(04-06-2015 09:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why should an employer be forced to pay $10/hour to someone whose work output is only worth $7/hour? What do you think is fair for the producers?

They expect the employer to operate at a loss.

My first job in high school was in 1979. I was a stock boy and occasionally sold lighting fixtures. My boss was a great guy. He used to joke, "We lose money on every item we sell, but we make it up on volume".

Do you not understand that the employer doesn't bear the cost of increased labor, the consumer does. If the cost of labor increasing puts you out of business, it's your business model that's to blame because there will be other businesses taking your place just fine. To argue otherwise ignores pretty much every economic principle I'm aware of.

So prices rise and defeat the purpose.

(04-06-2015 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why should an employer be forced to pay $10/hour to someone whose work output is only worth $7/hour? What do you think is fair for the producers?

They expect the employer to operate at a loss.

My first job in high school was in 1979. I was a stock boy and occasionally sold lighting fixtures. My boss was a great guy. He used to joke, "We lose money on every item we sell, but we make it up on volume".

Do you not understand that the employer doesn't bear the cost of increased labor, the consumer does. If the cost of labor increasing puts you out of business, it's your business model that's to blame because there will be other businesses taking your place just fine. To argue otherwise ignores pretty much every economic principle I'm aware of.

So prices rise and defeat the purpose.

Sure, except that's not what happens because the cost of labor is only a portion of an items cost, and the cost of minimum wage labor is even less than that. It's the same argument against inflation; the amount of money that is being altered isn't enough to significantly affect it.

(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 05:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So why should an employer be forced to pay $10/hour to someone whose work output is only worth $7/hour? What do you think is fair for the producers?

They expect the employer to operate at a loss.

My first job in high school was in 1979. I was a stock boy and occasionally sold lighting fixtures. My boss was a great guy. He used to joke, "We lose money on every item we sell, but we make it up on volume".

Do you not understand that the employer doesn't bear the cost of increased labor, the consumer does. If the cost of labor increasing puts you out of business, it's your business model that's to blame because there will be other businesses taking your place just fine. To argue otherwise ignores pretty much every economic principle I'm aware of.

So prices rise and defeat the purpose.

Sure, except that's not what happens because the cost of labor is only a portion of an items cost, and the cost of minimum wage labor is even less than that. It's the same argument against inflation; the amount of money that is being altered isn't enough to significantly affect it.

There is more overhead involved than simply the wage itself. The employers portion of SS and Medicare also rises.

(04-06-2015 11:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 09:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  They expect the employer to operate at a loss.

My first job in high school was in 1979. I was a stock boy and occasionally sold lighting fixtures. My boss was a great guy. He used to joke, "We lose money on every item we sell, but we make it up on volume".

Do you not understand that the employer doesn't bear the cost of increased labor, the consumer does. If the cost of labor increasing puts you out of business, it's your business model that's to blame because there will be other businesses taking your place just fine. To argue otherwise ignores pretty much every economic principle I'm aware of.

So prices rise and defeat the purpose.

Sure, except that's not what happens because the cost of labor is only a portion of an items cost, and the cost of minimum wage labor is even less than that. It's the same argument against inflation; the amount of money that is being altered isn't enough to significantly affect it.

There is more overhead involved than simply the wage itself. The employers portion of SS and Medicare also rises.

Lots of things happen, increased tax revenue, decreased spending on social welfare policies. But there have been enough changes to the minimum wage in enough places to know that these fears of some massive detriment to society by raising the rates is unfounded.

This is only been happening since 1980 but the OP wants to blame Obama. No agenda there!

(04-06-2015 12:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is only been happening since 1980 but the OP wants to blame Obama. No agenda there!

If somebody in Swaziland stubs their toe it's Obama's fault.

(04-06-2015 12:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is only been happening since 1980 but the OP wants to blame Obama. No agenda there!

Maybe the point is this is the sort of thing that O wanted to change, part of the "fundamental transformation" of America he campaigned on. Maybe the point is that O and libs love to slam trickle down economics because the claim only the rich get richer, yet their alternative actions of the past 6 years have not done anything to improve the wealth of the majority of Americans.

Fair enough 200. I've actually contemplated your sentiments. We've entered an age where there are no easy solutions. Just individuals trying to navigate troubled waters with only two boats as our options.

(04-07-2015 09:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fair enough 200. I've actually contemplated your sentiments. We've entered an age where there are no easy solutions. Just individuals trying to navigate troubled waters with only two boats as our options.

Labor participation is horrendous, wages are stagnant and inflation will start to edge up towards the end of the year which will make groceries and other daily expenses even more expensive.

