Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 09, 2021

The U.S. labor market hit a new milestone recently: For the first time, average pay in restaurants and supermarkets climbed above $15 an hour. Overall, nearly 80 percent of U.S. workers now earn at least $15 an hour, up from 60 percent in 2014.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Before the pandemic, the average nonmanagerial restaurant worker earned $13.86 an hour. By June, the most recent month for which Labor Department data is available, that had skyrocketed to $15.31, a more than 10 percent increase. Supermarket workers just crossed the $15 threshold in June " their pay is up 7 percent since the pandemic began, to $15.04 an hour.

Other fresh entrants in the $15-an-hour club include butchers and seafood markets, office supply stories, liquor stores, parking-lot attendants, day-care services, janitorial services, and care for the elderly or disabled. There are only a few industries that still pay less than $15 an hour, and some of them are seeing blistering wage growth " convenience-store workers got a 16.9 percent raise during the pandemic, to an average of $13.16, and cafeteria and buffet staff saw a 16.8 percent boost to $14.08 an hour.

"The U.S. economy will come to a grinding halt in 3, 2, 1..." - Republi-cant's everytime raising workers' wages is mentioned.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-09 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

$28T. Try and keep up.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-09 01:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

In that case, interest on the debt alone will by $1.3T/year....which is over a third of all government revenue.

I don't know what metric that is supposed to represent, but I've watched financial experts talk about debt and inflation non stop for the last month or so. And you've failed to calculate the pay-fors that the Democrats will include in their reconciliation package (read: tax hikes on business/wealthy; IRS enforcement of tax cheats, etc.) that will cover most if not all of the spending. Your first mistake is not taking into consideration the size of the US GDP and the fact that much of the spending you decry - unlike that of GOP tax cutting - will actually increase our GDP further as it's introduced into the economy. It will have a multiplier effect on the front end and increase federal, state, and local tax revenues on the back end. You've accounted for none of that.

Second, the spending is spread out over a decade, it all isn't happening this fiscal year. Third, the cost of borrowing money at this moment is .09% - .17% - the range of T-Bill's implied interest. Today's cost of borrowing money is still near/at an all time low and much of our physical infrastructure is past its useful lifetime. It will cost far more in the future to fix/repair/replace what will need to be than it will today as a matter of overall cost to taxpayers. And a significant portion of this spending will allow business to increase its productivity and enhance the transportation of goods and services to the market - another value added benefit for our GDP.

Fourth, much of today's inflation is temporary - tied to production/distribution blockages in the normal flow of goods and services due to the pandemic. There is enough elasticity within our current economy to absorb higher wages. And if you looked closer at the article, a substantial portion of the increase received by restaurant workers is coming from customers in the form of tips and service charges paid voluntarily and split up equally by the restaurants themselves often adding $3-$4 hr to what owners are actually paying.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-09 05:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The US has $26T in debt."

So, simple question. Do you or do you not support repealing every single federal tax cut on income since after Ronald Reagan took office?
If the answer is no then you don't really care about the debt, you really just care that some of the debt is created by social services which are desperately needed by our population.
When we taxed the wealthy at 70% marginal rates we had little debt so the answer to the problem you mention is quite obvious to anyone except a right wing nut.
Jeff Bezos pays zero taxes. We should not have a billionaires not paying taxes appropriate to the ratio of their wealth to the average working person in the United States.
We have endured 40 years of right wing insanity, it's time to go back to the taxation levels which worked for 60 years, paid for World War II, got us out of the Great Republican Depression of 1929, and built the largest middle class in the world.
Don't whine about debt if you aren't willing to discuss the actions necessary to fix it.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2021-08-09 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

#4 | POSTED BY STERLINGARCHER

Is this financialpro's latest iteration?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-09 11:22 AM | Reply

#7

I don't know, he got plonked last night and I suggest everyone follow suit. I'm sick of these people, they are literally the enemy of humans, of Americans, of survival.

It's time to treat them how they deserve.

#8 | Posted by bocaink at 2021-08-09 12:05 PM | Reply

It's just pathetic that they keep crawling back, trying to act all normal and "new" every time but then bursting into a tirade on about the third day that reveals who they are.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-09 12:12 PM | Reply

Uh oh, all those folks are making $15 an hour now?!?! Shouldn't the economy collapse in the near future?

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-09 12:13 PM | Reply

Congrats Dems, you own this.

#2 | POSTED BY STERLINGARCHER

Trump added $8 trillion mostly without a recession.

Bush added almost $6 trillion without a recession.

And BOTH put us into recessions causing us to have to spend huge amounts to keep the country afloat.

Whiny lying little Republican scum like you own this.

Maybe if you pukes stopped cutting taxes on the rich and spending like there is no tomorrow, we wouldn't have this problem.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-08-09 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Target and Walmart are even paying for people's college education now.

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-08-09 12:32 PM | Reply

GOPers and Joe Manchin are trying to solve the paradox of jobs going begging while many unemployed workers are either out of the job market or refusing to bite on low-wage openings. An article in last weekend's WSJ described an Ohio manufacturer who raised pay, still sees turnover, but has raised worker productivity so as to be able to fill more orders, increase sales and generate a bigger bottom line. The company's owner stated his stark choice: try to go with higher wages to generate more sales, and if that didn't work, go bankrupt.

It took a pandemic to point out what so many know: low wages means barely living paycheck to paycheck, with no way to save for the future. This is one step from what the Joads faced in "The Grapes of Wrath", i.e., living almost day to day, taking what work was available, even at less than a living wage, just to avoid starvation.

Employers thought that with job openings and so many workers on the sidelines (and some forced off of unemployment, or foreclosed from additional temporary benefits) that they could keep wages low and workers would come crawling. But a funny thing happened on the way to economics class--workers held out for higher pay, and employers were forced to knuckle under in this case...

#13 | Posted by catdog at 2021-08-09 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#13

You touch on something a business owner says within this thread's article:

Food truck veteran and restaurateur Phu Tran says he hasn't had problems hiring or retaining workers. He credits the fact that the majority of his workers earned over $15 an hour before the pandemic began.

