Higher Wages = Less JOBS

[This_person]

You're making a bunch of suppositions as though business owners all did the exact same thing in response. Labor costs are not 100% of product costs. In food service it's something like 1/3, tops. Most is lower and the majority of wages are tips.
I would constantly take objection to objections of working people making more just as I will object to this quaint notion of 'market' driven.

We are a ####ed up culture. We celebrate some mean ass MF'er who makes billions as being a success no matter how much monopoly power and gummint help or lying or cheating or stealing he did. He's a winner! And #### over even the suggestion of some schulmp making $1.5 an hour more.

The supposition is based on the principle, which is how it works. When Ford started paying more, everyone else had to. There is a curve of wages, and when it gets skewed the outlier is rarely the one that is pulled back into line - everyone else readjusts.

I do not believe in monopolies as an end state. Liberalism had a monopoly on news, then came Fox, and Limbaugh gave his services away to radio stations, etc., etc. Left alone, the monopoly is removed by one means or another.

I don't object to anyone getting a good deal. I object when it is artificially forced upon others like this. The fact that the percentage of our population that is millionaire or above tells me that it is not some mean-ass MF'er that is the problem, because we're making 'em faster than we're making poor people.

 

[This_person]

1. You point that the minimum income earner's pay is lost due to higher product costs...why is that stupid? Because there is not one bit of data in the article or in any article that shows the entire cost of living goes up because the min wage does.

Really? Not in ANY article?

What about this one: http://thesovereigninvestor.com/us-economy/raise-minimum-wage-raise-cost-living/

Or, this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...s-to-price-rises-and-job-losses/#1381eaad1fac

Or, this one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...or-so-why-raise-the-minium-wage/#1333b0471ece

Or, this one: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/does-raising-minimum-wage-increase-inflation.asp

I would offer you this toolkit to consider using next time "there is not one bit of data in the article"

2. The taxes of those min wage workers have not gone up. They are paying the same percentage...they have MORE dollars in their pockets for the same amount of work. They are NOT worse off...

That was a really dumb post...

Well, some maybe. But, the net effect is more people are out of a job, putting a higher burden on the economy, and (as shown) it is most likely that the cost of living has gone up, making those additional dollars to have a lower buying power. Look at the toolkit above, and try again.

 

[Larry Gude]

The supposition is based on the principle, which is how it works. When Ford started paying more, everyone else had to. There is a curve of wages, and when it gets skewed the outlier is rarely the one that is pulled back into line - everyone else readjusts.

Iple.

So, then the argument is on how it actually works.

Energy is not market driven. It's geopolitics. Healthcare is not market driven. It's monopolies. Wall street is not market driven, it's protected. Banking as well. Immigration it geopolitics. Gummint is nearly a fourth of the economy. Not a market force in sight. NAFTA, TPP, no market forces there.

So, the mass of us, the majority, are supposed to play by your illusory 'market' forces?

 

[This_person]

So, then the argument is on how it actually works.

Energy is not market driven. It's geopolitics.

Of course energy is market driven. Do you know why nuclear plants always shut down in the spring and fall, not summer or winter? Because there's a lot more energy being used in summer and winter than spring or fall, so it is the cheapest time to refuel. Do you know why gas plants are going up like spring weeds? Because the price of natural gas dropped at the same time regulations on coal plants went through the roof. Market in supply of energy, market in when/where/how it is produced. Know why a nuclear operator makes more money than a coal plant operator? The requirements are much higher on the nuclear plant operator, and thus the qualifications are much harder to meet, making the supply of people able to do the job much smaller. Supply, demand, and cost (to the employer) all go hand in hand there. All market driven - every facet of it.

I'm not even going after the rest, because we agree that government protections of some parts of the economy at the expense of others is not an acceptable thing, so there's no need for a mutual-admiration society going on.

But, when it comes to who can do what job, and what a product (be it the employee or the service or the "thing") costs is all market-driven.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ah, ok. If you believe energy, one of the most regulated, politicized industries in the history of the planet is market driven, we're dealing with disparate realities.

 

[Larry Gude]

And I didn't pass judgment on what is acceptable or not in terms of gummint involvement. My entire point is that the more you make, the more able to handle lifes challenges, the more protected you are and the less able then the more you're on your own.

 

[This_person]

Ah, ok. If you believe energy, one of the most regulated, politicized industries in the history of the planet is market driven, we're dealing with disparate realities.

Maybe we understand "market driven" differently.

What I'm saying is that the production of energy, where power plants are placed, how power plant employees are paid, and the general cost of energy is based on competitive markets, supply and demand of the consumer.

What I think you're saying is that things like regulations on coal and nuclear, EPA reviews of power plant placement, tax and regulatory exemptions given to "green" energy products, actual subsidizing certain companies, etc., are all designed to force an industry in a certain path.

If what I think you're saying is what you're saying, then we agree on that. But, what I'm saying is also true, and what you're saying is part of the "that shouldn't be happening" part of things.

 

[Larry Gude]

If there was remotely a free market in energy nuke would have ended coal a long time ago and natural gas could not compete with oil. These things are driven by geopolitics. Not markets. How much you think a cheeseburger would cost if it was sold under the same rules as a gallon of gas?

 

[Larry Gude]

Again, I'm not arguing for or against. I'm arguing what is and how the least of us are totally at the mercy of gummint on most of the economy. That they'd like to make more from a system that protects 'market' advocates is normal behavior. That it would also benefit the overall economy, as I illustrated, seems to be the thing that can not be.

 

[This_person]

And I didn't pass judgment on what is acceptable or not in terms of gummint involvement. My entire point is that the more you make, the more able to handle lifes challenges, the more protected you are and the less able then the more you're on your own.

EVERYONE is on their own. Major corporations with lots to spend on politicians get special treatment, but that is not my thing to defend, it's the politician's. I don't agree with that.

 

[GURPS]

If there was remotely a free market in energy nuke .... These things are driven by geopolitics.

How is Atomic Power use, driven by Geopolitics ?


other than when Oil is $ 35 bucks a barrel, it is not cost affect to build Nuclear Power Plants - but then nor is it cost effective to Frack either

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess I'll give this a go. You think all the dollars associated with the cost of nuke power are all proper, necessary and smart? How about waste disposal? Or re-use?

Nuke is only as expensive as it is to protect oil and gas and coal.

 

[This_person]

I guess I'll give this a go. You think all the dollars associated with the cost of nuke power are all proper, necessary and smart? How about waste disposal? Or re-use?

You're speaking too black and white. Waste disposal is a cost because of the politics associated with Yucca Mountain, to be sure, exacerbated by Pres Jimmy Carter's non-proliferation edict that we not use reprocessed fuel (something France does and creates only 4% of the waste per MW that we do). So, of course there are political forces involved.

But, why do we use nuclear? Market forces ("too cheap to meter"). Why do we use nukes for base-load? Market forces. Why do nukes shut down when they do for refueling outages? Market forces. Why do nuclear operators make more money than fossil fuel plants? Market forces. Why do gas plants beat out coal plants? Market forces.

It just works the way it works, with far too much politicization. But, if solar were actually better idea than nuclear, do you know what would be the proof of that? You guessed it, market forces.

 

[GURPS]

Nuke is only as expensive as it is to protect oil and gas and coal.

based on what data ? [that is some alex jones level tinfoil hattery]

a nuclear melt down is a bit more serious, so the regulations governing operation are a bit steeper ....
- thereby more costly to operate than a Fossil Fuel Power Plant and the back end support from mines or refineries

 

[Wishbone]

based on what data ? [that is some alex jones level tinfoil hattery]

a nuclear melt down is a bit more serious, so the regulations governing operation are a bit steeper ....
- thereby more costly to operate than a Fossil Fuel Power Plant and the back end support from mines or refineries

I gotta hand it to you and TP...

You guys put more effort back into this that I would have.

When I see the words "Bush 43" "Capitalist" or "Geo-Political" come up in a response, I know where it's headed and I find other entertainment.

 

[GURPS]

When I see the words "Bush 43" "Capitalist" or "Geo-Political" come up in a response, I know where it's headed and I find other entertainment.

Indeed ....

 

[Lurk]

Ok...so this is stupid post of the day (GURPS' dumbass poll numbers would have been first...but he simply won't/can't understand that Rasmussen is flawed...then again GURPS doesn't care...he is only about posting propaganda...like this piece)...

Anyway...so here is why your post is stupid:

1. You point that the minimum income earner's pay is lost due to higher product costs...why is that stupid? Because there is not one bit of data in the article or in any article that shows the entire cost of living goes up because the min wage does.

2. The taxes of those min wage workers have not gone up. They are paying the same percentage...they have MORE dollars in their pockets for the same amount of work. They are NOT worse off...

That was a really dumb post...

I bet you were a real biatch before they flunked you out of elementary school.

 

[Larry Gude]

EVERYONE is on their own. Major corporations with lots to spend on politicians get special treatment, but that is not my thing to defend, it's the politician's. I don't agree with that.

You defeat your own point.

EVERYONE is on their own....except the major players who make the entire markets who are...not on their own.

 

[Larry Gude]

I gotta hand it to you and TP...

You guys put more effort back into this that I would have.

When I see the words "Bush 43" "Capitalist" or "Geo-Political" come up in a response, I know where it's headed and I find other entertainment.

Then go find it. There's a tiki bar thread for morons like you. Run along. There's no need for you to declare you don't find elevated conversation entertaining let alone comprehensible. So, great. You're leaving now. So git.

 

[Larry Gude]

based on what data ? [that is some alex jones level tinfoil hattery]

a nuclear melt down is a bit more serious, so the regulations governing operation are a bit steeper ....
- thereby more costly to operate than a Fossil Fuel Power Plant and the back end support from mines or refineries

TP's post #33 explains just the surface costs of nuke that have NOITHING to do with nuke costs. Nuke power is FAR cheaper and cleaner than coal and gas and oil but it comes at enormous cost; all those other jobs.