Is the frame "Income Inequality" gonna fly?

[ksen]

I can't wait until he breaks out the old "If they want to pay a living wage they should just start their own businesses and pay the employees whatever they want to."

That one's awesome too.

You mean the belief that since CostCo runs their business the way they do every other business out there can copy it?

Speaking of CostCo, however are they able to manage staying in business and turning a healthy profit to boot while treating their employees like respected human beings?

It's unnatural.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Which is a great idea. Use ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a reasonable idea (affordable wages that makes welfare less necessary, we are paying one way or the other) into a ridiculous idea that no one ever even came close to suggesting in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Income inequality? Here is the rub for those panzy communistic liberals. The scabs on welfare have jobs that pay crap. If we don't allow that and force companies to pay more, costs on services and goods increases. That would be the worst thing that could ever happen!

Sure, instead of having a more livable wage, we have to help pay for their housing, health care, utility bills, food, college, etc... And in the process, working hard to strip them of dignity, by accusing them of being a race that hasn't held jobs for three or four generations and are simply the victims of themselves. And despite of all their alleged laziness, getting all this free stuff like cell phones and food and the best housing money can buy and cable and refrigerators.

Sure, stripping them of dignity and paying all that welfare is expensive and hard work relative to a more livable wage, but I don't want to spend $2 on a hamburger.

What do we want?
We want to pay the lowest possible price on goods and services!
Even if that means higher welfare costs on our tax bills?
We can hand wave that away by calling for welfare cuts because we can say people on welfare are lazy!

You want to clarify the point I bolded?

That people demonize what people receive on welfare, especially the working poor.

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it. If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

That is ridiculous. We aren't talking about increasing wages to increase costs and there is no reason that increasing wages slowly over time would have any harmful effects to employment. What we are talking about is increasing wages and cutting profits, that is all. Increasing the amount of income that goes to the 99% by decreasing the amount of income that goes as profits to the 1%.

Profits and wages are both costs of production. We simply want more money to go to wages and less to go to profits. All of the inflation that we have had since 2009 has been due to increased profits.

And that's making a huge mistake that all businesses are profitable, and they aren't. A politician has to worry about all his businesses in his or her community, not just the few that have one of the big ones. It's funny. People complain about how large retailers are now the only option of where to buy things.

 

[ksen]

And that's making a huge mistake that all businesses are profitable, and they aren't. A politician has to worry about all his businesses in his or her community, not just the few that have one of the big ones. It's funny. People complain about how large retailers are now the only option of where to buy things.

Nonprofitable businesses go out of business to make room for businesses that can turn a profit. It's called creative destruction and used to be a thing that conservatives praised about the free market.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lets make the same argument with radiation treatment and cancer.

Not sure your point there.

The part where you are saying that if a little bit is fine, then lets radiate the hell out of them for the same result.

As we've seen over the decades, and the reason that wages stay flat is that prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them, so as you raise the costs to make the products, the price goes up in a direct relationship. So all the expenses that the person who now makes a living wage prices will adjust to be where they were.

Cost of labor for services isn't the only driving force in costs. In fact, it has been demonstrated that cost of labor can be a small percentage of the cost for production and services.

It's how fast and who gets hurt in the time it takes to equalize is the question.

The question has been answered, it just doesn't fall in line for your doomsday scenario. We are paying for the working poor's housing, utility bills, food already. So that $1 hamburger already has the hidden cost it in.

 

[dismal]

You mean the belief that since CostCo runs their business the way they do every other business out there can copy it?

Speaking of CostCo, however are they able to manage staying in business and turning a healthy profit to boot while treating their employees like respected human beings?

It's unnatural.

Perhaps you are not aware of this but there is a whole business hiring strategy that involves paying your employees a little more than market to get better people, lower turnover, better morale, etc.

Fortunately we can observe this and by consequence we can reasonably conclude this whole "wage slavery" idea that employers try to beat employees down to the point of starvation is not true. I'm glad we were able to put that to bed.

Next we should probably ponder the fact the Costco strategy would not work 1) if the government forced everyone to pay Costco wages 2) if everybody did it.

 

[ksen]

As we've seen over the decades, and the reason that wages stay flat is that prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them

No, that's just flat out wrong.

Prices are not in direct proportion to the costs going into them. In fact price usually has very little to do with cost. In business you figure out the price you can get in the market and then manage your costs so that you are able to turn a profit at that pricepoint.

 

[Axulus]

You mean the belief that since CostCo runs their business the way they do every other business out there can copy it?