Tran, 34, has spent more than a decade building a smart, hard-working, collaborative team, and bemusement creeps into his voice when he talks about watching labor-starved competitors scramble to catch up to the new $15 reality now that workers are tougher to find.

"I personally think that you had to have been making an effort to treat your staff correctly in every aspect possible before this [labor shortage] came about, right? You can't start raising your wages and trying to change your business culture when you run out of people to hire and expect good results," Tran said. "It doesn't work that way."

And now businesses - who heretofore took their employees' needs and concerns for granted or failed to understand their discontent and trepidation before the pandemic - are suddenly finding out what Henry Ford figured out almost a century ago.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-09 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wages must go up if working class people are to have any chance at the American dream. Currently a married couple both working minimum wage jobs cannot afford a home or support a family.

#15 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-08-09 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You can't start raising your wages and trying to change your business culture when you run out of people to hire and expect good results," Tran said. "It doesn't work that way."

It does in greedy, sociopath republican land.

Or so they think it should.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-09 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sycophant: Did you just compare SterlingArcher to puke? That's outrageous! You owe puke an apology!

#17 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-08-09 02:16 PM | Reply

"And you've failed to calculate the pay-fors that the Democrats will include in their reconciliation package (read: tax hikes on business/wealthy; IRS enforcement of tax cheats, etc.) that will cover most if not all of the spending."

Progressives often make the mistake of thinking that, because government demands that the most successful members of society fund those that aren't, they will.

I can't say they won't, but in order for the government to exploit these individuals, they first must continue to engage in activities that the government is able to exploit.

For instance, a high income earner may simply choose to use their time for leisure rather than income, particularly if they perceive less benefit from labor income.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-09 03:14 PM | Reply

If the government were serious about gaining more tax revenues, they'd go after the middle class, who has no choice but to continue in income-generating activity.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-09 03:15 PM | Reply

"And now businesses - who heretofore took their employees' needs and concerns for granted or failed to understand their discontent and trepidation before the pandemic - are suddenly finding out what Henry Ford figured out almost a century ago."

Not at all.

Henry Ford wasn't dealing with a government that paid people not to work more than they would have made earning labor income.

This is 100% a function of COVID welfare.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-09 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In a market that is not being manipulated by government, demand relative to supply is what determines wages.

When I left North Dakota in 2013, a pizza delivery person would get $15/hr. Plus tips. Working at Sears started at $25 an hour.

Everything was indexed to wages in the oil patch, which easily paid high school dropouts $80k a year, while paying for their food and housing.

#21 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-09 03:20 PM | Reply

"It does in greedy, sociopath republican land."

Republicans don't determine the cost of labor any more than they determine the cost of anything else.

You should have taken an econ class.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-09 03:21 PM | Reply

"Currently a married couple both working minimum wage jobs cannot afford a home or support a family."

That's right.

Yet you continue to bring this up. Why? Are you under some delusion that it's remotely possible to have an economic policy or an economic environment where a couple earning minimum wage is ever going to be anything other than poor?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-09 04:02 PM | Reply

You should have taken an econ class.

#22 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I used that time for more useful classes.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-09 04:13 PM | Reply

"Everything was indexed to wages in the oil patch"

Leasing the oil patch was a government action.

The government literally created the market you're describing.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-09 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Uh oh, all those folks are making $15 an hour now?!?! Shouldn't the economy collapse in the near future?"

Not if we all tip a minimum of 35%.

#26 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-08-09 04:28 PM | Reply

"Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic."

Former President Bill Clinton

#27 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2021-08-09 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I used that time for more useful classes."

Perhaps.

Perhaps you could find a more useful way of spending your time here other than engaging in discussions you don't really understand.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 04:48 AM | Reply

"The government literally created the market you're describing."

How so?

The government "created" the conditions where demand for labor exceeded supply, which drove up the cost of labor?

Walk me through how that happened. I don't think you full understand what you're saying.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 04:50 AM | Reply

Uncle Sam created the local economy. No oil lease, no economy.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 07:54 AM | Reply

GOPers and Joe Manchin are trying to solve the paradox of jobs going begging while many unemployed workers are either out of the job market or refusing to bite on low-wage openings. An article in last weekend's WSJ described an Ohio manufacturer who raised pay, still sees turnover, but has raised worker productivity so as to be able to fill more orders, increase sales and generate a bigger bottom line. The company's owner stated his stark choice: try to go with higher wages to generate more sales, and if that didn't work, go bankrupt.

You pay a higher wage, you get a better candidate and can be choosy in who you hire.

Offer rock bottom wages, you get rock bottom candidates who cannot do the work as well.

There is no shortage of workers, just a shortage of workers who want to work for crappy wages and no benefits.

When you pay a decent wage, you can attract workers who need to pay for child care, when you offer good benefits you can attract people who want to work but are on medicaid for health needs.

After years of hearing about how workers should "better themselves" the GQP is suddenly up in arms by employees demanding better wages and benefits.

#33 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-08-10 08:40 AM | Reply

When I left North Dakota in 2013

#21 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2021-08-09 03:20 PM | FLAG:

Uncle Sam created the local economy. No oil lease, no economy.

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2021-08-10 07:54 AM | FLAG:

"Across North Dakota, 1,031,121 acres of federal land were leased for crude oil and natural gas development in fiscal year 2014."

Fed leases generate considerable economic activity, but they're a minority of production with North Dakota being 93% privately owned land. Feds can decline some leases to private operations if there is Federal activity on that mineral patch.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-08-10 09:26 AM | Reply

Perhaps you could find a more useful way of spending your time here other than engaging in discussions you don't really understand.

#30 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I understand just fine.

I'm just not mouthing the same words you are.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2021-08-10 11:16 AM | Reply

-There is no shortage of workers, just a shortage of workers who want to work for crappy wages and no benefits.

The truth is, like most of the time, somewhere in between.

I'm sure there are some quality workers not working because the pay sucks.

