Also, the government hasn't granted a "closed shop" since Taft-Hartley.

10/24/2013 7:11:29 PM

Quote :

"here's a tip...unscrew the light bulb. it wastes electricity"

40 W * (1 kW per 1000 W) * (.5 hours per day) * (13 cents per kWh) * (365 days per year) = 95 cents per year.


That's some strong financial advice.

10/24/2013 7:37:53 PM

^multiply that by 1 million people. That's a lot of money saved. Every penny counts. So...you're welcome.

10/25/2013 12:02:06 AM

Those savings don't accrue to one person. One million people removing one million light bulbs from one million refrigerators is still 95 cents saved by each person.

I can save enough money over 60 years to take the wife out to a nice lunch at Applebee's and a matinee movie. So, yes, you are correct that every penny counts.

10/25/2013 12:42:45 AM

should I have written additional financial advice to satisfy you? perhaps something that would help poor people save for retirement as well? I'll get a document together and send you the proof for approval before posting it.

also, fast food workers shouldn't get $15/hr.

10/25/2013 9:56:45 AM

I agree fast food workers shouldn't get $15/hr. They should unscrew their refrigerator light bulbs--that's like giving yourself a 0.05 cents per hour raise!

10/25/2013 3:04:10 PM

show me a fry chef that makes 15 dollars an hour, and I'll show you an employee that will be replaced by the AutoFry1000 in a year.

Most people making minimum wage aren't skilled labor in any sense. I'm not saying they don't work hard, I am however saying that the work in and of itself isn't difficult for someone who actually is willing to do it.

15 dollars an hour will start pricing people in the man vs machine price range...

10/26/2013 1:21:30 AM

everything you buy "made in china" is handmade by artisans. yea they're skilled and they can be "retooled" in a few hours over Tsingdaos

10/26/2013 4:18:02 AM

These jobs are going to be replaced by machines in the very near future regardless if we pay them $8 or $15. Higher pay may speed up the process, but the end result is the same, why are we attempting to delay the inevitable? By suppressing wages, giving out welfare (so that workers can survive), and trying to make people competitive with automation we are subsidizing these franchises as they pocket millions.

The vast majority of low skill American workers aren't going to be able to out compete automation/machines, just like they weren't able to compete with Bangladeshi child workers or Chinese mega factories.

10/26/2013 10:18:09 AM

Well, they could out-bid the machines if their hands weren't tied by the government. As the price of machines comes down, the workers could negotiate lower wages to keep their jobs, rather than being forced into unemployment to die on the street.

10/26/2013 12:16:26 PM

They could learn to invent / build machines.

10/26/2013 5:24:39 PM

"Hey boss, I would like to negotiate a lower wage." LOL, what a moron.

Who's going to buy all the products the machines make when workers have no money because they get paid $3/hr?

10/26/2013 6:12:07 PM

Quote :

"Folks need to learn what the word "slave" means. You can walk away from a mortgage. You can walk away from a job. You couldn't walk away from a plantation as a slave."

Maybe YOU should look up what the word "slave" mean. It does not necessarily mean legal ownership.

Quote :

"Scarcity is a fact of nature, not a result of capitalism."

Half of the food produced in this country is being thrown away. There is a household for every three people in this country. And yet there are hungry and homeless EMPLOYED people in this country. Not a result of capitalism?

Quote :

"show me a fry chef that makes 15 dollars an hour, and I'll show you an employee that will be replaced by the AutoFry1000 in a year"

All those electronic self-checkouts totally put cashiers out of workforce Automation is great, it lowers overall cost to business and increases efficiency, although somehow those savings never go toward raising salary of the remaining human employees. There will be always need for actual humans, even with basic skillsets.

10/26/2013 6:53:03 PM

Quote :

"All those electronic self-checkouts totally put cashiers out of workforce"

Actually, pretty much any retailer with self checkouts uses significantly fewer payroll hours vs. the same store without self checkouts.