Speaking of CostCo, however are they able to manage staying in business and turning a healthy profit to boot while treating their employees like respected human beings?

It's unnatural.

Costco's labor force, paid $19 an hour, brings in three times as much revenue as a Walmart workforce paid somewhere between 50-60% of that. (There's a bit of messiness to all these calculations, because of course both firms have employees who don't work in stores--but that's the majority of their workforce, so I'm going to assume that the differences come out in the wash.)

This is not because Costco treats its workers better, and therefore gets fantastic productivity out of them, though this is what you would think if you listened to very sincere union activists on NPR. Rather, it's because their business model is inherently higher-productivity. A typical Costco store has around 4,000 SKUs, most of which are stacked on pallets so that you can be your own stockboy. A Walmart has 140,000 SKUs, which have to be tediously sorted, replaced on shelves, reordered, delivered, and so forth. People tend to radically underestimate the costs imposed by complexity, because the management problems do not simply add up; they multiply.

...

Costco's higher revenues are also a function of their demographic. Costco shoppers have an average income of $85,000--not surprising, because Costco tends to locate itself in affluent suburbs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html

It's a lot easier to pay your workers more money when your shoppers live in more affluent suburbs and are middle class on average, and you have a business strategy that generates much higher worker productivity.

 

[ksen]

Next we should probably ponder the fact the Costco strategy would not work 1) if the government forced everyone to pay Costco wages 2) if everybody did it.

Yes, let's ponder that because I think those claims are full of shit . . . especially number 2.

(lol, #2)

 

[coloradoatheist]

You mean the belief that since CostCo runs their business the way they do every other business out there can copy it?

Speaking of CostCo, however are they able to manage staying in business and turning a healthy profit to boot while treating their employees like respected human beings?

It's unnatural.

It's not unnatural, like there are a lot of businesses that pay high wages. That's like saying that every restaurant can be Morton's.

 

[dismal]

Next we should probably ponder the fact the Costco strategy would not work 1) if the government forced everyone to pay Costco wages 2) if everybody did it.

Yes, let's ponder that because I think that claim is full of shit . . . especially number 2.

(lol, #2)

How are you going to differentiate yourself from the competition and get better employees by paying a little more if the competition is paying the same as you?

 

[NobleSavage]

Speaking of CostCo, however are they able to manage staying in business and turning a healthy profit to boot while treating their employees like respected human beings?

It's unnatural.

Costco's labor force, paid $19 an hour, brings in three times as much revenue as a Walmart workforce paid somewhere between 50-60% of that. (There's a bit of messiness to all these calculations, because of course both firms have employees who don't work in stores--but that's the majority of their workforce, so I'm going to assume that the differences come out in the wash.)

This is not because Costco treats its workers better, and therefore gets fantastic productivity out of them, though this is what you would think if you listened to very sincere union activists on NPR. Rather, it's because their business model is inherently higher-productivity. A typical Costco store has around 4,000 SKUs, most of which are stacked on pallets so that you can be your own stockboy. A Walmart has 140,000 SKUs, which have to be tediously sorted, replaced on shelves, reordered, delivered, and so forth. People tend to radically underestimate the costs imposed by complexity, because the management problems do not simply add up; they multiply.

...

Costco's higher revenues are also a function of their demographic. Costco shoppers have an average income of $85,000--not surprising, because Costco tends to locate itself in affluent suburbs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html

It's a lot easier to pay your workers more money when your shoppers live in more affluent suburbs and are middle class on average, and you have a business strategy that generates much higher worker productivity.

Someone needs to add Amazon to this comparison.

 

[coloradoatheist]

As we've seen over the decades, and the reason that wages stay flat is that prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them

No, that's just flat out wrong.

Prices are not in direct proportion to the costs going into them. In fact price usually has very little to do with cost. In business you figure out the price you can get in the market and then manage your costs so that you are able to turn a profit at that pricepoint.

Of course the costs going into a product is what accountants and business managers account for all the time. Most use the costs+profit and then compare to competitors to set prices.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This is true. Did anyone see Nancy Pelosi marching in the streets demanding debt relief and Wall Street Prosecutions? Uh, no.

tip: Nancy Pelosi is rich.

oh she is a one-percent-er, not doubt.

It is no mere coincidence that congress is known as the Millionaire Boys (and occasionally Girls) club.