But there are also some ---- workers not working because the pay sucks.

They aren't all of the highest quality and worth the higher wage they seek.

It's just not possible. How many are worth the wage they seek? I don't know.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-10 11:28 AM | Reply

And the government is already telling people we are at severe levels of inflation. But, of course, Dems will say that is due to everything else BUT whatever doesn't fit their narrative. When, in reality, it is part of it and the science backs that notion. We all should ignore it though since it doesn't tell the story we want it to, right?

"-There is no shortage of workers, just a shortage of workers who want to work for crappy wages and no benefits."

So what are the underlying reasons for that then? Is it because they want to be able to buy a new car every year? To be able to take trips to Fiji every year? I mean, what is a crappy wage? One that lets you live with a roof over your head but doesn't let you buy that new Playstation? See, the problem with your viewpoint is that it always comes down to opinion. And the opinion that people should make enough to do a LOT more than what they should be able to do given their skillsets is starting to prevail. Sure, Dems paint the picture as if these people making low wages are living like people in Jamaican cardboard slums. In reality, the large majority of them are living OK but do have challenges in life. And paying high enough wages to everyone so that they don't have challenges in life is a fantasy world that Dems just can't seem to get out of.

#37 | Posted by humtake at 2021-08-10 12:33 PM | Reply

"Uncle Sam created the local economy. No oil lease, no economy."

You could say that of every enterprise...the vast majority of which would not exist if they government did not permit them to.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 01:50 PM | Reply

"There is no shortage of workers, just a shortage of workers who want to work for crappy wages and no benefits."

I think what you mean to say is there is no shortage of workers with low labor value who want to work for commensurate wages and benefits.

Good workers, regardless of where they start, will always thrive. The question is, what do you do with the workers whose labor value is less than $15 an hour. When $15 becomes the minimum wage, the answer is that you legally prohibit them from selling their labor for less than $15 an hour.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 01:53 PM | Reply

#37

There are no shortage of progressives who feel that, if everyone can't be rich, no one should be. Without regard to the conditions that led to one being rich. Or poor.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 01:55 PM | Reply

So what are the underlying reasons for that then?

Greed.

what is a crappy wage?

$7.25/hr that hasn't been adjusted for inflation since 2009.

One that lets you live with a roof over your head

www.cnbc.com

Minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any U.S. state

Full-time minimum wage workers cannot afford a two-bedroom rental anywhere in the U.S. and cannot afford a one-bedroom rental in 95% of U.S. counties, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's annual "Out of Reach" report.

In fact, the average minimum wage worker in the U.S. would need to work almost 97 hours per week to afford a fair market rate two-bedroom and 79 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom, NLIHC calculates. That's well over two full-time jobs just to be able to afford a two-bedroom rental.

#41 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-08-10 02:07 PM | Reply

"Greed."

When you make purchases, do you adjust the amount you pay based on the amount the person needs?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:21 PM | Reply

"$7.25/hr that hasn't been adjusted for inflation since 2009."

But is has been adjusted since it was instituted in 1938. Technically, it's too high. At it's implementation, it was $.25 per hour. In 2020 dollars, that's $4.60. I can make a very strong argument that minimum wage is already 57% higher than it should be.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:24 PM | Reply

"Minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any U.S. state"

And?

Wages are a function of what a worker needs, they are a function of how much value they can provide to an employer.

"In fact, the average minimum wage worker in the U.S. would need to work almost 97 hours per week to afford a fair market rate two-bedroom and 79 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom, NLIHC calculates. That's well over two full-time jobs just to be able to afford a two-bedroom rental."

Which is why if you're a low labor value employee, you get a roommate. Or roommates.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:26 PM | Reply

" has been adjusted since it was instituted in 1938. Technically, it's too high"

That depends on precisely when you're starting the clock, so be sure you've picked enough cherries for everyone.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-08-10 02:39 PM | Reply

If rates are supposed to never deviate from where they started, then black people are getting 2/5 over-representation in Congressional apportionment.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 02:45 PM | Reply

"That depends on precisely when you're starting the clock, so be sure you've picked enough cherries for everyone."

I was starting the clock when the clock started.

Day 1.

When else would you start it? Why?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:46 PM | Reply

"I can make a very strong argument that minimum wage is already 57% higher than it should be."

I'd like to see this argument! Is it the same argument I just made that blacks are over-represented?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 02:46 PM | Reply

"I was starting the clock when the clock started. Day 1."

Day 1 of what?

There were tens of thousands of days when Federal minimum wage was zero. Why not start there?

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 02:48 PM | Reply

"If rates are supposed to never deviate from where they started, then black people are getting 2/5 over-representation in Congressional apportionment."

I dunno.

This is minimum wage. It's a government thing. And if the government deemed it sufficient in 1938, what has changed that makes it insufficient.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:48 PM | Reply

"I dunno."

If you don't know, then stop saying it like you know.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 02:49 PM | Reply

"Day 1 of what?"

Day one of minimum wage, silly goose.

"There were tens of thousands of days when Federal minimum wage was zero. Why not start there?"

Nope.

Is that a lie, a Trumpbellishment, or something altogether new?

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"If you don't know, then stop saying it like you know."

I'm simply stating a fact, Champ.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 02:50 PM | Reply

"what has changed that makes it insufficient."

What changed in 1938 to make not having it in the first place insufficient?

(Let me guess: You don't know.)

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 02:51 PM | Reply

I can make a very strong argument that minimum wage is already 57% higher than it should be.

And you'd be a moron because you didn't take the rise in worker productivity (what employer's GET for what they PAY).

In fact, had the federal minimum wage kept pace with workers' productivity since 1968 the inflation-adjusted minimum wage would be $24 an hour.

#55 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-10 02:56 PM | Reply

But is has been adjusted since it was instituted in 1938. Technically, it's too high. At it's implementation, it was $.25 per hour. In 2020 dollars, that's $4.60.