Quote :

"Automation is great, it lowers overall cost to business and increases efficiency, although somehow those savings never go toward raising salary of the remaining human employees."

Huh, it's almost like they want those savings to go to the bottom line instead, just like if you save money on any other cost. If I make aluminum pistons, and I find a cheaper supplier for my raw materials I'm probably going to translate those savings to profit or use the savings to expand.

These are the things that publicly owned companies have to do to satisfy shareholders. If they're privately held they may choose to pay more to employees because they don't have shareholders to answer to. If they're a cooperative they almost certainly will because the employees are the shareholders.

10/26/2013 8:08:13 PM

I can't believe that I'm watching people seriously argue that businesses should deliberately operate inefficiently.

10/26/2013 9:56:34 PM

Quote :

"These are the things that publicly owned companies have to do to satisfy shareholders. If they're privately held they may choose to pay more to employees because they don't have shareholders to answer to."

Than's exactly the problem which we discussed earlier in this thread. It used to be that maximizing shareholders' value was NOT corporations' main goal. Interests of corporations, their employees, and communities were aligned. Oftentimes, shareholders WERE the employees or the communities surrounding the corporations.

You are correct about cooperatives, they tend to give the employees higher-then-industry average pay and benefits. And they still make a profit. They still grow. But in those cases, the people that are actually doing the grunt of the work are the ones getting the benefits of the growth, not someone completely unrelated to the corporation who happened to buy some stock with money the did or didn't have.

10/26/2013 9:58:48 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe that I'm watching people seriously argue that businesses should deliberately operate inefficiently"

And I can't believe that it's so hard for people to wrap their mind around the concept that a business can pay their employees a living wage and still be profitable.

10/26/2013 10:04:30 PM

i was really referring to eschewing automation, but whatever, the same applies to wages.

(though sometimes, for some jobs, I think that spending more on wages would pay for itself and then some in company earnings. Not for Wal-Mart cashiers, though (although I do wonder if they would benefit from paying more cashiers the same low wage).

[Edited on October 26, 2013 at 10:11 PM. Reason : ^ of course they can, but why would they do that unless there's something in it for them?]

10/26/2013 10:10:45 PM

This one capitalist tycoon, Henry Ford, had this wild idea that if he paid his workers enough money to buy his new car, he would actually sell some cars! He was totally looking out for his profits, though.

Only commies would pay more than a minimum they could get away with, but now even in the US the hard-working shareholders have to pay those suckers flippin' dem burgers MORE than the actual market rate, because we got communist Obummer in charge and them dang on librals writing those labor laws and stifling our daggone economy!

Why, WHY would ANYONE do something unless they could make a quick buck on it??

You people are the embodiment of the capitalist caricatures that were part of the "communist propaganda." You might as well get you a top hat, some monocles, and a walking cane.

10/27/2013 1:37:37 AM

Quote :

"a business can pay their employees a living wage and still be profitable."

You can live off the minimum wage as it stands now. No, you won't be living lavish middle class with a flat screen TV, with a nice car that's luxurious, and an fast smartphone, but you will have enough to pay for clothes, food, and shelter.

This is a debate of needs vs wants and socialists are trying to give everyone everything without having to work and earn for those non-essential luxuries in life. At the temporary benefit of helping poor people out, your raise inflation and crush the economy and poor people will be right back where they were. You can't pull the lower class up from the lower class. They've got to raise themselves up and climb through the ranks. There will always be lower class people.

10/27/2013 3:39:45 AM

What about the argument that the economy does better as a whole when workers are laid more money (than they are currently paid)? If we have knowledge on how to so this, why not use it?

10/27/2013 4:33:10 AM

Quote :

"Who's going to buy all the products the machines make when workers have no money because they get paid $3/hr?"

A tiny percentage of the workforce earns the minimum wage.

Quote :

"a business can pay their employees a living wage and still be profitable."

But they won't. they'll fire them. not all of them, but the best academia can tell us is that demand curves slope downward.

