Bachmann is...

[Spartanmack]

get real, "living wage" and fair trade policies are recent developments; wages have been stagnating and declining since the 1980's, and only a handful of jurisdictions in the country have even passed living wage ordinances. you're just reaching for something "liberal" to blame because you're a hack. at least you didn't try to blame "affirmative action" as well, though, that's probably just because you didn't think of it yet.

re-read my post dickhead. I was talking about living wage and fair trade policies idiot "activists" like you pressure companies to force on poor workers in already poor countries, not here in the US. As for the rest of your typically retarded nonsense where you quote some data-free libtard editorial - i read the first couple lines you posted and found it so laughably stupid that I can't stomach the rest of it. The Auto industry was not even close to a monopoly and it was even less of a monopoly when the Japanese companies started exporting better, cheaper cars - so much cheaper that it was economical to ship them thousands of miles and still sell them cheaper which is pretty f'n amazing considering it has, with a few brief exceptions, never been economical to ship raw steel all the way to the US. If you weren't retarded you'd see that something else in the value chain was driving the cost of American cars to uncompetitive levels. Still no idea? I'll give you a hint - it starts with "L", ends with "r" and has "abo" in the middle.

 

[Michchamp]

We could fix this by treating companies more like people.

Biology demonstrates lots of things that work. I think aging and dying might be healthy things to mimic in our economy. When a company hits 50 years old, slap a 1% tax on all income. Then add another 1% tax each year until they die. I know you couldn't make it work. You'd just drive companies overseas or they'd transfer holdings to 'new' companies through other legal procedures. Too bad.

why kill otherwise decent companies just because of age? the company is not a person; the company is made up of its employees & ownership, who may change over time.

also, most companies don't last that long anyway; their brands & trademarks are resold, and those don't have employees, only owners.

for example in the case of the beverage industry, there are some breweries in the U.S. that brew beer for a number of different brands and labels, which change all the time. because of consolidation in the industry, there are often only a few locations that manufacture certain goods, and they make them for a variety of brands.

 

[Gulo Blue]

why kill otherwise decent companies just because of age? the company is not a person; the company is made up of its employees & ownership, who may change over time.

also, most companies don't last that long anyway; their brands & trademarks are resold, and those don't have employees, only owners.

for example in the case of the beverage industry, there are some breweries in the U.S. that brew beer for a number of different brands and labels, which change all the time. because of consolidation in the industry, there are often only a few locations that manufacture certain goods, and they make them for a variety of brands.

To emulate biology and keep the herd strong. To promote creative destruction. Nobody can stay too big to fail forever if eventual failure is built into the system.

 

[Michchamp]

re-read my post dickhead. I was talking about living wage and fair trade policies idiot "activists" like you pressure companies to force on poor workers in already poor countries, not here in the US. As for the rest of your typically retarded nonsense where you quote some data-free libtard editorial - i read the first couple lines you posted and found it so laughably stupid that I can't stomach the rest of it. The Auto industry was not even close to a monopoly and it was even less of a monopoly when the Japanese companies started exporting better, cheaper cars - so much cheaper that it was economical to ship them thousands of miles and still sell them cheaper which is pretty f'n amazing considering it has, with a few brief exceptions, never been economical to ship raw steel all the way to the US. If you weren't retarded you'd see that something else in the value chain was driving the cost of American cars to uncompetitive levels. Still no idea? I'll give you a hint - it starts with "L", ends with "r" and has "abo" in the middle.

you cherry pick the auto-industry... which is a single industry, and of course doesn't disprove anything about economy-wide industry consolidation in the U.S.

you cite labor costs as the cause of the Big Three's decline, but even as late as the 80's they still held over 80% of the U.S. market. And GM itself held over 40% of the market from 1930-1980, decades when the UAW was at its peak strength and negotiating power.

just google "Big Three market share" and "GM market share" and you can see a ton of graphs that show the same thing.

and that's not even a good example, since the automobile industries were consolidated into three companies that held 80% of the market share well before the Reagan era, which was the point of my post.

you continue to demonstrate that you're so thickheaded, you can't think outside of your union- and liberal-bashing brainwashing.

now go find some article from the WSJ or Fox News about how bad unions are, write a bunch of shit about how wrong I am, and call me stupid...