It's funny how the inflation calculator works. In 1938 a pound of hamburger cost 12 cents, according to the inflation calculator that would be 2.31 today (2.20 in 2020) yet the cheapest I can find ground beef is 4.88lb. More than twice what your inflation calculator says. So if we use a hamburger inflation calculator min wage should be 10.18.

Since most people eat hamburger not government stats it's probably more reflective.

#56 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-10 03:02 PM | Reply

"And you'd be a moron because you didn't take the rise in worker productivity (what employer's GET for what they PAY)."

Worker productivity is defined as output over the labor required to generate that output. In virtually every circumstance, labor productivity increases because of capital investment.

Consider this. I own a machine that a worker operates. It produces 10 widgets an hour. I upgrade the equipment, now the machine produces 20 widgets an hour. At the same time, the equipment became less complex, requiring less effort and attention on the part of the worker.

In this scenario, worker productivity would have doubled. Do you think that means the workers pay should have doubled, or increased at all?

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:08 PM | Reply

...most successful members of society...

#19 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

How does using lots of money to make lots of money make anyone a success? It's pretty damn easy work if one has the money to do it.

#58 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-08-10 03:09 PM | Reply

"In this scenario, worker productivity would have doubled. Do you think that means the workers pay should have doubled, or increased at all?"

The data are quite clear on this:
Before 1975, yes
After 1975, no.
What changed in 1975? Tell us please.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 03:12 PM | Reply

Which is why if you're a low labor value employee, you get a roommate. Or roommates.

#44 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

As someone with a lot of experience in the rental market I will attest, many landlords don't allow roommates outside of immediate family. Too much risk.

#60 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-08-10 03:14 PM | Reply

"It's funny how the inflation calculator works. In 1938 a pound of hamburger cost 12 cents, according to the inflation calculator that would be 2.31 today (2.20 in 2020) yet the cheapest I can find ground beef is 4.88lb. More than twice what your inflation calculator says. So if we use a hamburger inflation calculator min wage should be 10.18."

That would be remarkable if the cost of everything had gone up. The problem is, inflation is based on a basket of goods. Which in this case suggests that the price of beef has gone up relative to other potential items in that basket. Which is sort of what you would expect with commodities.

But when you look at the cost of goods writ large over time, virtually all of them have gone down dramatically. The very obvious exceptions being healthcare. And cars, if you can believe that. But for most consumer goods, in 2021 you could expect to pay a fraction of what you would have 50-70 years ago.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:15 PM | Reply

In virtually every circumstance, labor productivity increases because of capital investment.

And where did business get the capital to invest? Through the productivity of their workforce realized as profits or the productivity of others realized through the appreciation of investments.

Damn. I guess in your world they just go to their capital tree and pluck whatever they need.

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-10 03:16 PM | Reply

"How does using lots of money to make lots of money make anyone a success? It's pretty damn easy work if one has the money to do it."

They don't make that money in a vacuum. If I bury money in my back yard, it doesn't multiply.

It only grows if I put it in a position where it can be beneficial to someone else. In that regard, it's little different than labor. Just another factor of production.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:17 PM | Reply

"The data are quite clear on this:"

I'm not sure how you are answering the question. Or if you are.

Wages double? Increase at all?

Possibly even decrease?

Which one? Why?

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:18 PM | Reply

"As someone with a lot of experience in the rental market I will attest, many landlords don't allow roommates outside of immediate family. Too much risk."

Is that new?

I know I always had roommates in college.

I even own a rental property. My management company handled it, but my tenant previously had a boyfriend on the lease as well.

You can't have people living there who are not on the lease...but that's something different. At least with my management company.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:21 PM | Reply

Rise with productivity, before 1975.
Basically no change, since 1975.

What happened in 1975 to decouple wage growth from productivity growth?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 03:23 PM | Reply

"And where did business get the capital to invest?"

It depends.

They could take a loan. Or issue additional stock.

But definitely not this:

"Through the productivity of their workforce realized as profits"

Labor in remunerated with wages or salary. Profits are what capital earns after all the bills have been paid.

Unless your approaching it from a Marxian economic perspective, in which case capital is not entitled remuneration and what would have been profit goes to workers.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:27 PM | Reply

#61

I actually ran it for several items cars, housing, bread, beef, income and toothpaste. All of them were higher than the inflation calculator would lead you to believe. I picked beef because it was middle of the road. The range was 9.44-12.56.

I suspect that if you were to run it from 1972 to now it would be more accurate however the change from gold standard in 71 I suspect causes heartburn for the poor inflation calculator.

#68 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-10 03:27 PM | Reply

"What happened in 1975 to decouple wage growth from productivity growth?"

It's odd...your refusal to answer the question...instead posing a totally unrelated question.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:28 PM | Reply

I've answered your questions.
Can you answer mine?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 03:30 PM | Reply

Profits are what capital earns after all the bills have been paid.

Profits are what is created through the productivity of the workforce - after the bills are paid - by the products or services they produce which are sold at a price HIGHER than the cost paid by the employer.

WTF, Marxism? You're just a freakin' idiot sometimes MB.

#71 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-10 03:35 PM | Reply

"I actually ran it for several items cars, housing, bread, beef, income and toothpaste. All of them were higher than the inflation calculator would lead you to believe. I picked beef because it was middle of the road. The range was 9.44-12.56."

Fair.

I think there are some natural challenges with comparing pre-WWII prices points and those after. First, it wasn't something economists were tracking, writ large. Second, it was the depression, so people weren't buying dear goods the way they do now. Third, WWII created an arbitrary spike in the cost of consumer goods. But if you look at post-war, inflation adjusted prices, I feel like you can paint a pretty accurate picture.

Cost of a new house, 1950 (1k sq. ft) $11k ($11 per sq.ft). In 2021, $124k, $124 per sq/ft.

