Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Malaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

She can't help it.
She has PMQSD

Post Meta Quote Stress Disorder.

Okay, tell you what.  I'll keep posting them, but I'll feel really, really terrible about the whole thing.

[Bella]

Uh huh. Sssssure you will.  

[Prickly]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You've never owned a business, have you?

I have. This is bullshit.

First, you don't hire and fire workers based on the cost of hiring them. You hire them because you need bodies to do work. The number of employees is based on the amount of work you have to do. Period. You fire workers because they are incompetent or disruptive.

If your company is in financial problem, you cut expenses. Where you can, you rearrange the operation to be more efficient, or you jettison products or services that can not support themselves, or you reassign work to third parties that can do it less expensively. This reduces the number of bodies you need.

If you are an asshole - like a wall street brokerage house or a take over specialist or a go-go entreprenuer looking to make a killing taking a business public - then you trim the hell out of the payroll to produce a better balance sheet so you can convince the analysts that they should recommend ma and pa stick their life savings into your stock.

Most business owners, and having been one I am intimately acquainted with the beast, would, if you lowered minimum wage, look at that as an opportunity to line their own pockets. Most of them looked for ways to exploit their own employees. They are greedy little bastards. I was constantly amazed at how callous some of my collegues were towards their employees. (Some employers are fair and honest, but just some.)

The concept of raising minimum wage causing prices to go up is erroneous. Sure, the price of pizza might go up, from $8 to $8.25. But oil going up 25% would add more to the price of pizza. And the price of automobiles and refrigerators and houses wouldn't budge. Nobody building those makes minimum wages. Lowering minimum wage would mean that millions of people would have less income. And the price of cars and refrigerators and houses, and even pizzas wouldn't go down, until people stopped buying them. And that would drive some companies out of business and then, because there is less competitiion, prices would go back up.

And as for "The workers who were fired in order to cut costs now end up making nothing," which fucking country do you live in? America? This is a welfare state in case you haven't noticed. Not that I know exactly what that has to do with with argument, but there are a hell of a lot people not working who live better than people in Somalia and Iraq and places like that.

My bottom line is, in a world where statistics and graphs determine the outcome of economic events, you are exactly right. Ina world where greed and envy determine economic events, you are exactly wrong.

Get out your charts and graphs, Prickly, and let's go to the war!

::starts tacking mattresses to the walls in anticipation of Prickly's assault::

Whhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money, usually more money than what it costs to employ them. You cut pay or fire incompetent employees because they don't make you as much money and/or cost you more in other ways.

So, take the Taco Bell I work at as an example. Our restaurant has room for up to 14 people to work at a time, but the most we ever have is about 9-10, and we usually have 4-5. Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc.

So, say we have two employees (the minimum needed to run the store). Say the two of them together can do a maximum of $120/hour worth of business. After the costs of food, water, electricity, maintenance, etc. for that hour (everything not related to the number of employees), that leaves you with $60 for employee pay and profit.
Now a third employee comes, and increases your max income that hour to $180/hour. After non-employee costs, this leaves you with $90.
A fourth comes, and increases your max income to $230/hour. This leaves you with $115. Etc. Etc.

So, we have:
# Emp - $ left over for pay
2 . . . . $60
3 . . . . $90
4 . . . . $115
5 . . . . $135
6 . . . . $150
7 . . . . $160
8 . . . . $165

So, the amount of money that each additional employee can make after non-employee costs is:
# Emp - additional $
3 . . . . $30
4 . . . . $25
5 . . . . $20
6 . . . . $15
7 . . . . $10
8 . . . . $5

Now, say that minimum wage is $5.50/hour. In addition to that, you have the cost of uniforms, any benefits (not just things like insurance, but like our Taco Bell gives us up to $5/day in free food), payroll taxes (iirc, FICA/Medicare taxes are divided between employer and employee, each pays about 8%), etc. Say that it costs about $9/hour to hire an employee.

So, if it costs $9/hour per employee, and having an 8th employee can't increase the amount you have available to pay him by more than $5, you're not going to place an 8th employee on the shift even if you'd have enough business, because you'd lose money by doing so. The maximum number of employees you'll have at any given time is 7.

