Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Massachusetts sets the state minimum wage to $11, suck it red state workers   (money.cnn.com) divider line 279
    More: Cool, Massachusetts, minimum wages, highest state  
•       •       •

738 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2014 at 2:45 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-20 05:15:29 PM  

Gonz: cman: Mass just ensured their economic recovery cratered their economy.

FTFY. This will be overturned by popular demand within 6 months, because businesses will quit hiring.

Then there will be no demand for goods and services, and then MA will watch their tax revenues dwindle, and then they'll look to states like Mississippi to see how to fix the problem.


I moved from Mississippi to Massachusetts to get a job, so I'm getting a kick out of this.

/no really
 
2014-06-20 05:17:00 PM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: The increased sales of products cannot, mathematically, be greater than the increased costs due to higher wages!

This statement implies that halving everyone's wages would be a net benefit to the economy. Is that your intent?

Letting the market decide wages, without price floors, would be optimal for the economy.   Wouldn't remotely reduce in anything close to halving wages.

In theory. In practice, that's just not the case. We end up subsidizing substandard wages with tax dollars. That is not optimal.

Exactly

We can't do this anymore.

Its becoming too damn expensive for the tax payers to make up for what they should be getting in wages

Food stamps in a perfect world would be there to help those who are unable to work. Someone who works should get paid enough to live.


You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.   Increased costs will increase prices.    Should such subsidies, if you think they should exist, be paid for by walmart shoppers or people who eat at mcdonalds via increased prices or by taxpayers?

Hmmmmmmm.  Never mind.  Let the walmart shoppers and mcnugget eaters pay for it instead of me.  Give them some "skin in the game".  Good idea.  I stand corrected.
 
2014-06-20 05:24:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If we do want to subsidize low income workers, the fairest and most efficient is EITC, food stamps, rent subsidies etc.


But it's pretty much the same crowd biatching about higher min. wage that also biatches about all that other stuff.

Just sayin'...a lot of people want low (or no) min. wage and low (or no) food stamps, etc....

Listening to these jackasses is tiring.
 
2014-06-20 05:31:29 PM  

sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?


Because she doesn't have the power to bargain for a wage comparable to her marginal product of labor. Her employer will tell her to take a hike, and find someone with less dignity or more hunger.
That difference, the difference between what she produces and what she's paid, is a surplus to her employer. If he paid a wage that would prevail in a free market, in which everyone had equal bargaining power, the only difference between that economy and this one is he would make less and she would make more. Every other transaction would be made. No deadweight loss.
You could replicate our economy exactly, if you started with a free market with everyone having equal bargaining power, and then you gave every employer a gun and told him it was OK to hold it to poor peoples' heads and steal some money from them. Every transaction made in one economy would be the same as every transaction made in the other economy, except for the way one side is taking from another. I don't know why we call it stealing in one case and freedom in another. We could switch the labels if we want, because the two economies are the same.
 
2014-06-20 05:33:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: yet seem to think a website called "raisetheminimumwage.org" and a link from Berkeley have credibility.

Dude, there's ACTUAL DATA at both of those links. See, unlike Townhall and Investopedia, I showed my work. I provided you links to the raw data.

Also, it's freakin' Berkeley. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world. And it hasn't been a center of left-wing thought since the 60s. You should really get with the times.

 Debeo Summa Credo: Arguing against that is like arguing against the existence of global warming.

I never argued that all minimum wage increases led to a net benefit. Obviously you could set a minimum wage too high. I said this:

"Which is not to say that there is not a point of diminishing returns. There obviously is."

You're arguing against a strawman position and consistently failing to address the fact that the links I have provided have actual empirical data to back them up.

You're the one with his fingers in his ears saying, "nope, the world isn't warming, the science is wrong," when I'm pointing to charts of temperature readouts that are climbing.

Although I am pleased to see such an eloquent example of the Rovian dictum to accuse your interlocutor of what you yourself are guilty of. Your ideological bias is strong, ergo you must try to point out my ideological bias. Fine. I'll admit it. I'm a big, stinking lizard commie. You got me. But that's why I'm not telling you just to believe me or google random macro terms. I'm telling you there's the data in black and white. Don't believe me, double check it.