Current average price per sq/ft $127.50

Cost of a cheap TV, 1950, $129. In 2021$, $1454. For $1454 you can get pretty much any TV you want...I have never paid more than $1k, even for the giant I have sitting in my living room.
Cost of a Loaf of bread, 1950, $.12. In 2021$, $1.35 (average cost now is $1.53)
Cost of toaster, 1951, $21.00. In 2021$, $219.45. ($17.99 in 2021.)
Cost of a 20 cu.ft drop freezer, 1955, $409.50. In 2021$, $4,151. ($749 in 2021)

And there is more.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:57 PM | Reply

"I've answered your questions."

You did?

I missed it.

Can you answer again?

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 03:58 PM | Reply

See #66

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 04:00 PM | Reply

"Profits are what is created through the productivity of the workforce"

No, wages are what is created through the productivity of the workforce.

Profits are what is created through the productivity of capital.

"WTF, Marxism? You're just a freakin' idiot sometimes MB."

I don't think you know what Marxism is. Why don't you explain to me what you think it is, and I will correct you to 100%.

I think you think I'm an idiot, because like virtually every other progressive on this site you are clueless when it comes to economics.

You're the idiot dude, not me. But feel free to try and surprise me with some mind-blowing retort.

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 04:01 PM | Reply

"See #66"

If can't answer the question, just say so.

There is no shame. Econ is not your thing.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-10 04:02 PM | Reply

#65

I own several rentals.

Landlords want one reliable renter on the lease. As a landlord, my management company and I look for one responsible party or responsible couple, capable of paying the rent. Also, one responsible party if any damage is caused. Any situation where you are trying to rely on fluid comings and goings of multiple parties to pay the rent, or to pay for damages, is not good business. Same reasons management companies will not allow sublets.

What would of happened if you renter couldn't pay the rent after the loss of the boyfriend? You evict them? Personally, I hate turnover. Maybe your management co is different. If they are, I probably wouldn't use them.

#77 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-08-10 04:14 PM | Reply

#75

Fleck off. "Capital" has never packed a box, turned a wrench, or produced anything because "capital" isn't corporeal, it's imaginary. Money not backed by anything but belief is worthless outside of that belief system.

Do you really not understand this distinction Mr. Economic Genius?

Explain to me how "capital" actually accomplishes "work product" independent of human interaction, ie. the physical manifestation of goods or services desired from other humans or businesses willing to pay money for them.

I've always been discussing the intersection of human beings trading their labor towards the production of goods and services for a specific employer, then that product being sold to others willing to pay more for it than the employer's cost of producing them.

Businesses do not have profits without having earned them through whatever their business (employees) produces and sells in the marketplace.

You brought up Marxism, not me. Nothing I've talked about has anything to do with the ownership or control of capital, just that capital doesn't do anything without human beings and their work production somewhere in the chain of events.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-10 04:20 PM | Reply

#63

The point is, parking money in an ETF or a mutual fund, or even a rental, does not make someone a successful producer. I'm not saying such investment opportunities should be eliminated, but they should be taxed fairly.

Being the billionaire founder of a company does not make one a producer. It often simply means they've been smart enough to hire producers. The producers under the billionaire deserve to be rewarded, to make a living, even at the lowest levels. Otherwise it is simply exploitation.

#79 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-08-10 04:23 PM | Reply

"No, wages are what is created through the productivity of the workforce."

This obviously cannot be the case, because wages have not kept pace with production since 1975.

(It wasn't really the case before 1975, but since then it's both bad accounting, and bad math.)

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 07:40 PM | Reply

#72

Min Wage, 1950 ($.75) 2021 ($8.46)
Min Wage, 1956 ($1.00) 2021 ($9.99)
Min Wage, 1961 ($1.15) 2021 ($10.45)
Min Wage, 1963 ($1.25) 2021 ($11.10)

So after 1950 the inflation calculator argues it should be higher not 57% lower.

#81 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-10 07:42 PM | Reply

#81 well where I live minimum wage was $1.10 in 1973. I know because i earned it back then.

#82 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-08-10 07:50 PM | Reply

And $15 shouldn't be the average, it's less than the minimum should be in 2021. The average should probably be closer to $35.

#83 | Posted by DarkVader at 2021-08-10 08:10 PM | Reply

#83

" The average wage in 2019 in the US was $51,916.27
$19.33 was the median wage per hour in the US in 2019"
policyadvice.net

So not quite where you put it but not as far off.

#82

There were amendments added in 61 that added more job types and created new classifications some of which could be paid less than the overall min wage.

Honestly we should do that now maybe republicans would be behind a higher overall min wage if students were subject to a lower one. Or something like that. Honestly I don't think too many progressives would argue a 17 year old living at home needs a living wage. As it stands in my state a kid under 17 has so many hour restrictions they just aren't worth as much as someone over 18. Just one example I'm sure others could come up with other possible amendments to min wage laws that would work for most people.

#84 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-10 08:34 PM | Reply

"not as far off." As the article makes it look.

#85 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-10 08:35 PM | Reply

#84

The only sub-minimum wage that can remotely be justified is a temporary training wage - where both parties (employer and employee) acknowledge that the trainee's productivity is markedly less than that of other fully-trained employees. Whether a worker is 15 or 50 has nothing to do with their ability to deliver equal value and productivity to their employer. And when you create wage tiers where employers can pay less for the same amount and quality of work, who do you think they will then prioritize when hiring?

As it regards any mention of an "average wage" the hyper wealthy skew that number to the point it's almost meaningless in any real measure for the majority of American workers. Median wage is far more representative and we should never forget there are many, many earners always below its number in addition to those earning above it.

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-10 08:54 PM | Reply

"The only sub-minimum wage that can remotely be justified is a temporary training wage - where both parties (employer and employee) acknowledge that the trainee's productivity is markedly less than that of other fully-trained employees."

That's BS though. Most any job is going to be like that when you're new.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-10 09:46 PM | Reply

#86 that's why I posted both average wage and median hourly. They are different by almost 5 dollars an hour.

Even so $19.33 is more than 15 so not as bad as the article suggests.