Now, say minimum wage goes up to $7.50/hour. So, with other costs, it's now $11/hour to hire an employee. Now, the maximum number of employees you'll have at a given time is 6, because hiring a 7th employee would cause you to lose money even if you have enough business to use them. If you figure that you'd have about 5 hours a day (3 during lunch, 2 during dinner) when you'd have had 7 employees before, that means you have to cut about 35 hours a week off the schedule, or almost 1 full time employee, because you wouldn't make any money by having them there.

Yes, you're right that cutting other (non employee related) costs would leave you room to hire more employees again, but if doing so would save you that much money, you'd have had as much reason to do so before minimum wage went up as you do afterwards. And besides that, each of those costs you cut out also cuts out someone's work. Whatever your company gives up buying in order to keep more of its employees will then hurt the company you cease buying from, and cause them to have to lay off employees. No matter what, you're still cutting out someone's employment by increasing the minimum wage.

And yeah, you're right, this is a welfare state, so the laid off workers wouldn't be entirely broke. But, for each new person going onto some welfare program, you have to raise taxes to cover it. Some of those taxes will end up hitting the working class (much as I think we all wish they wouldn't), meaning that the working class will have less income after taxes, cutting into any additional income they're receiving from minimum wage. Combined with the (admittedly small) increases in price of many consumer goods following an increase in the minimum wage, this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

[Prickly]

Dammit, Gnimbley!  You beat me to it.

Prickly:  I am a mechanic.  Do you suppose that the company hired me because they could AFFORD to, or because they NEEDED someone to maintain their aircraft?

Did they hire me because I'm a nice guy, or because I keep their Beech 18's from falling out of the sky?

They hired you because they needed someone to maintain their aircraft, but they wouldn't have been able to hire you if they couldn't afford it. Just because they had one reason to hire you doesn't mean that they didn't have another. Woulda figured fans of RAW wouldn't make that logical mistake.

[Prickly]

Of course, I obviously get paid too much.  In Prickly's world, I would be doing this for $0.25/day, and a swift kick in the ass.

In my world, you'd be able to afford more off of $0.25/day than you can off of $6/hour now. Remember, decades ago, before your blessed minimum wage laws, when people could afford food, a home, transportation, etc. for a few dollars a day? Now, the same amount an hour doesn't buy everything you need? Yet you don't believe me about minimum wage laws having driven up prices to the point that the money you're making after minimum wage doesn't buy as much as it did before minimum wage laws were enacted....

The swift kick in the ass is all your idea, though. If your employer is kicking you in the ass every day, I'd be looking for a new job. And in my minimum-wageless world, there'd be more jobs to look for.

Sorry bout the triple post.

[Guido Finucci]

You don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:

... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

[Prickly]

You don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:

... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

[Guido Finucci]

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

If they get paid less, they'll spend more?

Here is a free clue:  standard of living is the measure of wealth. Anyone talking about increasing wealth is talking about increasing the standard of living.

Now go an re-read everything you wrote and discover why it makes no sense.

[gnimbley]

Your turn, Roger. I wouldn't want to beat you to it twice in a row. Think of the fluffy little bunnies!

(Although you might start with "Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc. " which presupposes that the number of customers is proportional to the number of employees, to which there is no correlation at a Taco Bell [unless the only people who eat there are related to an empolyee {which in the case of Taco Bell could well be true.}])

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:

... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

So, you believe that lower wages will mean lower prices for the same quality of product?

Not to be an ass, but what color IS the sky in your world?  In mine, it's blue.

[The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1]

Bureaucracy   :arrow:   Aftermath


Here is my understanding of the Discordian philosophy and then you tell me if I am crazy:

Rule#1   We Jake Bureaucracies

Rule #2  Infiltrate the system

Rule #3 We Jake Bureaucracies

Rule #4  Everything the system does benefits the system.

Rule #5  Agitate the masses

Rule #6  Refer to rules #1 and 3

Rule #7   We do not talk about Fight Club

Rule #8   Fnord

Rule # :  :!:   Oppose stasis




,ÄúLogic is what gets you into trouble,Äù   --Agent Traveler

Freedom is Slavery

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.

Nonsense.  Adam Smith was right, but is the most mis-quoted author that exists.

[Rupert Giles]

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.

Nonsense.  Adam Smith was right, but is the most mis-quoted author that exists.

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand:  Getting People to Study Economics by Making It into Porn.

[The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1]

Did I say I was talking about economics?



       

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Did I say I was talking about economics?



       

If you weren't , then you weren't talking about the invisible hand.