 

[Axulus]

It's pretty easy to support a "living wage" when your customer base consists of yuppies who can afford $14 sandwiches for lunch:

Zingerman's owner travels to Washington, D.C., to lobby for increased minimum wage

http://www.mlive.com/business/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/01/zingermans_owner_travels_to_wa.html

Here's their menu:

#2 ZINGERMAN'S REUBEN
Zingerman's corned beef, Switzerland Swiss cheese, Brinery sauerkraut & Russian dressing on grilled, hand-sliced Jewish rye bread.
$14.50
$16.99
#13 SHERMAN'S SURE CHOICE
Zingerman's corned beef, Switzerland Swiss cheese, coleslaw & Russian dressing on Jewish rye bread.
$14.50
$16.99
#67 JON & AMY'S DOUBLE DIP
Zingerman's corned beef & pastrami, Switzerland Swiss & Wisconsin muenster cheeses, HOT & regular mustards on pumpernickel & rye breads.
$13.99
$16.50
#4 DINTY MOORE
Zingerman's corned beef, lettuce, tomato & housemade Russian dressing on rye bread.
$13.99
$16.50
#422 EDDIE'S BIG DEAL
A hearty plate of housemade corned beef hash served with buttered onion rye toast & Zingerman's own spicy ketchup.
$12.50
$15.50
#1 WHO'S GREENBERG ANYWAY?
Zingerman's corned beef with chopped liver, leaf lettuce & our own Russian dressing on double-baked, hand-sliced Jewish rye bread from Zingerman's Bakehouse.
$11.50
$13.99
#81 OSWALD'S MILE HIGH
Zingerman's corned beef & yellow mustard on double-baked, hand-sliced Jewish rye bread. Ari's favorite!
$11.99
$14.50

http://www.zingermansdeli.com/menus/corned-beef-sandwiches/

 

[ksen]

Yes, let's ponder that because I think that claim is full of shit . . . especially number 2.

(lol, #2)

How are you going to differentiate yourself from the competition and get better employees by paying a little more if the competition is paying the same as you?

I don't feel like playing Socratic Method.

If you have a case you want to make go ahead and make it.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that's just flat out wrong.

Prices are not in direct proportion to the costs going into them. In fact price usually has very little to do with cost. In business you figure out the price you can get in the market and then manage your costs so that you are able to turn a profit at that pricepoint.

Of course the costs going into a product is what accountants and business managers account for all the time. Most use the costs+profit and then compare to competitors to set prices.

You said "prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them."

That's what I was taking issue with.

It's good you backed off that claim.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How are you going to differentiate yourself from the competition and get better employees by paying a little more if the competition is paying the same as you?

I don't feel like playing Socratic Method.

If you have a case you want to make go ahead and make it.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that's just flat out wrong.

Prices are not in direct proportion to the costs going into them. In fact price usually has very little to do with cost. In business you figure out the price you can get in the market and then manage your costs so that you are able to turn a profit at that pricepoint.

Of course the costs going into a product is what accountants and business managers account for all the time. Most use the costs+profit and then compare to competitors to set prices.

You said "prices are in direct proportion to the costs going into them."

That's what I was taking issue with.

It's good you backed off that claim.

Except that it goes down the line and in the end most if not all the prices passed along the chain are related to labor, it's just a question of whose labor is it.

 

[ksen]

Except that it goes down the line and in the end most if not all the prices passed along the chain are related to labor, it's just a question of whose labor is it.

I'm glad you have finally seen the beauty of the Labor Theory of Value.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that it goes down the line and in the end most if not all the prices passed along the chain are related to labor, it's just a question of whose labor is it.

I'm glad you have finally seen the beauty of the Labor Theory of Value.

Not quite, because it doesn't explain everything either. But we also live in the magical world where companies are using extra cash as Toilet paper and all we have to do is tell companies to stop doing that and everything will be great.

 

[laughing dog]

And you are making the bad assumption that creating the living wage won't hurt the people that need it.

That is a straw man. I think most people understand that raising wages will cause some people to lose hours (or jobs) but that the increase is worth that sacrifice. You may disagree with that assessment, but that assessment is not based on your straw man.

If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

No one claimed raising costs have no impact. Nor did anyone propose raising wages to such large levels. Is it possible for you to address what is actually posted instead of straw men?

 

[coloradoatheist]

That is a straw man. I think most people understand that raising wages will cause some people to lose hours (or jobs) but that the increase is worth that sacrifice. You may disagree with that assessment, but that assessment is not based on your straw man.

If raises costs to business have no impact, then we should have no problems raising the living wage to a million dollars.

No one claimed raising costs have no impact. Nor did anyone propose raising wages to such large levels. Is it possible for you to address what is actually posted instead of straw men?

But that has been the disagreement over the impact of min wage/living wage increases. Jimmy said living wage, which is much higher than a min wage increase people propose.