As far as people under 18 you aren't getting the same work from them. Their schedule is highly restricted and frequently will have multiple availability issues due to family commitments school events etc. they simply aren't as valuable. They may be awesome and if they are then the employer will either give them a raise before 18 or lose them. My wife has a couple of college kids who started in high school, not a one of them is making min wage the lowest I know without waking up the wife is more than double min wage.

#88 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-11 04:55 AM | Reply

#88

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I wasn't referring to all the tangential issues with availability for work, I was simply referring to the actual productive labor every job entails - and unless a younger worker's output is less than that of another's, paying them a lower wage simply because of availability isn't right.

I'll give you an example. When I was a teen I worked at Waldenbooks - a couple 3 hour evening shifts during the week and maybe a shift on Saturday or Sunday. For every task my job required, I was just as competent and efficient as were the employees who worked more hours than me. As a matter of fact, due to my typing training, I was MORE efficient using the then-new computerized cash register that entailed entering ISBN numbers than any of the others including the manager. I also was much faster in compiling the end-of-the-day paperwork than anyone else to the point the others all wanted to work with me when they had to close because I'd get us out of the store often in less than 10 minutes after closing where others might be there an hour trying to get the books balanced.

It wouldn't have been fair to pay me less than the company was paying the others outside of management and tenure. That was the point I was trying to make - it was simply related to giving the employer the same productive labor as other older, more experienced workers.

#89 | Posted by tonyroma at 2021-08-11 06:55 AM | Reply

The surplus is a myth.
#29 | POSTED BY STERLINGARCHER

You are a myth.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-08-11 11:38 AM | Reply

"What would of happened if you renter couldn't pay the rent after the loss of the boyfriend? You evict them?"

No. Probably not. I don't like turnover either.

In fact when COVID started I figured that we wouldn't evict her even if she could pay little or nothing. I'm pretty sure I could have found a way to get at least some of it back in taxes, and with the market being what it was I would rather have someone in the place than have it vacant.

But that's neither here nor there. Throughout college I rented one apartment and two houses. All times with roommates.

#91 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 02:46 PM | Reply

"Do you really not understand this distinction Mr. Economic Genius?"

I understand economics.

I also understand where your irrational, emotionally drive rant is coming from.

It would be less irrational and less ranty if you understood economics.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 02:48 PM | Reply

"Explain to me how "capital" actually accomplishes "work product" independent of human interaction, ie. the physical manifestation of goods or services desired from other humans or businesses willing to pay money for them."

First, what is "work product." Is that an economic term?

I don't know that I understand your question. I'm not sure you understand your question.

But let me take a stab at answering it. These are your three factors of production.

Labor is remunerated through wages. That wage is generally a function of the market value of the labor, and wages are due regardless of whether a company is losing money or not. In fact one of the big wins of the mining unions years ago was ensuring that workers wages were not tied to profitability.

There is also land. We can get into this later if you feel it necessary.

Capital is remunerated through profits. Generally, the money left over after all the bills are paid. The big difference between labor and capital is that capital can't experience losses. There is no way a worker loses their labor. Even if one employer decides not to purchase it, it is still theirs to sell or utilize as they see fit. Labor generally takes a loss when costs exceed revenues. But not always. There are circumstances where capital is provided with a fixed rate, and labor is exposed to gain or loss. But generally labor seems to prefer a wage arrangement, where they get a steady paycheck regardless of how well or poorly a company is performing.

But there is no real reason that labor, like capital, couldn't accept exposure to gains or losses in the same way capital typically does.

Hope this helps.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 02:56 PM | Reply

"You brought up Marxism, not me. Nothing I've talked about has anything to do with the ownership or control of capital, just that capital doesn't do anything without human beings and their work production somewhere in the chain of events."

OK...so you don't understand Marxism either.

You can go read up on the labor theory of value when time permits, but the bottom line is that Marx believed that workers should be entitled to profits, and it was wrong for capital to receive any remuneration.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 02:58 PM | Reply

"Being the billionaire founder of a company does not make one a producer. It often simply means they've been smart enough to hire producers. The producers under the billionaire deserve to be rewarded, to make a living, even at the lowest levels. Otherwise it is simply exploitation."

And there's your problem. You're assuming you can disconnect the value of one's labor from the amount you would expect them to be paid.

Would you treat any other commodities this way?

Say you want to buy a new car, and the salesman hasn't made any sales all month. Should you be expected to pay more for that car? Would you pay more for that car?

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:01 PM | Reply

"So after 1950 the inflation calculator argues it should be higher not 57% lower."

Why?

What's important about 1950?

Should all costs revert back to what they were in 1950?

#96 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:02 PM | Reply

"And $15 shouldn't be the average, it's less than the minimum should be in 2021. The average should probably be closer to $35."

That comes out to roughly $70k per year.

If that were the case, then a little more than half of the population would be legally prohibited from selling their labor because it wasn't worth $35 an hour to an employer.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:05 PM | Reply

"The only sub-minimum wage that can remotely be justified is a temporary training wage"

I worked in a bar in college. Made $2.13 an hour. Typically made about $25 an hour in tips.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:07 PM | Reply

I had friends in swanky bars who could easily pull in $400 a night on the weekends. I think it bit some of them in the ass. The money was just too good to give up, even after graduating.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:09 PM | Reply

Human labor is Not the Same as other commodities. People have needs and are not objects to be used but are ends in themselves.

Labor, even unskilled labor, is the life energy of living people. It is Not the same as a hammer or a car any other non human thing.

Slavery was justisfied by your arguments, and so is indentured servitude.

MB, your whole worldview is depraved. I really feel a mixture of pity and contempt for you.

To see human endeavor as the same as an inanimate object is a horror.

You clearly have no moral compass.

#100 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-08-11 03:21 PM | Reply

I worked in a bar in college. Made $2.13 an hour. Typically made about $25 an hour in tips.
#98

If all the patrons held your worldview, your compensation would have remained at $2.13 an hour.

Why would any rational consumer pay above and beyond the price the market dictated?
They literally have the cold beer in their hand, paid for. Why would they opt to pay even more than the agreed upon price?

It doesn't make sense.