Quote :

"What about the argument that the economy does better as a whole when workers are laid more money"

I know of no evidence this is the case. Theory would suggest that forcing wages up when there is no labor shortage will just miss-allocate resources and raise unemployment.

Data shows that when the economy does well workers get paid more, but it is clear wages are the sticky component.

[Edited on October 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/27/2013 8:34:33 AM

The total lack of financial literacy and understanding of how money works is a much bigger problem than the minimum wage.

The amount of time we piss away on abstinence only "sex ed" or PE would be much better spent on basic personal finance.

10/27/2013 5:24:58 PM

yeah, well, bible

10/27/2013 6:03:28 PM

Quote :

"You can live off the minimum wage as it stands now. No, you won't be living lavish middle class with a flat screen TV, with a nice car that's luxurious, and an fast smartphone, but you will have enough to pay for clothes, food, and shelter"

Why don't you give us a quick rough financial plan showing how an frugal family of two parents with two kids living on minimum wage in Cary can afford to feed and cloth themselves, buy a home over a course of a few decades, put their kids through college, and save some money for a decade or two of retirement.

Or is that too much to ask? Maybe fast food workers should always rent, their kids don't deserve college, and they should work until they drop dead?

10/28/2013 12:51:03 AM

Quote :

" This is a debate of needs vs wants and socialists are trying to give everyone everything without having to work and earn for those non-essential luxuries in life"

LOL who is currently making this argument in our country? (hint: no one, you are delusional)

Also, what qualifies as a "non essential luxury" shifts over time.

Also, see here:
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/spring08/feller/productivity_wages_graph.gif

This isn't just a problem for the poor people making low wages, this is a problem for everyone, because it's extracting useful capital out of the system. This problem underlies the current financial issues we're facing. Fixing poor people in this country isn't just to give some mythical demographic mythical free flat panels, it's to fix many of the issues we have in finance and economics in this country. It has domino-effects throughout society.

10/28/2013 2:00:32 AM

Quote :

"Or is that too much to ask? Maybe fast food workers should always rent, their kids don't deserve college, and they should work until they drop dead?"

So, it is far better for them to die now homeless on the street from unemployment than suffer the indignity of a hard life?

10/28/2013 9:02:43 AM

Quote :

"This one capitalist tycoon, Henry Ford, had this wild idea that if he paid his workers enough money to buy his new car, he would actually sell some cars! He was totally looking out for his profits, though."

despite being a pervasive story, this is not true. Ford actually increased the wages because he was having trouble with high turnover.
see:

Quote :

"At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford’s turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production."

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-54463_18670_18793-53441--,00.html

tl;dr

Henry Ford increased wages to reduce turnover and the delays and increases costs associated with it, not because of some altruistic or business desire for his employees to be able to buy a car.

10/28/2013 9:33:40 AM

So regardless of his motivation, the results of the increased wages was a higher efficiency for organization and increased profitability due to low turnover and employee's greater purchasing power

10/28/2013 1:27:18 PM

you are making a conclusion that you haven't supported; provide evidence showing that increased efficiency is due in any part to the purchasing power of the employee and not solely due to reduced turnover

10/28/2013 1:32:02 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you give us a quick rough financial plan showing how an frugal family of two parents with two kids living on minimum wage in Cary can afford to feed and cloth themselves, buy a home over a course of a few decades, put their kids through college, and save some money for a decade or two of retirement. Or is that too much to ask? Maybe fast food workers should always rent, their kids don't deserve college, and they should work until they drop dead?"

I own a home that I use as investment, but would likely never buy one again because it's generally not a good investment and at worst is a pyramid scheme. It wastes your down payment which is better in almost any investment. If you have all your capital and livelihood tied up in a home you can't move on to better opportunities and have no outs if unemployment is prolonged. If I lose my job now I'd be, "Oh dear looks like we'll be skiing and skydiving the whole year and maybe I'll look for a job after that gets boring". If all my net worth was tied up in a home I wouldn't have that option. Buying where you know you can rent was always the only option for me. Owning is not essential, and renting is a better deal in a lot of cases.