 

[Spartanmack]

More jobs at minimum wage aren't going to help the economy or anyone's living condition anyway. If kids in school were getting those jobs, then yes, I'd say they're a good thing, but that ship has sailed. We'll stretch things out for a while yet...fake the numbers by putting more and more people on disability and such, but at some point, technological progress is going to force us to try something really different because this econ 101 approach isn't going to cut it.

I'm not saying more jobs at minimum wage will fix the economy or lift anyone out of poverty - there is no one magic fix for our problems. Getting back to my original point, getting rid of or reducing the min wage would not drag down wages for 10s of millions of American workers. I also think it would enable a lot of low skilled, unemployed workers (teens, students, etc) find full and part time employment.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not saying more jobs at minimum wage will fix the economy or lift anyone out of poverty - there is no one magic fix for our problems. Getting back to my original point, getting rid of or reducing the min wage would not drag down wages for 10s of millions of American workers. I also think it would enable a lot of low skilled, unemployed workers (teens, students, etc) find full and part time employment.

Yeah. I think your original point is wrong too. You oversimplify. It may reflect econ 101 theory, but it doesn't reflect the way the world actually works. People don't bust out econ 101 textbooks to figure out how much they should offer a new hire. They comparison shop. They look at what other employers have to pay for that level of skill and effort nearby. If you change minimum wage, wages for jobs that are just little bit more intense than a minimum wage job will change too, and so on and so forth up the wage ladder with the effect tapering off as you get farther away from minimum wage. Yeah, it will impact the supply of jobs too, but the net isn't necessarily negative if you establish or raise a minimum wage. Plus, there are secondary effects to consider, if consumption was static and minimum wages were raise, yeah you'd just expect some drop in the number of jobs. But consumption isn't static. Higher wages on the low end of the spectrum yields increased consumption, increased demand...that reduces the number of jobs that would be lost. And there's nothing magic about the zero point. You could have a situation where the total number of jobs go up in the long run. So treating these 1st order, idealized econ 101 principles like laws of physics is a mistake.

 

[Spartanmack]

you cherry pick the auto-industry... which is a single industry, and of course doesn't disprove anything about economy-wide industry consolidation in the U.S.

you cite labor costs as the cause of the Big Three's decline, but even as late as the 80's they still held over 80% of the U.S. market. And GM itself held over 40% of the market from 1930-1980, decades when the UAW was at its peak strength and negotiating power.

just google "Big Three market share" and "GM market share" and you can see a ton of graphs that show the same thing.

and that's not even a good example, since the automobile industries were consolidated into three companies that held 80% of the market share well before the Reagan era, which was the point of my post.

you continue to demonstrate that you're so thickheaded, you can't think outside of your union- and liberal-bashing brainwashing.

now go find some article from the WSJ or Fox News about how bad unions are, write a bunch of shit about how wrong I am, and call me stupid...

You really are dumb. And I'm not just saying that to be an asshole to you. You make Debbie Wasserman Shultz sound almost smart. Why don't you take a look and find out when the Japanese really started exporting cars to the United States. It was the 70s when it all started and it didn't happen overnight. That's why GM, Ford and Chrysler's market share have been declining ever since the 70s/80s. Do you realize you actually made the point for me with your mention of how US automakers owned the market from 1930-1980? hahaha. Also, Chrysler bought AMC in 1987, late in Reagan's second term. Do you ever think before you type? Clearly you don't - in fact, I bet you still think that little fact favors your argument.

Also, do you ever question anything you read? I love that you bolded the bit about Macy's as an example of a monopoly. Do you think they are even close to having monopoly power in apparel or home goods retail or even department store retail? Ever heard of the Gap, Abercrombie, urban outfitters, Talbots, Crate and Barrel, Best Buy, Wal Mart, Target, Williams Sanoma, JC Penny, Sears, Carson's, Dillards, Nordstrom). Also, the timeline doesn't exactly work if you're trying to say monopolization of Department stores (even though it's not even close to a monopoly) killed America's jobs because Macy's and Bloomingdale's have been part of Federated since 1949 and Federated didn't buy Marshall Fields from Target until 2004. Federated bought Bon Marche in 1989, which had only 50 stores in the Northwest where Federated had little or no presence - not exactly a competition killer. Finally, in case you're unaware, Macy's isn't an industrial company and they don't make anything - they're a retailer. You're just a little liberal sheep going wherever huffpo leads you. By the way, I think it's hilarious that you bash the Wall Street Journal (again, I don't watch Fox News) when you get all your info from HuffPo and Mother Jones.