There's data in the study that is linked to in the townhall link.

estimated deadweight loss to economy of increases in minimum wage past 1994 at $500m per year.

Not large by any means, but negative.

Our minimum wages aren't oppressive, therefore there aren't huge impacts and exogenous variables swamp the min wage impact in most cases. But they do come with a cost.


So the estimated deadweight loss is about 0.004% of GDP.  That's negative, but it's pretty damn negligible.
 
2014-06-20 05:46:04 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.


We're doing both--that money that goes to the worker through the government also takes the obligation off of Walmart to pay their employees more.  

If you truly believe that the market would force Walmarts wages up to $15 absent govt benefits to their minimum wage workers, then by all mean lets cut those benefits (gradually) and let the market drive wage prices to their natural clearing rate.

I'm pretty sure no one actually believes this.

I propose this all the time but nobody every takes me up on it.  Why?  Because the truth of the matter is that absent govt benefits to low and no income workers, labor supply to walmart would dramatically INCREASE as people at that level would seek additional employment to make up for the loss of govt benefits.  This increase would lower the wages walmart would need to pay.   So if anything, our social safety net increases the market clearing rate of low wage labor, the exact opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

In a sense, you're almost correct--Walmart isn't going to magically start paying people more if we get rid of the safety net.  Walmart doesn't care if their employees die in the streets from abject poverty--there are always more desperate workers available.

... which is exactly why the government has stepped in and created minimum wage, thus preventing such a scenario.
 
2014-06-20 06:04:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not so sure.  We've assumed as a society a minimum level of income (lets pretend its $15 per hour) is necessary and subsidize people who fall below that (whether they don't work at all or work at wal-mart at $8 per hour).   Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.


Absent that safety net (remember, we didn't always have that) people also were not paid a living wage.

You're acting like this is a theoretical thing when in fact it is a real-world example.
 
2014-06-20 06:05:18 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?


That's exactly what I'm saying.
 
2014-06-20 06:06:08 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.


Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.
 
2014-06-20 06:11:35 PM  
Ok, I guess I'll root for HON to score a goal.
 
2014-06-20 06:17:38 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because she doesn't have the power to bargain for a wage comparable to her marginal product of labor. Her employer will tell her to take a hike, and find someone with less dignity or more hunger.
That difference, the difference between what she produces and what she's paid, is a surplus to her employer. If he paid a wage that would prevail in a free market, in which everyone had equal bargaining power, the only difference between that economy and this one is he would make less and she would make more. Every other transaction would be made. No deadweight loss.
You could replicate our economy exactly, if you started with a free market with everyone having equal bargaining power, and then you gave every employer a gun and told him it was OK to hold it to poor peoples' heads and steal some money from them. Every transaction made in one economy would be the same as every transaction made in the other economy, except for the way one side is taking from another. I don't know why we call it stealing in one case and freedom in another. We could switch the labels if we want, because the two economies are the same.


Well argued, sir. I hereby award you an internet.
 
2014-06-20 06:31:29 PM  
Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought
 
2014-06-20 06:39:30 PM  

mutterfark: Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought


$12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.
 
2014-06-20 06:43:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.


Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.
 
2014-06-20 06:44:12 PM  

cman: mutterfark: Would a progressive "Trickle Down" tax beginning with single earners making $250k/yr or $500k/couple/year be workable? Maybe 1/2% at the bottom to 5% for income over $10mil/yr? Then jack up the minimum wage to $12/hr starting 09/01/2014. The tax money would be used to pay for tax breaks/subsidies for small businesses for which an immediate increase of the national minimum wage to $12/hr would be a hardship.

/just a thought

$12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.


ADDENDUM

I don't want this to fail. If it does big business will have an excuse to lobby against minimum wage increases across the nation. MA has to take it slow and steady to ensure that we don't cause complete upheaval in their economy. When MA is successful, which it will be, the rest of the nation will see this and (hopefully) follow their example.
 
2014-06-20 06:46:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not so sure.  We've assumed as a society a minimum level of income (lets pretend its $15 per hour) is necessary and subsidize people who fall below that (whether they don't work at all or work at wal-mart at $8 per hour).   Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.

