This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
McAvoy wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 8:49 am
I will say that this might not work with small businesses. Paying let's say $15 an hour for even one employee might be beyond some. But that is small potatoes compared to Mega corporations like let's say Walmart or fucking Amazon.
Let's let not forget the how bad Amazon is to their employees.
And yet, it's the Mega Corps that legislate even harder against $15 an hour. Because they have a lot more people to pay $15 an hour too.
Not to sound callous, but any Mom and Pops store that pays it's employees $7.50 an hour deserves to fail. Everyone has a right sleep indoors and put food on the table. Owning a bed-and-breakfast or a bakery is a privilege, not a right.
Let's back up a second here. That Mom & Pop store Do the owners deserve to sleep indoors and put food on the table? Because when you use an argument like having such a business is a privilege not a right. Then you are saying only Big Business has the right to exist.
Now let's look at those Mom & Pop stores. We had a nice place in my home town. A nice Deli owned by a husband and wife. Who do you think worked there most of the time? Those two. And they fought to be competitive with supermarkets in the area. And I personally know they were being cheated by suppliers. Why? They were being forced to pay what the supermarket was charging retail for a gallon of milk. Sounds pretty bad by itself. But the dairy was putting the milk that was expired from those markets in their cooler. I know this because I went to buy such a gallon as the guy was stocking the cooler and the milk in question was a few days past the sell by date.
I have little sympathy for the book store that refuses to order books and then a major chain comes around and they scream to support the local shop. But the shops that are trying to be part of the community and get squeezed do get all my sympathy.
And owning your own business is your right. If you wanted to go open a cookie shop you can. But that will be you working for the worst boss ever. Yourself.
Now if we want to argue not Mom and Pop places but small business. Then we may be getting somewhere. Lets' say a deli owner got enough money to open a few stores. Now they have employees running things not themselves personally. Then sure this should be proper minimum wage. It is not You working to put a roof over your head at that point. It is paying others so they can.
Of course then I have to ask a question I don't like. Is every job equal?
Nealithi wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 1:31 pm
As for the argument that big businesses can afford to pay their employees more. Yes and no. Yes they are likely bringing in enough to pay that and not raise prices. But it comes out of profits. This may sound like a no brainer. But investors, those guys who own stock in the company want to see that number always increase so their shares are always worth more and they can sell them for more. I got this from hearing the issue with why EA is greedy. They have to keep the stock price rising any way they can because no one cares about the dividends anymore. Just the sale price of the stock.
The decline of dividends as the primary reason to own stock had not made stock prices more focused on net income (or colloquially profits). Let's compare two companies that haven't paid any dividends; Tesla and Berkshire Hathaway.
Berkshire Hathaway has made revenues in excess of a hundred billion every year since 2007 and in excess of two hundred billion since 2015. It has made net incomes in excess of ten billion for all but 4 years since 2005. Tesla has run losses for every year it has founded until 2020 (where it made a little over 0.721 billion), and whose best revenues were 31 billion dollars (also 2020). Despite a vastly different financial situation, Tesla and BRK both have market capitalizations of about the same amount.
Now is the argument here isn't "financials mean nothing", it's "investors are savvy enough to distinguish short-term problems from long-term problems." Dividends aren't being issued by BRK and Tesla (despite different industrial sectors), because the management of each company rather reinvest the profits into things that create more profit. Investors in these companies trading in speculation of the day when there's nothing more worth investing in for the company, which then goes on to issue dividends.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:34 pm
Profit is inherent inefficiency in an economic sense. Financially it's fat.
That suggests that no one's income should exceed their expenses. This would make a lot of people unhappy, if it were possible.
A managed democracy is a wonderful thing... for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers define what is 'irresponsible'.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:35 am
Pretty sure I would die working in an Amazon warehouse.
The messed up part is the living wage bit. It has come up before, what is living wage in Kansas is homeless in California. And where I am a good chunk of earnings is getting between work and where you can afford to live. (No where near enough public transportation)
But the mom and pop stores I feel are as variable as states on living wage. A mom and pop place in my town does not bring in as much money as say a mom and pop coffee shop at the shore (tourist/vacation area).