#101 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-08-11 03:46 PM | Reply

"Human labor is Not the Same as other commodities."

I know.

Labor is not a true commodity. It only behaves as a commodity at any given time. But unlike actual commodities, labor has the ability to change and to differentiate. A ditch digger can become a doctor when the cost of doctors makes it worthwhile.

A poor little dry edible bean will never be anything other than a dry edible bean.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:46 PM | Reply

"They literally have the cold beer in their hand, paid for. Why would they opt to pay even more than the agreed upon price?"

If you tip a bartender good early on, it's going to ensure that bartender keeps coming back to make sure you're good.

Don't tip? Don't be surprised if you have a longer wait. If it's busy, you might not get another beer.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 03:50 PM | Reply

It appears that certain posters compensate for their lack of actual knowledge about a topic through quantity of posts about that topic. The stupid person who speaks the most seems able to convince himself that that means he is knowledgeable.

#104 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-08-11 03:53 PM | Reply

"If you tip a bartender good early on, it's going to ensure that bartender keeps coming back to make sure you're good."

Great explanation of why we need to remove money from politics.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 03:53 PM | Reply

#96

Come on you are better than that.

You said that original min wage of 25 cents an hour would be 4.60 now saying you could argue it should be 57% lower not higher. I showed you the inflation calculator sucked when you went back to 1938. You pointed out that post WW2 would probably be more accurate so I ran the inflation adjusted min wage from 1950 (the year you suggested) and it showed min wage should in fact be higher. This was all because of your statements now you want to act like I'm pulling stuff from my backside?

#89

I understood your point however if you want min wage to increase, which I'm pretty sure we both do, the availability of minors will be a major sticking point for business. Around here pre-covid starting wages were about 9 an hour and companies were already shying away from hiring minors. If it goes to 15 and there isn't an exemption expect to see a lot of unemployed high school kids. I'm not saying they're not worth the same but the scheduling difficulties as well as some tasks they aren't allowed to preform, make the perceived value to an employer less.

As a bonus of writing an exemption it shuts down a right wing talking point about how high school kids don't need a living wage. Hmm as I wrote that something occurred to me, according to right wing mythology an employer doesn't care about your needs when setting your pay, but minimum wage shouldn't be higher because it's mostly high school kids making min wage and they don't need more ... Curious how need shouldn't factor in an increase but does factor in a reason not to increase.

#106 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-11 03:55 PM | Reply

"Come on you are better than that."

No, he really isn't.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 03:58 PM | Reply

#70

Once upon a time he was. We have had many good discussions about economics in the past.

#108 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-11 04:04 PM | Reply

>If you tip a bartender good early on, it's going to ensure that bartender keeps coming back to make sure you're good.

I'm only in for one. I still tip. Just to piss all over economic theory.

#109 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2021-08-11 04:09 PM | Reply

"I showed you the inflation calculator sucked when you went back to 1938. You pointed out that post WW2 would probably be more accurate so I ran the inflation adjusted min wage from 1950 (the year you suggested) and it showed min wage should in fact be higher."

Ok. Fair.

I guess you would need to provide an explanation on why minimum wages needed to be increased to maintain the same level of coverage in 1950 as was provided in 1938.

I don't have that answer. Do you?

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 04:10 PM | Reply

"Once upon a time he was. We have had many good discussions about economics in the past."

Ignore Snoofy. He's in the weeds on this one.

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-08-11 04:14 PM | Reply

"In 2020, what CEOs took home rose nearly 16%, according to preliminary data, while the average worker's compensation rose just 1.8%." www.fastcompany.com

^
MadBomber's explanation of why is that CEOs because 16% harder to find in 2020.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 04:38 PM | Reply

People need more as the standard of living increases. The basics become more expensive. New necessities like cellphones, and automobiles make the former minimums inadequate.

You are disingenuous. Lying, might be more accurate.

Capital is and has always been subservient to labor. Only psychopaths think that money is more valuable than living things.

Try to eat money, try to keep warm or sheltered with money without any way to spend it.

Your worship of cash is revolting.

At most money is a tool for facilitating other people's help. In itself, without living people to exchange it with it is just empty and useless.

Start with the basics, Mr. Economist.

EVERYTHING STARTS WITH LABOR.

#113 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-08-11 04:40 PM | Reply

-EVERYTHING STARTS WITH LABOR.

You mean the actual labor? or the price paid for it?

The cost of labor is a commodity.

#114 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 04:46 PM | Reply

"I guess you would need to provide an explanation on why minimum wages needed to be increased to maintain the same level of coverage in 1950 as was provided in 1938.
I don't have that answer. Do you?"

No other commodities are held to that standard.

a bushel of wheat
a gallon of gas
a gallon of milk
barrel of oil
etc.

what other commodities are we going to go back to 1950 and ensure it's kept up?

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 04:51 PM | Reply

"If you tip a bartender good early on, it's going to ensure that bartender keeps coming back to make sure you're good."
Great explanation of why we need to remove money from politics.

#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Great reason why we need to do away with tipping, and simply pay restaurant/bar employees a fair living wage. If I'm the bar owner I want ALL of my customers to be treated well. Not just the ones who give a big initial tip.

#116 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-08-11 05:17 PM | Reply

"No other commodities are held to that standard."

Not quite. We do plenty to protect, say, sugar beet farmers. www.washingtonexaminer.com

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 05:31 PM | Reply

Are you ------- kidding me? Quantitative easing, bond purchases to prop up asset prices have been going on for years. Real estate is propped up by interest rate manipulations. Stock prices are protected by stock buybacks and outright purchases by the Fed.

Get real man. Everything is propped up in some way or other. The "free market" is total --------. Does Amazon pay taxes remotely commensurate with it's use of infrastructure and profit margins?

The whole economy is rigged and manipulated to protect the already wealthy from loss.

Taxpayer bailouts for banks and corporations,but "free market" austerity for every day people.

You are full of ---- Eberly.

#118 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-08-11 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder if Eberly denies the truth in #18, or just doesn't see it that way.