The American Dream: Shitting on new buyers and getting fucked by bankers.

[Edited on October 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM. Reason : a]

10/28/2013 2:53:38 PM

^Ok, ownership of home can be substituted by any other significant and reliable investment that requires low maintenance from financial point of view, and would allow them to live somewhere through the older years when they are unable to work, or build enough equity to provide for basic living expenses during retirement years. Or maybe Hiro has a better even better path to home ownership in mind, which will allow this family to bypass the mortgage all together. You know, so these guys don't have to be enslaved to their bankers.

[Edited on October 28, 2013 at 11:53 PM. Reason : /]

10/28/2013 11:53:40 PM

I don't see a reason for government bureaucrats to get involved, here. We shouldn't make flipping burgers a comfortable job for people to do for a long time.

10/29/2013 1:27:28 AM

If flipping burgers isn't a viable job then who do you expect to operate the tens of thousands of quick service restaurants that grace our majestic lands?

10/29/2013 2:13:42 AM

^

http://www.psfk.com/2012/11/burger-making-robot.html

10/29/2013 8:23:08 AM

Quote :

"the economy does better as a whole when workers are laid more"

Word.

Quote :

"Why don't you give us a quick rough financial plan showing how an frugal family of two parents with two kids living on minimum wage in Cary can afford to feed and cloth themselves, buy a home over a course of a few decades, put their kids through college, and save some money for a decade or two of retirement. Or is that too much to ask? Maybe fast food workers should always rent, their kids don't deserve college, and they should work until they drop dead? "

WTF?

First of all, not that many people make minimum wage, and VERY few do it for a lifetime--it's usually a stepping stone...and if it's not, then what the fuckever. If you never advance beyond flipping burgers, throughout your whole life, then why should I care if you ever become a homeowner in Cary or enjoy retirement? Those are luxuries.

Hell, paying for your kids to go to college is a luxury. There are ways to pay your own way through college if you want to go. It's great if your parents can help, but ultimately, it's a luxury.

10/30/2013 9:52:19 AM

There's nothing wrong with renting.

Also no one "flips" burgers at these places.

[Edited on October 30, 2013 at 9:59 AM. Reason : B]

10/30/2013 9:56:52 AM

Quote :

"why should I care if you ever become a homeowner in Cary or enjoy retirement?"

You should care because someone making $7.25/hr, working 40 hours a week, is going to receive almost an equal amount of benefits from the government as they get paid by their employer.

Which means you are subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits by paying a portion of their labor costs through you taxes.

10/30/2013 11:15:47 AM

That logic is so terribly flawed.

We aren't subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits, we are subsidizing that person's laziness, stupidity, ineptitude, or decision not to pay attention in school, or whatever excuse they have for working a minimum wage job. Wal-Mart doesn't have some moral obligation to provide anyone a comfortable living. What they do owe them is a fair wage based on the value their labor provides. If you're only doing $8/hour worth of work you shouldn't be provided $12/hour in wages.

Furthermore, if we did just force an arbitrary wage rate hike it would be passed on to consumers. Unless you feel like capping profit margins, in which case you'll shutter a lot of businesses.

Most retailers operate on a remarkably small profit margin as it is, so monkeying with large controllable expenses can do massive damage to even large businesses if they don't have a much in the way of profit margin.

What's more, is that as Wal-Mart and other retailers continue to face more and more competition from Amazon and other online retailers who can operate at even lower margins because of their much lower operating costs there is even less that they can afford to absorb in expenses and remain price competitive.

10/30/2013 12:08:32 PM

Quote :

" If you're only doing $8/hour worth of work you shouldn't be provided $12/hour in wages."

Who decides their labor is worth $8 an hour, or $12 an hour? Wal-mart, right?

Is that because that's the wage that they can pay and have enough people for them to do their business?

Is that because people who take that wage, take it. and then get enough additional support from the government in the form of welfare, so they can get by?