Absent that safety net (remember, we didn't always have that) people also were not paid a living wage.

You're acting like this is a theoretical thing when in fact it is a real-world example.


When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing. Absent safety net, the market clearing price of walmarts wages would go DOWN.

I'm not arguing against safety net (here). Just pointing out the obvious flaw in an often made left wing argument re walmarts wages.
 
2014-06-20 06:47:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.


Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.
 
2014-06-20 06:47:26 PM  

cman: $12 by September first is going to do a lot of damage. MA has it spread out over a few years. It would be too big of a jump for the economy to handle.

MA has it right. $11 over 3 years is proper. That is about a $1 increment a year, plenty of time for the economy to adjust.


And that is probably the least of the things wrong with my idea. :|
 
2014-06-20 06:52:54 PM  

austerity101: Debeo Summa Credo: Unless you believe that absent that social safety net Walmart would have to pay its workers $15 per hour, then we aren't subsidizing walmart.  Rather we are subsidizing the low income worker, which is the intention.

We're doing both--that money that goes to the worker through the government also takes the obligation off of Walmart to pay their employees more.  

If you truly believe that the market would force Walmarts wages up to $15 absent govt benefits to their minimum wage workers, then by all mean lets cut those benefits (gradually) and let the market drive wage prices to their natural clearing rate.

I'm pretty sure no one actually believes this.

I propose this all the time but nobody every takes me up on it.  Why?  Because the truth of the matter is that absent govt benefits to low and no income workers, labor supply to walmart would dramatically INCREASE as people at that level would seek additional employment to make up for the loss of govt benefits.  This increase would lower the wages walmart would need to pay.   So if anything, our social safety net increases the market clearing rate of low wage labor, the exact opposite of what liberals would have you believe.

In a sense, you're almost correct--Walmart isn't going to magically start paying people more if we get rid of the safety net.  Walmart doesn't care if their employees die in the streets from abject poverty--there are always more desperate workers available.

... which is exactly why the government has stepped in and created minimum wage, thus preventing such a scenario.


You are contradicting yourself.

The government doesn't "take the obligation off Walmart to pay their employees more" because as you say they wouldn't pay anybody any more if there was no social safety net.

They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.
 
2014-06-20 06:57:57 PM  

cman: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.

Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.


I appreciate the artistic purposes and being called "Herr" is the nicest compliment I've ever received on fark.

I'd argue that we remain in an over consumptive/under saving society and I'm not at all bent about any decrease in consumption caused by the recession. We should be saving more, IMO, from both national competitiveness and personal responsibility standpoints.

Any short term discomfort will easily be made up with future gains.
 
2014-06-20 07:06:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.


Sure, the people who actually use the business. Unlike with tax subsidies which are paid by everyone. Which one do YOU think is better?
 
2014-06-20 07:08:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.


How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?
 
2014-06-20 07:11:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cman: Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: You are simplistically ignoring the fact that increased costs to employers will be paid by society, just like taxes.   It's not free.

Except for every single time that wages have been raised in the past.

Facepalm.

Somebody pays for it. It isn't free money. Comes out of somebody's pocket.

Ok then, wise guy. Let me ask you this: how can we get money into the hands of consumers? Trickle down hasn't worked. Communism hasn't worked. What is your genius plan oh Herr Economic Professor?

/The faster money moves the better the economy is. Right now money is moving damn slow. It has to be remediated if we want to get out of this damn rut.
//Dont take my German as me calling you a Nazi. I used that phrase for artistic purposes.

I appreciate the artistic purposes and being called "Herr" is the nicest compliment I've ever received on fark.

I'd argue that we remain in an over consumptive/under saving society and I'm not at all bent about any decrease in consumption caused by the recession. We should be saving more, IMO, from both national competitiveness and personal responsibility standpoints.

Any short term discomfort will easily be made up with future gains.


Yet more claims without references or citations. Shocking.
 
2014-06-20 07:11:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The government doesn't "take the obligation off Walmart to pay their employees more" because as you say they wouldn't pay anybody any more if there was no social safety net.