Have you picked up on the pattern yet? Every exchange with you follows this basic pattern. First you find an article on some leftist website that says something you want to believe and you post it without thinking, adding commentary like "seems logical to me" or "it stands to reason" then I fact check it, blow it up and (and often laugh at you). Then because you have no facts, you say I'm changing the subject or moving the goal post or that the actual facts are just a gish gallop and the factually incorrect editorial you posted is all that matters, then I show they're not and you say "nothing here worth responding to" or whine that all i've really done is call you stupid.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah. I think your original point is wrong too. You oversimplify. It may reflect econ 101 theory, but it doesn't reflect the way the world actually works. People don't bust out econ 101 textbooks to figure out how much they should offer a new hire. They comparison shop. They look at what other employers have to pay for that level of skill and effort nearby. If you change minimum wage, wages for jobs that are just little bit more intense than a minimum wage job will change too, and so on and so forth up the wage ladder with the effect tapering off as you get farther away from minimum wage. Yeah, it will impact the supply of jobs too, but the net isn't necessarily negative if you establish or raise a minimum wage. Plus, there are secondary effects to consider, if consumption was static and minimum wages were raise, yeah you'd just expect some drop in the number of jobs. But consumption isn't static. Higher wages on the low end of the spectrum yields increased consumption, increased demand...that reduces the number of jobs that would be lost. And there's nothing magic about the zero point. You could have a situation where the total number of jobs go up in the long run. So treating these 1st order, idealized econ 101 principles like laws of physics is a mistake.

First of all, I'm not treating econ 101 like the laws of physics. I'm merely stating that eliminating or reducing the min wage wouldn't do significant harm to 10s of millions of workers and it's based on more than just basic economic theory. But how is comparison shopping inconsistent with economic theory? Comparison shopping, competing bids and offers is how we have price discovery, it's not, nor did I ever say it was driven by buyers consulting a textbook. Also, you're ignoring the supply side. You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it. Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs. The min wage is probably fair for some jobs and those jobs won't necessarily pay less just because the min wage goes down, similarly jobs paying higher wages won't necessarily go down either.

Similarly, like I've said before, reducing the min wage would lead to currently unemployed people getting jobs resulting in positive net gains in wages which as you pointed out would be to people with high marginal propensity to spend yielding positive impact on the economy. There are positive second order affects to lowering the wage, i've said it multiple times but for some reason you keep boiling everything I say down to a stubborn adherence to "econ 101". And by the way, you're no less intractable in your belief that lowering the min wage would bring down wages for multitudes of workers higher on the scale.

 

[Gulo Blue]

First of all, I'm not treating econ 101 like the laws of physics. I'm merely stating that it wouldn't do significant harm to 10s of millions of workers. And how is comparison shopping inconsistent with economic theory? Comparison shopping, competing bids and offers is how we have price discovery, it's not, nor did I ever say it was driven by buyers consulting a textbook. Also, you're ignoring the supply side. You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it. Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs. The min wage is probably fair for some jobs and those jobs won't necessarily pay less just because the min wage goes down, similarly jobs paying higher wages won't necessarily go down either.

Similarly, like I've said before, reducing the min wage would lead to currently unemployed people getting jobs resulting in positive net gains in wages which as you pointed out would be to people with high marginal propensity to spend yielding positive impact on the economy. There are positive second order affects to lowering the wage, i've said it multiple times but for some reason you keep boiling everything I say down to a stubborn adherence to "econ 101". And by the way, you're no less intractable in your belief that lowering the min wage would bring down wages for multitudes of workers higher on the scale.

Sentences starting with "You think" and "Your argument assumes" are followed by things I didn't think or assume.

 

[Gulo Blue]

And by the way, you're no less intractable in your belief that lowering the min wage would bring down wages for multitudes of workers higher on the scale.

