|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: NospamNospam Date: Oct 21, 2006 17:09
Robert Bunn wrote:
> This is precisely the assertion that was tested: that the supply of
> labor was sufficiently greater than the demand to give employers the
> power to *act* as a monopsony even though they are technically not.
No, no no. It is not a monopsony. It is JUST the natural outcome of every
single unbalanced trade.
This is what very very few understand. The free market it is a pretty
unstable system as mater of fact. Small inballanced can result in snowball
effect if there are no other forces to damp the system.
> In fact, the existence of a labor market that acts in monopsonistic
> fashion is only a specific way of expressing what you said: that
> employers pay employees less than they are worth because they can get
> away with it.
Again it have nothing to do with a monopsony. This is the natural way a
company work. A business is working for proffit, just in case you missed
that point. That means that from what the employee produce a part is given
to himself as wage and a part is taken by owner as proffit. Unless you have
a company working with proffit 0 or losing money, then the employees are
definitely producing more than their wages.
|
| Show full article (4.68Kb) |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Jeffrey TurnerJeffrey Turner Date: Oct 21, 2006 18:12
Les Cargill wrote:
>
> I do hate this: "Today, the minimum wage is 31%% of the average hourly
> wage of American workers, the lowest level since the end of World War II."
>
> Why? Because it's beter interpreted that market wages
> are pulling away from minimum wage. That's a good thing.
The median wage in the U.S. has changed very modestly in the last 35
years while productivity has shot through the roof. Wages aren't
pulling away from anything except providing a middle class existence.
--Jeff
--
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance,
is the death of knowledge.
-Alfred North Whitehead
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Oct 21, 2006 18:18
Robert Bunn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Your newsreader doesn't demarcate or attribute quoted material very
>> well. It makes your posts difficult to follow.
>>
>> (it works fine for me, and i like it this way.)
>>
>>
>> tcq.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1161319102.902840.325320@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> How much of that is from people in desperation starting their own
>>> small
>>> businesses because they can't find jobs? How many of those businesses
>>> last one year? Three? five? ...
|
| Show full article (4.97Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: The TruckerThe Trucker Date: Oct 21, 2006 18:43
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:21:35 GMT, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:>>>
>>
>>>Nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>>Robert Bunn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is worth noting here that there is certainly disgreement among
>>>>>professional economists on this issue, with credible and respectable
>>>>>representatives on both sides.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is when politics take over economists. It is strange to see so many ...
|
| Show full article (3.35Kb) |
| 132 Comments |
|
|
Author: The TruckerThe Trucker Date: Oct 21, 2006 18:47
>
> comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:9hddj25n0pgv61esk4uuobafglfgurcvq7@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:46:35 GMT, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:>>>
>>>> And since wages are not the only component of prices they will not
>>>> go
>>>> up as much.
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with this as a component of prices. It has to do
>>>with the fact that more people have more money to chase
>>>goods with. The demand is the same, so price adjusts.
>>
>>
>> Or manufacturers will decide to capture the increased demand by
>> producing more. You seem intent on only working your favorite variable ...
|
| Show full article (1.65Kb) |
| 14 Comments |
|
|
|
Author: The TruckerThe Trucker Date: Oct 21, 2006 19:06
|
| |
| 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 21, 2006 23:38
>>
>> comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:9hddj25n0pgv61esk4uuobafglfgurcvq7@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:46:35 GMT, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com>
>>> wrote:>>>>
>>>>> And since wages are not the only component of prices they will not
>>>>> go
>>>>> up as much.
>>>>
>>>>It has nothing to do with this as a component of prices. It has to
>>>>do
>>>>with the fact that more people have more money to chase
>>>>goods with. The demand is the same, so price adjusts.
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 21, 2006 23:41
>> retrogrouch@ comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> How many minimum wage hikes have you lived through? Next time,
>> watch beer prices. They go up exactly by the proportion that
>> minimum wage goes up. >
> If all wages rise and all prices rise then there has most certainly
> been
> a change and it has made a difference. i.e. that money stuffed in
> your mattress or held in the form of fixed rate government bonds
> will have lost some of its purchasing power.
>
Yes, exactly. That is the total extent of the change to be expected, in
the long run.
|
| |
| 131 Comments |
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 21, 2006 23:51
> I would not trust any "statistics" that you would conjure up anyway.
> Let
> us do it logically or not at all. Please make a coherent case.
...
That's just ... amazing. How do you expect a coherent, logical argument
to be constructed without any reference to the actual values of the
variables under discussion? How do you expect logical discussion of a
subject when the only way to affirm or dispute thoeretical models is by
comparison of their predictions to empirical evidence, if you refuse to
examine said evidence? I'm ... completely ... flabbergasted that you
could suggest this with a straight face.
"Let's reason out how much fishing we can do in the lake on a sustained
basis."
"Okay, but we're not allowed to count how many fish are in the lake now,
or look at reports about how many fish have been caught in the lake in
the past, because those are statistics, and I don't trust them."
Just ... amazing.
|
| |
| 12 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert BunnRobert Bunn Date: Oct 21, 2006 23:59
>
>
> yea day is night, and night is day, blah, blah, blah. growth, what
> does that mean, i don't know, you tell me.
> it don't get any plainer than this,
> 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 found that the "11 states with a minimum wage above the
> federal minimum of $5.15 per hour had higher rates of small business
> growth between 1997 and 2003." A recent report from the Wisconsin
> Department of Workforce Development said last year's increase in that
> state's hourly rate produced $175 million in additional payroll and a
> $3 million boost in tax revenue, without creating...
|
| Show full article (2.07Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