Yes they would, if there were a higher minimum wage. There's no contradiction there.
 
2014-06-20 07:12:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.


Wow...that sounds like an awesome society
 
2014-06-20 07:14:35 PM  

sweetmelissa31: All the restaurants in Boston are going to close shop and move to RI.


Sure are!  worked out fantastic for Curt Schilling and Rhode Island!

:D
 
2014-06-20 07:14:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Debeo Summa Credo: They would continue to pay fair market wages, which would go down absent the safety net as it would increase the number of "desperate" workers and the number of hours those workers would want.

Wow...that sounds like an awesome society


Didn't I read a book about that once? Something about grapes.
 
2014-06-20 07:15:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.


:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.
 
2014-06-20 07:15:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?


It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.
 
2014-06-20 07:21:29 PM  
Mike_1962:

What really gets me about this argument is that it's no longer a theoretical excercise. Minimum wages exist and have been raised in the past. Not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE has caused an inflationary bump of statistical significance. Not one. Never. It doesn't happen. To argue that it does flies in the face of reality.

It's not about that.  It about the eval guv'mint telling me what I can derp with my bootstrap rand businesses.


Government is evil, taxes are evil, freedom (from laws I don't like or think should be applied just to me) is everything this country was built from and for.


Yeah, it's 100% certifiable crazy with no sense of actual history.  IE dangerous.
 
2014-06-20 07:21:47 PM  

sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.


I know, that's why I'm advocating for a higher minimum wage?
 
2014-06-20 07:22:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: When I argue against the idiotic idea that the govt is subsidizing walmarts wages it is a real world thing.

How are you arguing against it from a factual standpoint? The data is clear. You are arguing a theoretical which does not exist. Walmart workers get a lot of government subsidies. How can you argue against facts?

It's not theoretical at all. Walmart pays $8.81 per hour or whatever on average to hourly workers. It's you who believes the theory that absent govt benefits to some of those workers those wages would go higher.


They would, because there would be a higher minimum wage.

I don't see how this is so difficult to comprehend.
 
2014-06-20 07:27:10 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!


Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.
 
2014-06-20 07:29:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: cameroncrazy1984: sendtodave: raerae1980: My employer can certainly handle the addition in pay.

Then why does your employer have to be forced to pay more?

Because otherwise the taxpayers are. Why should we subsidize employers?

But, if employers can afford to pay their workers more, why don't they do so voluntarily?

Because they want to maximize profits. I figured that was obvious. Greed is good for the employer. Not for the employee.

But, they're the job creators!  They shouldn't be regulated!  It's their duty to provide for the economic well-being of their employees, not some socialist government's!

... Are you trying to say that the right wing doesn't really care about the economic well-being of the people?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

:O

I mean, if you start with the assumption that everyone should have a xiao kang life, that is "pretty well off," how can you say that capitalism will provide that, then in the next breath say that capitalism has no obligation to do that?

Makes no sense.

Now, don't get me wrong, capitalism is really really good at making money. Great tool. The best.

But you can't rely on it to be fair.

I know, that's why I'm advocating for a higher minimum wage?


If you are going use the hammer of capitalism to turn the screws of economic well being, it's necessary.

I'm awesome at analogies.
 
2014-06-20 07:32:35 PM  

TyrantII: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.


"Confuse economics for accounting."

That is an awesome way to put it.

Under that mistaken idea, laborers are costs to be reduced or eliminated, instead of economic drivers.
 
2014-06-20 08:00:15 PM  
Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.
 
2014-06-20 08:04:28 PM  

mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.


But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.
 
2014-06-20 08:16:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.


Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh
 
2014-06-20 08:20:22 PM  

cman: cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.

Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh


Didn't you used to be a right wing troll? Or am I confused?
 
2014-06-20 08:23:37 PM  

sendtodave: cman: cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.

Hey dumbass, those extra 10 cents add up to a significant amount of money. Who gives a shiat on what that burger monkey makes? Its too goddamn expensive to pay a living wage. As long as the guy flipping burgers has a car to live in he should be happy and quit biatching about it.

Duh

Didn't you used to be a right wing troll? Or am I confused?


