I'm moving to New York!

[Booboobear84]

No it won't. The relationship you're describing is not perfectly elastic (hardly anything is), and even if it were, it wouldn't "nearly double" the costs for staff who are not on minimum wage, only for those who are.

I should probably add here that, while I support a living wage, I do not support Mamdani's proposal. I think it's too much at once. But that's no excuse for claiming it will do something it just won't do.

I don't think elasticity of price will come into play. The costs will be so different that prices will go up significantly (not nearly double there. Labor is 50% to 75% of a retail store's cost) or they will lose money. that's a big impact.

BTW a point of agreement you and I will probably have is the paying "managers" fixed salaries and then having the job require them to work absurd hours driving their wages/hours way down. That particular game playing is just so incredibly wrong.

 

[Hel_Books]

I admit simplifying, however for good or ill most retail jobs are at minimum wage. nearly doubling the minimum wage will nearly double the labor costs of those stores. . . .).

I'm reminded of your Henry Ford who, early in his career, decided to pay good wages because it reduced turnover and so that the workers would be able to afford to buy the cars they manufactured.

Hey, America didn't go broke by eliminating sweatshops!

 

[icanhelp1]

Minimum wage in NYC is currently 16.50 (per google your mileage may vary). If you nearly double the labor cost of everything, what will happen to prices. Retail typically has fairly low margins so the price of everything will have to go up in order to pay the workers. Who will then be able to afford those much higher costs? We can't raise the standard of living by decree (it would be nice if we could). There is always this tension between how much a business can afford to pay workers and what wage is realistic to live on. A truth that mostly gets ignored is that a lot of minimum wage workers are either High school/college students (who staffs most mall stores), or people getting their first jobs.

It's a hard problem, with no simple answers. When someone offers a simple answer look on it with deep suspicion. Most people are good and care about others. If there were a simple answer, it would have been implemented already.

There is a simple solution. LET THE MARKETS DICTATE THE VALUE OF A PERSON.

 

[Booboobear84]

I'm reminded of your Henry Ford who, early in his career, decided to pay good wages because it reduced turnover and so that the workers would be able to afford to buy the cars they manufactured.

Hey, America didn't go broke by eliminating sweatshops!

There is a reason for this. His factories provided enormous productivity gains per person. The value of peoples work was much higher and he understood that the only thing that worked was to share that with the people who produced it. That's what so difficult with retail, it's hard to boost productivity to increase the value of the work to provide higher wages.

 

[Hel_Books]

There is a simple solution. LET THE MARKETS DICTATE THE VALUE OF A PERSON.

Your "markets" are regulated in all kinds of ways, from pure food and drug regulations to solvency requirements for insurance companies (did you know that at times insurance companies were forced to charge higher rates because the regulators were worried they were just trying to make a fast buck and they might go bankrupt and be unable to pay claims?)

So why shouldn't the market for wages be regulated to protect the most vulnerable workers? Besides, if your workers are making enough money to live on, you won't have to see your tax dollars go to SNAP benefits!

 

[Hel_Books]

There is a reason for this. His factories provided enormous productivity gains per person. The value of peoples work was much higher and he understood that the only thing that worked was to share that with the people who produced it. That's what so difficult with retail, it's hard to boost productivity to increase the value of the work to provide higher wages.

If the retailers can't cope with those "difficulties" then let them go bankrupt and make room for merchants who can. Isn't that the Free Market Dream?

Also, productivity increases if there is less turnover, which better pay helps with!

 

[Littletoo]

I30.00 minimum wage, free bus rides, free child care, rent freeze for five years (if I can figure out whom I have to sleep with to get a rent-controlled apartment). What am I doing down heah in TEXAS, for Christ’s sake?

I realized with a start that if birthright citizenship is denied I may need a “path to citizenship.” I was born in Chicago but dad was not a citizen.

Oops,

He's Scottish. He was in Toronto on a student visa when he met mom. I don't know if he was even legally in the United States when I was born!

I might be an “anchor baby." . Soon I may not be a citizen. They probably won't notice me if I keep my mouth shut. I have “good genes." Not Sydney Sweeney quality. But I don't "look Mexican or Muslim” so ICE won't even see me.

Maybe it won't matter. The King (Charles. You know, of the U K, not Goldilocks of the U.S.) doesn't give a flying fuck where I was born. Dad is Scottish, so I'm Scottish by blood. Dad got me a UK passport. My international address is my grandfather's in Aberdeen, Scotland. I could move to the UK tomorrow if the planes are flying. My CPA is good there. My 401K is already in Switzerland so I won't have to tax out if I leave. I won't need a work visa in Scotland because I'm already a citizen!