...and I wouldn't say 'intractable'. If there was evidence, I would tract my belief.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sentences starting with "You think" and "Your argument assumes" are followed by things I didn't think or assume.

So do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? If not, then what's to drive prices down? It doesn't just happen magically the moment the law is changed. If you don't assume the higher wages are pegged to the minimum, then how do you explain your belief that they will be dragged down by an elimination or reduction in the minimum wage?

 

[Mitchrapp]

The days when Gay meant happy and fag meant cigarette. The good ole days.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? If not, then what's to drive prices down? It doesn't just happen magically the moment the law is changed. If you don't assume the higher wages are pegged to the minimum, then how do you explain your belief that they will be dragged down by an elimination or reduction in the minimum wage?

What are you talking about?

 

[Spartanmack]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I said you think and assume that you denied thinking and assuming. Specifically I said "You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it." which is the same as saying buyers (employers) have pricing power for labor. Then I said "Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs."

In your response, you denied thinking or assuming either. So, do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? and if not, then why would any wages go down just because of a reduction in the min wage? Similarly, do you not assume other wages are pegged to the minimum and not the value of the product? And I don't mean formally pegged like a discrete currency peg, but pegged in the informal sense that the cause of wages above the min going down as a result of a reduction in the min? If so, of they're not pegged in some way, then why would other wages go down just because some min wage earners may be paid less?

 

[Michchamp]

So do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? If not, then what's to drive prices down? It doesn't just happen magically the moment the law is changed. If you don't assume the higher wages are pegged to the minimum, then how do you explain your belief that they will be dragged down by an elimination or reduction in the minimum wage?

I'm talking about what I said you think and assume that you denied thinking and assuming. Specifically I said "You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it." which is the same as saying buyers (employers) have pricing power for labor. Then I said "Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs."

In your response, you denied thinking or assuming either. So, do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? and if not, then why would any wages go down just because of a reduction in the min wage? Similarly, do you not assume other wages are pegged to the minimum and not the value of the product? And I don't mean formally pegged like a discrete currency peg, but pegged in the informal sense that the cause of wages above the min going down as a result of a reduction in the min? If so, of they're not pegged in some way, then why would other wages go down just because some min wage earners may be paid less?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm talking about what I said you think and assume that you denied thinking and assuming. Specifically I said "You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it." which is the same as saying buyers (employers) have pricing power for labor. Then I said "Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs."

In your response, you denied thinking or assuming either. So, do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? and if not, then why would any wages go down just because of a reduction in the min wage? Similarly, do you not assume other wages are pegged to the minimum and not the value of the product? And I don't mean formally pegged like a discrete currency peg, but pegged in the informal sense that the cause of wages above the min going down as a result of a reduction in the min? If so, of they're not pegged in some way, then why would other wages go down just because some min wage earners may be paid less?

So...to summarize, you believe in labor, that starts with 'l', that rhymes with 'hell", you support the Devil!

 

[Spartanmack]

Couldn't possibly care less about your points.

 

[Spartanmack]

So...to summarize, you believe in labor, that starts with 'l', that rhymes with 'hell", you support the Devil!

I'll just take that as a yes, you do think and assume the things I said you think and assume.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'll just take that as a yes, you do think and assume the things I said you think and assume.

Sounds reasonable. Much easier to avoid cognitive dissonance that way.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sounds reasonable. Much easier to avoid cognitive dissonance that way.

hmmm...

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I said you think and assume that you denied thinking and assuming. Specifically I said "You think that just because an employer wants to pay X for labor that labor will accept it." which is the same as saying buyers (employers) have pricing power for labor. Then I said "Your argument also necessarily assumes that other wages are pegged to the min wage and not the value of the skills for those jobs."

In your response, you denied thinking or assuming either. So, do you not think buyers of labor have pricing power? and if not, then why would any wages go down just because of a reduction in the min wage? Similarly, do you not assume other wages are pegged to the minimum and not the value of the product? And I don't mean formally pegged like a discrete currency peg, but pegged in the informal sense that the cause of wages above the min going down as a result of a reduction in the min? If so, of they're not pegged in some way, then why would other wages go down just because some min wage earners may be paid less?

So...to summarize, you believe in labor, that starts with 'l', that rhymes with 'hell", you support the Devil!

Coping mechanism?