So that person is getting what amount to $12/hour in wages, even though Wal-Mart only pays a part of it?






___________________



I've got no problem with Wal-Mart passing their cost onto their consumers. That's how it should be. Right now, a part of their labor cost is being payed by everyone, whether they shop there or not.

10/30/2013 12:22:01 PM

Quote :

"I've got no problem with Wal-Mart passing their cost onto their consumers."

Their consumers...you mean poor people?

You're either shitting on the poor people working at Wal-Mart, or you're shitting on the poor people that shop there.

10/30/2013 12:26:30 PM

Quote :

"Who decides their labor is worth $8 an hour, or $12 an hour? Wal-mart, right?"

Math. you need to look at the total value provided by your labor. Virtually every business has a necessary sales per man hour figure or units per man hour they have to meet in order to remain profitable. If you start fiddling with that it pretty quickly becomes impossible to remain profitable.

I'm not saying that Wal Mart is incapable of raising it's wages. I read an article earlier today that said they could probably afford to raise total wages about $1/hour which would bring them in line with what CostCo's profit margin is (not a true apples to apples comparison, but whatever) but anything beyond that means that you would see marked increases in consumer price. You also have to consider the damage that would be done to the stock price and the accompanying effect on things like pensions and 401k accounts. I know people love to think that only the 1% are impacted by stock price, but Wal Mart is a widely held stock in things like public employee pension accounts and mutual funds.

I don't think anybody wants to see cashiers and the guys who stock shelves having to decide whether to pay the electric bill or the water, but you also can't blithely declare that their wages should be doubled and think that there won't be far reaching and profound effects if you do that.

^What he said is also true, you have to consider the impact on consumers if wal mart had to raise prices by say... 4%. You immediately decrease the purchasing power of 100 million people, take that additional money out of circulation in other business, etc. For many people their grocery bill is their 2nd or 3rd larges monthly expense.

[Edited on October 30, 2013 at 12:38 PM. Reason : asdfsd]

10/30/2013 12:35:03 PM

Quote :

"Math. you need to look at the total value provided by your labor."

That's my entire point. Wal-Mart is paying less than the total value of the labor provided to them. Taxpayers pay the rest.

10/30/2013 1:11:52 PM

that's why we need to remove unemployment entirely

10/30/2013 1:36:15 PM

Laws of Supply and Demand apply to wages as well.

If Wal-Mart, McDonalds, et al. could not sufficiently staff their stores, then they would have to adjust their compensation to attract employees. This would affect their prices too.

I get the argument that government is subsidizing the minimum wage workforce, but what is the fix?

Arbitrarily raising the minimum wage doesn't fix anything...it just kicks the can a little farther down the road. Prices of nearly every good or service are affected by the minimum wage (especially union wages), thereby raising the cost of living.

10/30/2013 1:51:28 PM

Quote :

"I've got no problem with Wal-Mart passing their cost onto their consumers. That's how it should be. Right now, a part of their labor cost is being payed by everyone, whether they shop there or not."

If you think the government is paying too much of those worker's annual income when walmart is paying them $8 an hour, just wait until Walmart is paying them zero.

10/30/2013 6:13:39 PM

^So is Walmart hiring only robots and zombies?

10/30/2013 6:35:05 PM

jesus fucking christ

10/30/2013 7:49:18 PM

Quote :

"That's my entire point. Wal-Mart is paying less than the total value of the labor provided to them. Taxpayers pay the rest."

So your argument is what, that profit is essentially money that should be paid to workers but isn't because corporations are greedy? Or are you saying that any business who employees people who are on any form of government assistance are having their labor costs subsidized by taxpayers?

I truly don't understand what you're getting at. Why don't you try explaining your point?

10/30/2013 8:04:50 PM

Quote :

"are you saying that any business who employees people who are on any form of government assistance are having their labor costs subsidized by taxpayers?"

that seems to be what a rational person would conclude.

10/30/2013 8:40:55 PM