The correct term is Fark Independent Troll

And I take many a-things on a case-by-case basis. Google Modern Whigs. Very similar to what I believe.
 
2014-06-20 08:30:22 PM  

sendtodave: TyrantII: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Debeo Summa Credo: What should happen in this situation?

Hey guys! Hey guys! He's arguing about macroeconomics by using a single microeconomics transaction!

Conservative tend to confuse accounting for economics.  Accounting sheets need to be balanced and are always zero sum, you have profits, debt, revenue, assets, and losses.  Economics (ie wealth creation) is not zero sum.  Not even close.

That is unless the markets are so poor and concentrated that they're not operating as real capitalistic competitive markets.  In that case they do become more zero sum, and they can price fix and pass on operating costs to consumers without fear of someone just slashing their own margins and being more competitive to consumer demands.

"Confuse economics for accounting."

That is an awesome way to put it.

Under that mistaken idea, laborers are costs to be reduced or eliminated, instead of economic drivers.


Well you do have to deal with Accounting running a business.  Workers are always a cost on a balance sheet, but were more seen as Assets.  Now a days they've been strictly regulated to liabilities to be driven down, unless you're in the executive circle.

The concept of maximizing shareholder value went a long way to pushing that idea.  Every cost had to be bludgeoned to death with a Buick and be passed on to executives, the board, and shareholders; regardless of long term negative consequences.  Growth is hard when you do that, so instead you buy your way to growth through acquisitions and shrinking the competition to where you extract higher rents instead of competing legitimately.
 
2014-06-20 08:43:39 PM  

cman: Google Modern Whigs. Very similar to what I believe.


ORLY??

/owl joke
 
2014-06-20 08:44:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: mrshowrules: Ontario, Canada (population 13.5M), raised its minimum wage to $11 several months ago and our economy didn't' collapse.

But, you see, your burgers are now prohibitively expensive.


Thats why all Canadians have to drive to America to get heal... burgers... I know because I heard it on rush!
 
2014-06-20 09:11:05 PM  
I forget, is this the thread where we all point to our best end-of-days scenario while doing our damndest to ignore the fact that prices have always been increasing despite wages not increasing with them?

Or is this the thread where we pretend that we cook 100% of our meals and never need to stop in to a fast food place for any reason, ever, therefore the staff of teenagers doesn't deserve to get paid?

/Fighting this hard to feign so much ignorance must be tiring
 
2014-06-20 09:11:54 PM  

TyrantII: Well you do have to deal with Accounting running a business.  Workers are always a cost on a balance sheet, but were more seen as Assets.  Now a days they've been strictly regulated to liabilities to be driven down, unless you're in the executive circle.

The concept of maximizing shareholder value went a long way to pushing that idea.  Every cost had to be bludgeoned to death with a Buick and be passed on to executives, the board, and shareholders; regardless of long term negative consequences.  Growth is hard when you do that, so instead you buy your way to growth through acquisitions and shrinking the competition to where you extract higher rents instead of competing legitimately.


Astute observations.  I mean, it seems self evident, but there's lots of hand waving.

What I'm wondering is if capitalism truly is a better system for eliminating waste when compared to the alternatives... When will we see the C-level salaries be slashed?

If they aren't, then capitalism isn't that efficient.  It's still just the guys on top skimming off as much as they can, same as monarchy, socialism, heck, tribal chiefs.

At least, our brand of capitalism.  But if capitalism is all about efficiency, why don't the CEOs get downsized?
 
2014-06-20 09:12:38 PM  
Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.
 
2014-06-20 09:24:11 PM  
All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.
 
2014-06-20 09:33:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: All out of talking points,  DSD goes home.


Who's that?
 
2014-06-20 09:34:45 PM  

sendtodave: Also, I'm drunk now, so... pretend that was a coherent statement.


It made perfect sense to me but I'm drunk also.  Capitalism is excellent at concentrating capital.  However, right not the US does not need any more concentration of capital.
 
2014-06-20 09:43:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Our minimum wages aren't oppressive, therefore there aren't huge impacts and exogenous variables swamp the min wage impact in most cases. But they do come with a cost.


Paying people shiat wages has a societal cost also.
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report