I feel like the living wage argument is a reason to have some kind of minimum level. People like to argue that if a company didn't pay someone enough to live on no one would work for them, the catch is that a living wage will be different from person to person.
How many people would be happy to do your job for the half the pay just because they don't have kids to feed, or a disabled father to take care of, or student loans to pay off?
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:34 pm
Profit is inherent inefficiency in an economic sense. Financially it's fat.
I'm inclined to agree, although from an academic stand point. Strictly economically speaking, any surplus is a waste as it represents resources that are just sitting there and possibly degrading with time.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:34 pm
Profit is inherent inefficiency in an economic sense. Financially it's fat.
I'm inclined to agree, although from an academic stand point. Strictly economically speaking, any surplus is a waste as it represents resources that are just sitting there and possibly degrading with time.
I kind of wonder what would have happened if the first successful communist revolution had occurred in an actually industrialized nation.
Nealithi wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:35 am
Pretty sure I would die working in an Amazon warehouse.
The messed up part is the living wage bit. It has come up before, what is living wage in Kansas is homeless in California. And where I am a good chunk of earnings is getting between work and where you can afford to live. (No where near enough public transportation)
But the mom and pop stores I feel are as variable as states on living wage. A mom and pop place in my town does not bring in as much money as say a mom and pop coffee shop at the shore (tourist/vacation area).
I feel like the living wage argument is a reason to have some kind of minimum level. People like to argue that if a company didn't pay someone enough to live on no one would work for them, the catch is that a living wage will be different from person to person.
How many people would be happy to do your job for the half the pay just because they don't have kids to feed, or a disabled father to take care of, or student loans to pay off?
I am not sure how the minimum works if it is also a variable.
Since I do not have kids to feed, a disabled father (Well actually he is but his government check is more than I make), nor student loans. And I had to move from my apartment back in with my parents because the cost to live on my own went up faster than my near stagnant wages. And I make more than the state minimum. How many would be happy to do my job for half my pay. One that would put it under minimum wage here. And not very many as most that were hired to work alongside me felt it was too little for what was being asked.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:34 pm
Profit is inherent inefficiency in an economic sense. Financially it's fat.
That suggests that no one's income should exceed their expenses. This would make a lot of people unhappy, if it were possible.
It doesn't suggest that actually. Fat has a function in the body.
Plus, regular people's income don't constitute profits really. Businesses need capital and variable costs which they plan for regularly. Holding profit on hand burns a hole in their pocket.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:34 pm
Profit is inherent inefficiency in an economic sense. Financially it's fat.
I'm inclined to agree, although from an academic stand point. Strictly economically speaking, any surplus is a waste as it represents resources that are just sitting there and possibly degrading with time.
In practice yes. Obviously it's accounted for as evident by functioning businesses that both you and I can visit when we leave our computers at respective times after reading theses posts. It balances a bit out through competitive market conditions putting feet to the fire, though and with established market systems in the form of supermarkets, malls, etc...
The information age puts a spin on this because intellectual property is now the anchor for which digital commerce relies on for private market practice. It also makes high-end shopping a pain for brick and mortar businesses.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 11:10 pm
In practice yes. Obviously it's accounted for as evident by functioning businesses that both you and I can visit when we leave our computers at respective times after reading theses posts. It balances a bit out through competitive market conditions putting feet to the fire, though and with established market systems in the form of supermarkets, malls, etc...
The information age puts a spin on this because intellectual property is now the anchor for which digital commerce relies on for private market practice. It also makes high-end shopping a pain for brick and mortar businesses.
That is one thing I wanted to ask my economics teacher; what happens to supply and demand when you're dealing with digital information? I mean the basic principles of economics don't just go away but I imagine things can get weird when the supply of a given product becomes almost limitless because your selling digital downloads instead of physical copies.
