oldtimer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 step 3: indirect prices follows that. Why does everyone believe this? I don't see that it's your or my job to see to it that a family can afford to eat at McDonalds. Prices for those jobs that are minimum wage are generally in things that we didn't buy when I was a kid in a low income family. We got by just fine on staples whose prices still remain far lower than "fast food" and such. Minimum wage people, in general, affect the prices of things they can't afford. Gasoline isn't going to be affected. Electricity isn't going to be affected, not many poor people own rent properties so rent isn't going to be affected. However, I ask you: Is there a better solution? The days of just letting people die or live out a miserable existence are past as is slavery. I don't think a society striving to become civilized can afford to simply ignore its under privileged. Judging whether they are "worthy" of help or not is impossible. Supporting them by huge, wasteful, and corrupt public programs simply costs billions and sweeps the problem under the rug. So the real question is to discontinue those programs and let'em rot since they don't work, or try something a bit more direct. That's all I am saying. Cut on the middle man. The cost will be the same...no idea why you think raising the minimum wage would have a big impact on prices as WE ARE ALREADY PAYING IT...just through taxes. Dave They believe it from the wage-price spiral concept in economics. What most don't realize is that it is a phenomenon which occurs only during times of full employment. Similarly many do not fully understand Friedman's equation explaining inflation. Money supply is part of it, but only part or otherwise looking at M1 or M2 we would already have runaway inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 step 3: indirect prices follows that. Why does everyone believe this? Because it's basic economics. Case in point using a local town as a simplistic example let's look at food: 1. the gas station raises fuel prices to cover their employees 2. the farmer buys fuel at inflated prices then raises prices more cover their additional expenses and employee raises 3. the food distribution supply company buys the food at inflated prices, trucks it with inflated fuel prices, then raises prices to cover their additional expenses and employee raises 4. the IGA buys the food at inflated prices then raises it more to cover their additional expenses and employee raises 5. the local hamburger joint buys the food from the IGA at inflated prices then raises it more to cover expenses and employee raises 6. suddenly the raise that the motorcycle shop worker next door got isn't quite as meaningful when he goes to buy a burger. Wait a minute now, I thought all we were doing was raising the price of a hamburger a little to cover the burger flipper? No, it goes well beyond that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Simul-post! See mine above. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Look ma! I went to college and studied my *** off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 No, it goes well beyond that. Seems like a more detailed explanation of post 498 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) No, it goes well beyond that. Seems like a more detailed explanation of post 498 Yep. We were furiously typing at the same time apparently. Look at the time stamp. I'm just more long winded and don't know the big smart official terms. Edited November 11, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 No, it goes well beyond that. Actually, it doesn't. It isn't the Ponzi scheme you describe. That is what the 1 percent have promulgated for decades. Do you REALLY think it's cheaper to pay for basic services to the needy via taxes than directly through a livable wage? Dave 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 see post 501. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) At least we aren't England: In the sweet old country where I come fromNobody ever worksYeah nothing gets doneWe hang fire, we hang fire You know having money is a full time jobI don't need the aggravationI'm a lazy slobI hang fire, I hang fireHang fire, put it on the wire babyHang fire, hang fire put it on the wire baby, go aheadHang fire We've got nothing to eatWe got nowhere to workNothing to drinkWe just lost our shirtsI'm on the doleWe ain't for hireSay what the hellSay what the hell, hang fireHang fire, hang fire, hang fire, put it on the wire babyHang fire, hang fire, hang fire, hang fire, hang fire, hang fire, put it on the wire baby Doo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo Doo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo, hang fire, hang fire, hang fire Doo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo doo, hang fire, hang fire, put it on the wire babyDoo doo Doo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo dooDoo doo Yeah ten thousand dollars, go have some funPut it all on at a hundred to oneHang fire, hang fire, hang fire, put it on the wire babyDoo dooDoo doo, hang fire, hang fire put it on the wireHang fire, hang fire, hang fire, hang firePut it on the wire babyPut it on the wire Edited November 11, 2015 by oldtimer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prerich Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Someone, anyone, please explain to me how America can realistically expect to rebuild the middle class, and the strength that a stable middle class brings, WITHOUT a return of manufacturing within our boarders. The era of the mindless manufacturing jobs where an operator can make bank with very little skills is over. Sorry but it just is. That's what everybody is really getting at when they ask for manufacturing to come back. You have to follow the economy and reinvent yourself into something useful. My immediate area was hit hard by this type of thing, this place used to be booming back in the day with the USEC plant. Now it's a sad situation. Anyway, my fear isn't offshoring as much as the wave of robotics that will be here in 15 years. They're predicting that everybody from sales to customer support will be replaced by robots sooner than you think. Lots of minimum wage jobs will be able to be automated soon, that's not really debatable, but the powers that be are shooting higher than that. I must agree with you here. The market has changed from blue collar to white or gray. I'm in the "observation" business so as long as they need Big Brother - I'm ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow#422 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Big Brother / Rare Earth Lyrics [Chorus]Hey big brotherAs soon as you arriveYou better get in touch with the people, big brotherAnd get them on your side, big brotherAnd keep them satisfied Welcome to the beat of the city streetWalk on now and don't be shyTake a closer look at the people you meetAnd notice the fear in their eyesWatching the time passing by [Chorus] Focus your eye on the filthy skyJust as far as you can seeEverybody's gettin' kind of tired of waitin''Cause nobody wants to cryAnd nobody wants to die [Chorus] Now that you got the pictureWhat you gonna doNow that you got the pictureWhat you gonna do 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Lacking an income (means, as you will) due to choice is just that: a choice. Who lacks an income due to choice? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 There are some very bad assumptions promoted here. The story line that every wage increase is equal to a price hike is false. You are forgetting something called PROFIT which is a part of the price too. So, a wage increase can just as often come out of the profit, and no price adjustment is required. Some process are flexible, but most are other by competition. Try to imagine if you could simply charge any price you wanted because your oven broke down, or your rent went up, or you made a bad decision? You guys are pretending process can be anything needed to cover costs. And that's not true. Of you breakdown $3 cup of coffee you find materials, overhead, labor, and profit. Now look, it should be obvious to anyone with a calculator that you can raise labor lower profit and maintain $3 coffee! In many cases, the wages are too low because the profit is too high. However, every business channel (there are no labor channels!!) Seeks the false story that profit must remain fixed and all labor increases have to become price increase. Pure rubbish. All fundamental analysis shows that wages are being driven down while profit is being driven up. Some of that needs to be reversed. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Lacking an income (means, as you will) due to choice is just that: a choice. Who lacks an income due to choice? I know several. Lots of people playing the system. I didn't read them, so you might poke holes in the stories. http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356317/welfare-better-deal-work-michael-tanner http://madamenoire.com/461876/welfare/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 If you didn't read them why should we? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofers and Tweeters Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) If you didn't read them why should we? Don't. I didn't ask you to. I didn't ask the question, nor did you. I don't have time right now. There needs to be a two front attack. Tighten the loopholes at doth ends. Edited November 12, 2015 by jweber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 There are some very bad assumptions promoted here. The story line that every wage increase is equal to a price hike is false. You are forgetting something called PROFIT which is a part of the price too. So, a wage increase can just as often come out of the profit, and no price adjustment is required. Some process are flexible, but most are other by competition. Try to imagine if you could simply charge any price you wanted because your oven broke down, or your rent went up, or you made a bad decision? You guys are pretending process can be anything needed to cover costs. And that's not true. Of you breakdown $3 cup of coffee you find materials, overhead, labor, and profit. Now look, it should be obvious to anyone with a calculator that you can raise labor lower profit and maintain $3 coffee! In many cases, the wages are too low because the profit is too high. However, every business channel (there are no labor channels!!) Seeks the false story that profit must remain fixed and all labor increases have to become price increase. Pure rubbish. All fundamental analysis shows that wages are being driven down while profit is being driven up. Some of that needs to be reversed. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Henry Ford being the perfect example here. JJK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Actually, it doesn't. It isn't the Ponzi scheme you describe. That is what the 1 percent have promulgated for decades. Why do you think it wouldn't? There are many levels of the supply chain. If you raise costs at every level, then every level higher will pay a higher cost. Businesses aren't just going to absorb all of this. They're going to pass on the increased costs, which in this case will be both an increase of the goods they are buying as well as an increase in their salary payout. I've had steel double on me overnight. The mill raised it, the distributor raised it, the manufacturer raised it, then I raised it. Same thing with a rubber shortage in China. The entire thing starts with a rubber factory in China then crawls its way up to where I'm selling tires for $20 more each. If every level has additional costs on top of that then the end user will pay even more. Not sure how this is such a debatable subject. It's just how business works. Do you REALLY think it's cheaper to pay for basic services to the needy via taxes than directly through a livable wage? Two different questions. Just because prices of goods and services will rise, that has zero to do with whether it's morally right or cheaper as a whole nation. Consumer prices will rise, and will not be just representative of the last level in the supply chain before the customer. You can debate what that means but that doesn't change the basic fact. Edited November 12, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Of you breakdown $3 cup of coffee you find materials, overhead, labor, and profit. Now look, it should be obvious to anyone with a calculator that you can raise labor lower profit and maintain $3 coffee! If you really think that's what will happen even if it were possible, then I just need to bow out, that's a silly idea. Today's supply chain is often based on high volume low markup due to competition. You can't just raise costs significantly and expect businesses just to absorb it. Even if it were possible, the board and shareholders on a public company wouldn't be cool with that. I also showed the numbers on this very thing in regards to StarBucks. The cost of raising their pay to $15 an hour on all their minimum workers is likely more than all the profits they make worldwide for the entire year. Yet you think that coffee businesses specifically will literally just absorb it and call it good. Makes no sense. Edited November 12, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Every level is the key here. Every level is the assumption. What is the actual fact? Minimum wage represents an increase at every level input? Who cares about Starbucks anyway? Check out the coffee cables thread. We brew our own. Every level? When you can walk on the paper without leaving a trace, then you will have learned. I don't recall any published numbers regarding the profit of Starbucks. Please demonstrate. So expensive coffee becomes more expensive. This suddenly becomes every level? I thought you went to college and studied your *** off. What exactly did you learn? Clearly not the wage-price spiral and the conditions which make it valid. OK, for rhetorical purposes I will say it again. Every level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.