How's that song go; “Already gone!"

 

[Abbey_Will_Fuck]

Texas? Dodging stray bullets, worried about the safety of your electrical grid, worried about natural disasters and FEMA gutted by Orange Julius Caesar, worried about your women dying in emergency rooms because the doctors are afraid of being thrown in jail or sued for treating them, wondering why there's a shortage of construction, meatpacking, and agricultural workers (with Spanish accents), worrying about your civil liberties, worrying about the Texas housing shortage, worrying about your children's education, and, worried about bible-thumper indoctrination.

That's the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard. Someone with your IQ is not even worth responding to, you would have no idea what I was even saying.

 

[icanhelp1]

Your "markets" are regulated in all kinds of ways, from pure food and drug regulations to solvency requirements for insurance companies (did you know that at times insurance companies were forced to charge higher rates because the regulators were worried they were just trying to make a fast buck and they might go bankrupt and be unable to pay claims?)

So why shouldn't the market for wages be regulated to protect the most vulnerable workers? Besides, if your workers are making enough money to live on, you won't have to see your tax dollars go to SNAP benefits!

The most vulnerable workers need to make themselves unvulnerable. Get an education and get out of poor paying jobs. We don't need more regulations, people need to sell themselves and prove their value. We the people don't owe people a happy life, we need a fair playing field and freedom choice.

 

[YDB95]

We the people don't owe people a happy life, we need a fair playing field and freedom choice.

There you go again, calling for something sensible and reasonable, and absolutely contradictory to what the party you support has been pushing for decades.
Anyone willing to work ought to be able to live on the proceeds. That's what the minimum wage is for.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

That's the biggest crock of shit I have ever heard. Someone with your IQ is not even worth responding to, you would have no idea what I was even saying.

A simple "I got nuthin" would have also proven your point.

 

[HisArpy]

There you go again, calling for something sensible and reasonable, and absolutely contradictory to what the party you support has been pushing for decades.
Anyone willing to work ought to be able to live on the proceeds. That's what the minimum wage is for.

Define "work."

Define "live on the proceeds."

Define "sensible and reasonable" in this context.


Basically, what you argue is a straw man, that a "living wage" is owed to everyone who works. Yet "work" is a subjective term. Does the guy who stands on the corner with a sign begging for money "work" any less than the guy standing on a corner with a sign advertising mattresses for sale? Why is one "work" yet the other is not?

"Live on the proceeds" is also subjective. What it takes for one person may not be enough for the next. A single woman with 3 kids has a different economic reality than a single 18 year old guy with his first job.

Then we get to the concept of pay. Why isn't everyone paid the exact same wage for an hour's "work?" We're all "working" so why the difference in paycheck amount? The answer lies in the value of the work being performed, not the amount being paid to the worker.

Finally we get to "sensible and reasonable." How sensible is it to tell the CEO or company owner that their efforts on behalf of the company have little to no value so you're going to limit the amount of money they can make to that of the lowest paid employee, or even a mid-level employee. Conversely, how sensible is it to tell someone that their lack of skills/ability is equal to the most highly skilled worker for the company? This is the fallacy inherent in "equal pay for equal work" because pay is based on not only what is brought to the table, but how valuable that contribution is.

 

[Booboobear84]

If the retailers can't cope with those "difficulties" then let them go bankrupt and make room for merchants who can. Isn't that the Free Market Dream?

Also, productivity increases if there is less turnover, which better pay helps with!

Putting on an arrival constraint and then blaming the market for failing. The intellectual dishonesty is strong in this one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

PSA:
Autism makes it almost impossible for someone to "admit defeat", that's why RFK declared by executive fiat that it no longer exists, and furthermore has never existed. It's just "bad parenting", full stop.

 

[HisArpy]

PSA:
Autism makes it almost impossible for someone to "admit defeat", that's why RFK declared by executive fiat that it no longer exists, and furthermore has never existed. It's just "bad parenting", full stop.

Because ^this^ has so much to do with moving to NY, getting free/reduced rent, and all the rest that Mamdani is promising...

 

[Rightguide]

I30.00 minimum wage, free bus rides, free child care, rent freeze for five years (if I can figure out whom I have to sleep with to get a rent-controlled apartment). What am I doing down heah in TEXAS, for Christ’s sake?

Have you perfected your goose step yet?

 

[RoryN]

What am I doing down heah in TEXAS, for Christ’s sake?

Because it's where you belong.

Sincerely,
Us liberals

 

[HisArpy]

Because it's where you belong.

Sincerely,
Us liberals

I wonder how rubbery feels about you saying this.