QE is an entire market being propped up to maintain a certain standard.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 06:16 PM | Reply

118

That's a cute rant and I don't disagree with it for the most part.

But none of that changes the reality that the cost of labor is a commodity. Govt influenced or otherwise.

You also didn't even remotely address my point.

Not that you should. Or could ... .

-Great reason why we need to do away with tipping,

Not a good idea.

If you got what you wanted then 15 minutes later you would be crying over the bar owner keeping the inflated margin and not passing it onto his servers.

Tipping the only type of compensation that the owner and govt keep their hands off.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 06:29 PM | Reply

"Day 1. When else would you start it?

I'd start it in 1950; it's a solidly post-war economy.

"Why?"

Well, they immediately realized $.25 was too low, so the raise after the first year's was 20%. If you stopped there, and concluded 20% annual raises were the way to go...well your conclusion would be much different, wouldn't it.

Since 1950, less than 20 of the ensuing 980+ months compute to lower amounts than today's $7.25: a short patch from April 2005 until the minimum wage was raised in 2007, and one month in March 1990, before the raise began in April 1990. Any other pick would show today's workers making less in purchasing power.

And of course, if you simply chose say, the last half-generation, the results would be starkly different.

How about that chart: the productivity of the minimum wage American worker since 2009, charted against the comparative purchasing power of the minimum wage.

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-08-11 06:32 PM | Reply

FTR, I'm for the minimum wage

I'm also for raising it when and where it's appropriate

#122 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 06:35 PM | Reply

"I guess you would need to provide an explanation on why minimum wages needed to be increased to maintain the same level of coverage in 1950 as was provided in 1938.
I don't have that answer. Do you?"

I don't you would have to ask the politicians of 1949 why they decided to raise it.

No other commodities are held to that standard.

Yes and no they kind of are as inflation affects commodity prices which, baring significant government interference, float with the market. A gallon of gas 1950 .27 cents in 2021 that would be 3.06 from AAA average cost today is 3.185. Milk and Wheat are both subsidized so they are way different although until about 1970 milk pretty much matched inflation.

Additionally with commodities production efficiencies can keep prices under inflation MadBombers TV example is a good one of this. With labor the production efficiencies also keep prices lower MadBombers widget machine from #57 is an example of this.

The problem with production efficiencies keeping prices lower with regards to labor vs. a TV is the TV doesn't have to buy it's kids food or keep a roof over it's head. Which is why saying labor is a commodity like anything else is not really a realistic view, unless children starving is also acceptable in your view. Good employers understand that employees with starving children aren't going to be doing a great job and so pay more however plenty of employers do view their employees as no different than any other commodity and have no issue throwing away the ones that go bad to stretch a metaphor. Since the government is constitutionally bound to promote the general welfare if employers won't provide for their employees the government has to. A min wage is one way to do that without the entire burden falling on the government.

#123 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-11 06:36 PM | Reply

"If you got what you wanted then 15 minutes later you would be crying over the bar owner keeping the inflated margin and not passing it onto his servers."

That's how every other business works, Eberly.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 06:40 PM | Reply

What was your point? Be clear and suscinct. Labor is not a commodity in the classic sense.

Labor is what holds the whole structure together. If people stopped working for a few days the whole system would collapse. If the currency fails, people switch to barter.

Venezuela has been sanctioned to near collapse but because the people keep working it's still afloat.

Cuba also. The worship of Capital breeds monsters. America has been exporting these horrors for decades.

MB has a vested interest in seeing more deaths.

It's his livelihood.

#125 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-08-11 06:41 PM | Reply

"unless children starving is also acceptable in your view."

That's not only acceptable in the Republican view, they see it as a positive.
They believe that hunger will make you become a more motivated and thus higher valued worker.
As though people never had ambition in life until they felt the lash.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Everything that people do in the world right now, they could still do, in the absence of money.

Who do you think invented money, rich people or poor people?
Do you think they invented money to benefit themselves, or others?

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 06:51 PM | Reply

-Labor is what holds the whole structure together. If people stopped working for a few days the whole system would collapse. If the currency fails, people switch to barter.

Yes, it's a very important commodity.

Remember, I'm not calling the labor itself a commodity....I'm referring to the cost of the labor.

#128 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 07:13 PM | Reply

"MB has a vested interest in seeing more deaths.
It's his livelihood."

You don't believe that.

You're making it personal with no justification because you can't get anywhere with him.

#129 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 07:15 PM | Reply

"Since the government is constitutionally bound to promote the general welfare if employers won't provide for their employees the government has to. A min wage is one way to do that without the entire burden falling on the government."

Exactly. It's govt impacting wages at the bottom to help keep a minimum skilled person eating and living......and working.

As the govt intervenes to help those at the top....I fully support the intervention at the bottom.

#130 | Posted by eberly at 2021-08-11 07:20 PM | Reply

Unlike a commodity, a laborer has to eat at some point.

So, the cost of that labor (as a commodity) will be influenced by things intrinsic to the commodity.

The closest example a commodity has to that is spoilage. Where a seller will sell their commodity for less than it was once worth, due to its utility decreasing over time.

Thus, it makes good business sense to keep wages low, because a desperate laborer will sell their labor (as a commodity) for less than he would when he's rich.

Of course, economists disavow all of this. The moral and intellectual underpinning of capitalism is that people are rational actors. Which is obviously a lie, to anyone who has ever actually spent time with people.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 07:22 PM | Reply

"As the govt intervenes to help those at the top....I fully support the intervention at the bottom."

You just don't fully support it enough to become a Democrat. ;)

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-08-11 07:37 PM | Reply

So what I've learned from this thread - Keep your employees in the fridge so they don't spoil.

#133 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2021-08-11 07:45 PM | Reply

"A gallon of gas 1950 .27 cents"

Competitive stats are valuable, but often don't tell the entire story.

For example, how much was the average cell phone bill? How about monthly internet access? And how much did TV cost per month?

And while we're here, how much in debt was the average college graduate?

#134 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-08-11 11:33 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort