportioned to the lowest point a company can get away with paying.
Maybe we should just allow people to live better on the social net we have built for them, meaning Welfare.
McDonalds can pay the guy who mops the floors and refills the napkin things a livable wage, but they aren’t in business because they like paying people, they are in business to make money. Requiring that they double what they pay their bottom of the barrel, expendable, no-talent-or-intellect required employees means that they will simply keep fewer of those people around and require more of them. So now, 1/3 of the people who worked at McDonalds are now without ANY wage. AND because everything now costs more because everyone is having to pay their lowest producing employees more, those 2/3 of the McDonalds employees who were able to keep their jobs still can’t afford shit.
Very ethical, huh?
And no, we shouldn’t allow them to live better on the welfare safety net. Have you been paying attention at all here?
Yes, it is ethical. In no way is McDonald’s forcing this person to work there. They made the choice, McDonald’s put out the rules regulations and circumstances, and they agreed to it. The question is it fair? But who said the world is fair, I sure know that none of these people requesting more money were not at the negotiations trying to make that last dollar on a deals.
Re read my post brudda, you’re agreeing with me. My point is that artificial price floors create circumstances that are actually worse for workers.[/quote]
I know, your post just confused me so I thought I would try to clear it up.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
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, I’m the CEO of my company, so I will pay myself whatever the fuck I want to pay myself. Second, if I hired someone to run my company & investments it would be proportional to how much they make for me. Which most companies do pay their CEO’s a pretty uniform proportion of the companies net income. Same as they pay their employees.
What point of mine are you disagreeing with? [/quote]
Paying the CEO 800 times the entry level employees.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
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.[/quote]
What your missing: If you forced the wage up, thousands of those farm workers will be left without ANY INCOME AT ALL. You’re completely ignoring the dead weight loss.
Free markets don’t dictate. They are a result of individual humans making decisions voluntarily. Therefore, they CANNOT dictate. Stop anthropomorphising markets.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors
So we would all be paying $15 for a Big Mac? yeah, that’s brilliant.
Maybe you should not eat that Big Mac But on a serious note would you spend two dollars rather than ninety nine cents for a Big Mac?
Maybe he would.
Unfortunately he cannot spend that dollar twice so it will be missed somewhere else.
And thats bad because it means that someone, somewhere loses his job.
It is just that you see the happy McDonalds worker while you do not see the worker who loses his job because the dollar was spent on BicMacs.
Of course he can not spend that dollar twice he would have to spend another dollar he carries in his wallet.
I do not understand the rest of this post ?
[/quote]
Because the McDonald’s owner is suddenly faced with a higher price, he must move his purchasing (also known as ‘hiring’) of workers to a lower quantity to maximise profits.
He’s saying that you’re ignoring the man who LOSES HIS JOB so that another man may live more comfortably doing the same work.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I know I am not that old, but when I grew up everybody had a job. In the sixties all mothers were stay at home. And the family lived on Dadâ??s wages
In the seventies all the Mothers went to work, and lived a little better than the sixties.
There were so many jobs the companies had to hire High School students because that was the biggest labor pool available
Now you have both Mom and Dad working and no one is getting ahead, and most are losing ground fast. Every year productivity goes up and up and up, year after year. Wages have been stagnant for middle class since the sixties. But that top one percent is making astounding gains.
[/quote]
And do you think minimum wage has risen or fallen since then hmm?
The minimum wage only does one thing.
Destroys the middle class.