Ok, I admit I don't really care how rubbery feels, the point I'm making is that you're a hypocrite.

 

[RoryN]

you're a hypocrite.

Explain, "lawyer".

 

[Rightguide]

I30.00 minimum wage, free bus rides, free child care, rent freeze for five years (if I can figure out whom I have to sleep with to get a rent-controlled apartment). What am I doing down heah in TEXAS, for Christ’s sake?

Good luck. Rent for 1-bedroom units average $5,050 Rentometer

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Your "markets" are regulated in all kinds of ways, from pure food and drug regulations to solvency requirements for insurance companies (did you know that at times insurance companies were forced to charge higher rates because the regulators were worried they were just trying to make a fast buck and they might go bankrupt and be unable to pay claims?)

So why shouldn't the market for wages be regulated to protect the most vulnerable workers? Besides, if your workers are making enough money to live on, you won't have to see your tax dollars go to SNAP benefits!

The most vulnerable workers need to make themselves unvulnerable. Get an education and get out of poor paying jobs. We don't need more regulations, people need to sell themselves and prove their value. We the people don't owe people a happy life, we need a fair playing field and freedom choice.

That is the question, isn't it, what do people get together in nations to provide for the common good? We provide education to all, even those who can't pay for it, because it is good for the commonwealth. Similarly we provide such things as roads, clean sources of water and other infrastructure, police protection, food and drug safety inspections, medical care (in an emergency ward if nowhere else), a justice system (" If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you") and, of course, safety from external enemies provided by a military.

If you don't go for the "brother's keeper" thing (and I've noticed so many people who have some religious notions seem to forget that one) think in utilitarian terms: a population that can afford to buy what the capitalists want to sell them, lower turnover of employees, less need for SNAP and similar government programs and, of course, less need to worry that underpaid, underfed, ill-housed, possibly ill people might rise up and disturb your comfortable existence, the tumbrils rolling to the guillotine . . .

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
If the retailers can't cope with those "difficulties" then let them go bankrupt and make room for merchants who can. Isn't that the Free Market Dream?

Also, productivity increases if there is less turnover, which better pay helps with!

Putting on an arrival constraint and then blaming the market for failing. The intellectual dishonesty is strong in this one.

"Arrival constraint"? Sounds like you googled some economics treatise without understanding it!

Your market doesn't seem to have "failed" by being forced to pay a minimum wage, does it?

The intellectual dishonesty is with the ones who say, "Let the free market sort out everything, we don't need any constraints." That's been used to argue against all the things that have made the free market flourish, from health and safety regulations to unions to anti-monopoly laws to environmental regulation! (And let's not even mention the "peculiar institution")

These "constraints" that you denigrate are what people get together in nations do to provide for the common good. We provide education to all, even those who can't pay for it, because it is good for the commonwealth. Similarly we provide such things as roads, clean sources of water and other infrastructure, police protection, food and drug safety inspections, medical care (in an emergency ward if nowhere else), a justice system (" If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you") and, of course, safety from external enemies provided by a military.

If you don't go for the "brother's keeper" thing (and I've noticed so many people who have some religious notions seem to forget that one) think in utilitarian terms: a population that can afford to buy what the capitalists want to sell them, lower turnover of employees, less need for SNAP and similar government programs and, of course, less need to worry that underpaid, underfed, ill-housed, possibly ill people might rise up and disturb your comfortable existence, the tumbrils rolling to the guillotine . . .

 

[RoryN]

you're a hypocrite.

Explain.

*crickets*

...and then the fake lawyer / moron realized he'd used the word "hypocrite" incorrectly, and thus went silent.

 

[HisArpy]

Explain, "lawyer".

Googles can be your friend if you can ever pass beyond needing to look at your cue card reminder on how to start your computer.

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
law·yer

/ˈloiər,ˈläyər/

https://ssl.gstatic.com/dictionary/static/promos/20181204/pronunciation.svg
noun
noun: lawyer; plural noun: lawyers

1. a person who practices or studies law; an attorney or a counselor.
   h
   Similar:
   legal practitioner
   
   attorney
   
   legal officer
   legal adviser
   legal representative
   legal executive
   agent
   
   member of the bar
   brief
   
   

1. 
   

verb
North American English
verb: lawyer; 3rd person present: lawyers; past tense: lawyered; past participle: lawyered; gerund or present participle: lawyering

1. practice law; work as a lawyer.

 

[HisArpy]

*crickets*

...and then the fake lawyer / moron realized he'd used the word "hypocrite" incorrectly, and thus went silent.

Lol, once again the WELCHER fails in his attempts to be relevant.