|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: maxweltonmaxwelton Date: Oct 20, 2006 09:09
ccr wrote:
>> Robert Bunn wrote:
>>> I take it you're not interested in finding the real point of
>>> disagreement. Either that's a shame because it means we'll never find
>>> the truth, or that's a pity because you won't admit you know where the
>>> disagreement is and it's one of your assumptions that turns out to be
>>> ridiculous if said out loud.
>>
>> I don't think you are every going to make any real points.
>
> I PLONKED Bunn after his post on how he'd destroy some of his property to
> beat the tax liability. That showed him for what he is.
That pretty much sums it up on him. He seems to want to
migrate every discussion into something else as if it supports
his claim.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MPMP Date: Oct 20, 2006 09:59
ospam wrote:
> MP wrote:
>> Gross economic ignorance. If this *average* market-clearing wage
>> applied to *every* sector of the economy, then there would (as the
>> candidate said) be no need for a minimum wage. In fact, some jobs are
>> simply not worth $7.25/hour, or even $5/hour, for an employer ... and
>> the higher the miminum wage, the more unemployment as employers either
>> squeeze more productivity out of fewer such employees, automate, or
>> leave the job undone.
> So you believe that they can squeeze more even now and they don't due to
> their charitable souls ?
Not due to their charitable souls, but because squeezing has its own
costs to employers (monetary and otherwise). Glad I could clear that up
for you.
|
| |
|
| | 50 Comments |
|
|
Author: MPMP Date: Oct 20, 2006 10:01
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:44:02 -0400, Nospam example.com> wrote:>>MP wrote:
>>> Gross economic ignorance. If this *average* market-clearing wage
>>> applied to *every* sector of the economy, then there would (as the
>>> candidate said) be no need for a minimum wage. In fact, some jobs are
>>> simply not worth $7.25/hour, or even $5/hour, for an employer ... and
>>> the higher the miminum wage, the more unemployment as employers either
>>> squeeze more productivity out of fewer such employees, automate, or
>>> leave the job undone.
>>So you believe that they can squeeze more even now and they don't due to
>>their charitable souls ?
[Answered in another post.]
> And some jobs are only worth ten cents an hour.
A job is worth what the market is willing to pay for it ... and in some
cases that's ten cents an hour.
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: MPMP Date: Oct 20, 2006 10:03
> On 19 Oct 2006 15:01:26 -0700, "MP" rocketmail.com> wrote:>>[...]
>>> The simple economics of the minimum wage are that the "equilibrium" or
>>> market-clearing wage - the place where the supply and demand curves
>>> for labor intersect - is already above $7.25. Therefore, raising the
>>> minimum wage to this level will have virtually no effect on average
>>> wages or employment.
>>Gross economic ignorance.
> Yep. Yours.
Flaccid tu quoque.
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
| 16 Comments |
|
|
Author: MPMP Date: Oct 20, 2006 10:07
ccr wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The simple economics of the minimum wage are that the "equilibrium" or
>>> market-clearing wage - the place where the supply and demand curves
>>> for labor intersect - is already above $7.25. Therefore, raising the
>>> minimum wage to this level will have virtually no effect on average
>>> wages or employment.
>> Gross economic ignorance. If this *average* market-clearing wage
>> applied to *every* sector of the economy, then there would (as the
>> candidate said) be no need for a minimum wage. In fact, some jobs are
>> simply not worth $7.25/hour, or even $5/hour, for an employer ... and
>> the higher the miminum wage, the more unemployment as employers either
>> squeeze more productivity out of fewer such employees, automate, or
>> leave the job undone.
|
| Show full article (1.40Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MPMP Date: Oct 20, 2006 10:16
> the employer will always
> downplay any skilled job no matter what level of education, grunt,
> sweat, or whatever it takes to do the job because there are no real
> market driven mechanisms that allow labor to have any leverage at all
> except in rare instants.
That's silly. Labor has the same leverage employers do: refusing to
enter into an employment contract they find unsatisfactory.
> so there is almost always a labor glut at all times
Also silly. If your premises were true, the expected outcome would be
full employment at lower wages.
> if we ran our
> economy on what a job is worth, well, we would have what we have now.
> brain surgeons working for pennies in india. [...]
Sillier still. Who do you know who's gone to India for brain surgery?
> http://www.alternet.org/workplace/37935/
>
> In truth, the evidence indicates that small businesses benefit from a
> higher wage. A report by the Center for American Progress and Policy
> Matters Ohio...
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: NospamNospam Date: Oct 20, 2006 15:17
MP wrote:
>> So you believe that they can squeeze more even now and they don't due to
>> their charitable souls ?
>
> Not due to their charitable souls, but because squeezing has its own
> costs to employers (monetary and otherwise). Glad I could clear that up
> for you.
And is there any particular reason to believe that this costs will just
vanish away by a miracle if the minimum wage is increased ? :-)
|
| |
| 49 Comments |
|
|
Author: NospamNospam Date: Oct 20, 2006 15:47
MP wrote:
>> And some jobs are only worth ten cents an hour.
>
> A job is worth what the market is willing to pay for it ... and in some
> cases that's ten cents an hour.
There are 3 categories of jobs:
a) jobs that are productive less than 5.15, but the employer keep them for
other reasons not having any connection with productivity.
If this is the value these jobs create for the employer, then the employer
is an idiot to keep them and pay the current minimum wage, unless the other
reasons are strong enough not to be able to drop them..
The productivity, obviously do not have any influence in the decisions to
keep this jobs. Therefore, the increase in minimum wage won't affect them.
b) jobs that are productive over 7.25 but the employer pays them with
minimum wage. This jobs will not be affected since they still produce more
that what are payed for therefore are still proffitable for employer, but
not as much as before.
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: NospamNospam Date: Oct 20, 2006 16:13
Les Cargill wrote:
> Yet, time and time again - we see megamergers producing *lowered*
> prices.
Like the lower prices of oil after OPEC was formed compared with before :-)
> And the oil markets are classic futures markets - the price
> is whatever's been bid before as a contract price.
- you oppose free market competition to keep the prices down
- you oppose government controll to keep the prices down
> This is *slightly* more complex that saying "more players means
> more competition, therefore lower prices". But the actual
> price curves depend on the product/servcie in question.
It is even more complicated that that, but again you ignore what is not
convenient for your ideology.
Whenever cheaper labor was not easily available, the companies had to push
for technologies to improve productivity and in the long run this boosted
their proffits more than if they had access to cheap labor.
Megamergers reduce the employees opportunities (and in many cases fire a
large part of them) and this put pressure on labor to become.....cheaper.
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 20, 2006 19:43
> Robert Bunn wrote:
>>> Robert Bunn wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bunn wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Bunn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * If I am all of the manufacturers in the country, then I
>>>>>>>> produce
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> the goods produced in the country.
>>>>>>>> * If a dollar is spent on goods manufactured in the country,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> get ...
|
| Show full article (15.51Kb) |
| 168 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