I don't see policies changing in the last two years of this admin, so everybody better buckle up and just try to get by. If a fiscal conservative ends up in the white house and slashes corporate tax rates and creates other incentives for businesses to hire it will be perhaps the best illustration of which method works better.

(04-07-2015 09:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fair enough 200. I've actually contemplated your sentiments. We've entered an age where there are no easy solutions. Just individuals trying to navigate troubled waters with only two boats as our options.

There actually are relatively easy solutions. The problem is that for people raised on neo-Keynesian economics, they are counter-intuitive. Note that I said neo-Keynesian and not Keynesian, and that is intentional. Keynes himself understood a lot of this. But political whores like Krugman either don't understand it or ignore it out of political expediency.

You can't go on stimulating demand forever. At some point you have to address supply. And for the record, no, the Bush tax cuts which left us with the highest corporate tax rate in the world did not address the supply side.

(04-07-2015 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fair enough 200. I've actually contemplated your sentiments. We've entered an age where there are no easy solutions. Just individuals trying to navigate troubled waters with only two boats as our options.

Labor participation is horrendous, wages are stagnant and inflation will start to edge up towards the end of the year which will make groceries and other daily expenses even more expensive.

I don't see policies changing in the last two years of this admin, so everybody better buckle up and just try to get by. If a fiscal conservative ends up in the white house and slashes corporate tax rates and creates other incentives for businesses to hire it will be perhaps the best illustration of which method works better.

It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:07 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 09:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Fair enough 200. I've actually contemplated your sentiments. We've entered an age where there are no easy solutions. Just individuals trying to navigate troubled waters with only two boats as our options.

Labor participation is horrendous, wages are stagnant and inflation will start to edge up towards the end of the year which will make groceries and other daily expenses even more expensive.

I don't see policies changing in the last two years of this admin, so everybody better buckle up and just try to get by. If a fiscal conservative ends up in the white house and slashes corporate tax rates and creates other incentives for businesses to hire it will be perhaps the best illustration of which method works better.

It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

without the exec's and stockholders, there would be no corp.

they only hire when they need employees.

maybe without a socialist president and policies the nations economy and structure would be conducive to hiring.

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

after 9/11 this countries economy did not falter to the extent that was expected.

the housing bubble and collapse of all the banks put this country into a tailspin.

we have had a socialist leader ever since and you see the tepid results.

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

Out of control executive pay isn't about taxes. That's the oversimplified part of the national discourse. It has more to do with SEC rules than anything else.

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

Exactly. You don't merely cut taxes. Cutting taxes is merely one tool in providing incentives to create jobs. It is the LONG TERM tool that makes them want to open a factory HERE to increase production rather than open it overseas or use incentives merely for things like share buybacks... which is primarily where all our cash went.

Yes, we need a complete rethink.

(04-07-2015 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It appears that lots of corporations are making big profits as it is. They apparently don't need to hire anyone. Would a tax cut make them hire? I'm not convinced. I think it would just go toward the execs' pay and the stockholders.

What a tax cut would do is make it relatively more attractive to hire here in the US compared to overseas.

This. It's not just about someone putting it in their pocket, that's just the cop out argument against any kind of tax relief for companies OR people.

It may also, as things like accelerated depreciation are intended, allow the company to invest in more or newer equipment, inventory for the floor or whatever. This can lead to A. A job for the folks making the equipment or inventory, growing the stuff for the shelves etc. B. Which can lead to increased foot traffic, sales, ability to meet demand for products or services which, C. will increase demand for additional employees to man the Hummus mixing machine or packing the boxes of Oreos, replacing the stock of leather jackets or loading the trucks with more beer for distribution or a million other things.

More jobs, more revenue. More jobs, more commerce. More jobs, more demand for more. Everything. Assuming, of course, they are the "good" kind of jobs, but it's a cinch we won't create those if we can't produce the low level crappy ones.

There's no guarantee of anything in this world, but certain things can make certain outcomes more likely. What we're doing now and have been doing for more than half a decade hasn't worked, why continue to do stupid things?

Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

(04-07-2015 08:06 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Shareholders are your neighbors. Shareholders are the guys working 15 years in thw same job with a 401k. Putting money in the shareholders hands is a good thing.

More than half of Americans are not in the stock market.

That's what it was at one point but not anymore.

People with no spare income don't play the market. It's part of the driving force behind the wealthy getting wealthier while the poor get poorer.

There is nothing wrong with making money for shareholders but it should not be an acceptable excuse for some of the rather unsavory things American corporations are doing.