1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Nations largest Insurer dropping ObamacareFollow

#77 Dec 11 2015 at 5:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
1. What is a "reasonable lifestyle", and 2. how much "work" should one do to earn it?


1. Able to house, clothe, transport and feed ones' self with a little left over...at a minimum.


Completely on their own, with no other income in the household? Everyone should be paid this much, even a kid in school living under their parents roof? See, because that's what you're doing when you set a minimum wage to that level, but your argument doesn't match that condition at all.

Quote:
2. 40 hours a week


Doing what? I'm trying to get you to grasp that some labor simply isn't worth the cost if that is your criteria. 40 hours a week writing code? Certainly. 40 hours a week making french fries at McDonalds? Not remotely close. Not unless we raise the price of a happy meal to like $20 or something. At some point, the cost of labor isn't worth the output of that labor. And at that point, no one will employ that labor any more. You aren't helping the poor here, you're making it harder for them to get out of poverty.

Here's a good illustration of what I'm talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Dec 11 2015 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Hey, gbaji, you ******** there's a little excluded middle going on in that vacuum chamber you call your skull.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#79 Dec 11 2015 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Huh? How are companies leaving the country a drain on my tax dollars? This explanation I'd love to hear!

And it's strange that you say this, but yet we still constantly hear about all those evil companies offshoring their businesses. Either it's a problem, or it isn't. Which one is it?
Do you ever read what you write? US companies that move outside the US pay vastly less taxes to Uncle Sam.


Sorry. I thought you meant that they are "currently" (as in prior to leaving) a tax drain, but when they leave, they'll cease to be, thus somehow being less of a problem. Um... Then I miswrote my reply, making the whole thing more confusing even.

if you believe that companies leaving the US is a bad thing, then raising the cost to do business in the US, and thus increasing their odds of leaving, is a bad thing, right? I guess I'm just still confused by your response, since you seemed to be dismissing this as any sort of problem in terms of your logical sentence structure, but the actual words you wrote say the exact opposite. So... Huh?

There's also a third layer of confusion here because I don't view a company *not* operating in the US, and thus not paying taxes in the US as a "drain" on tax dollars. I see things that the government pays out of tax revenue as a "drain" on tax dollars (since the dollars actually exist and are then drained). Absence of the dollars in the first place is a bit different. By that bizarre logic, a Chinese company not choosing to move its operations to the US is also a drain on US tax dollars. Which is just an "odd" way of looking at things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Dec 11 2015 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
In brief, Bob is pocketing that $1 mil after paying all his expenses everywhere.


And I'll again point out the extreme silliness of the example itself. In the real world, Bob would pay his various employees different amounts of money based on their specific jobs and skill, some of them near minimum wage, some of them much much more than that. He'd have to, or they wouldn't continue to work for him, and certainly not well enough to earn a $1m/year profit. It's pretty monumentally unlikely that a set of 100 unskilled workers could generate a yearly output valuable enough to pay their minimum wage salaries, plus the equipment lease costs, plus building costs, plus utility costs, and materials cost and have a million dollars left over.

And if they could, they'd just go into business for themselves, because they're like amazing or something. Keebler elves maybe? It's a silly example and not remotely like the real world.

Quote:
Lost in my story was the point, which being: harm.


Imaginary harm.

Quote:
If Bob is going home at the end of the year with 1/3 of a million instead of a full million and his employees are better off and are less of a burden on the general public, then Bob's loss is far outweighed by the gain.


No. Objectively his dollar loss is exactly the same as the collective dollar gain to his workers. I'd argue that subjectively, his loss of $625k/year is far more of a burden on him than the relatively small gain of $6.25k/year is for each of his employees. As Ugly mentioned above, you're also ignoring things like risk and debt. How much did he have to borrow to start this business? It's quite possible that he's paying hundreds of thousands of dollars back each year in loan payments on a $1m/year profit business venture. How much variation in revenue is there going on? What is the net profit rate? Most businesses operate at around 5% or so net profit (and certainly the ones that have lower pay workforces do). So that means he's taking in $20m/year in revenue to make that $1m/year in net profit. So a bad year or three can easily wipe him out, even while you might think on paper that he's rolling in dough.

It's just not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be. It's not as easy as just declaring that Bob should share more of his profits with is workers. He should instead pay his workers an appropriate wage based on the value of their labor to his business relative to similar businesses in the same industry. Pay too much and he's losing out on profits and may increase the odds of going out of business. Too little and his best workers will go work for his competition. It's a balance of factors, and honestly "how much the worker needs" isn't really part of it. The worker's needs drive the worker to increase the value of his labor, and seek out employers who will pay him more. And yes, this is the force that pressures Bob to pay his workers more. You don't need some kind of legislative fiat to accomplish this. All you need is enough legislation to ensure free market/labor competition (ie: anti-trust style laws) and the system works.

You have a solution in search of a problem.

Quote:
In gbajiland. this makes Bob a victim somehow.


He's out $625k/year. That sure seems like harm being done to him.

Quote:
And, unless I'm unclear, this isn't about Bob being forced to do this. This is about Bob aught to do this because it's the right thing to do. I see it as a matter of patriotism, quite frankly.


Ok. That wasn't actually clear. I assumed we were talking about something like minimum wage increase, given that this bit about wages grew out of my arguments about the harmful effects of government regulation increasing the cost to operate a business. It seemed reasonable that your comment was about some kind of regulation forcing Bob to pay his employees more. If it wasn't, then I'm not sure how your post has anything to do with the conversation about government regulation hurting businesses by increasing operating costs (that was kinda the point with the whole "insurer dropping Obamacare" topic).

Um... I agree that Bob should pay his workers more in that situation. in fact, I find it hard to imagine a business operating like that that isn't already paying their employees much more than minimum wage (as I pointed out in both my previous posts). So yeah, I guess this is you searching for a problem. This is already how things are. What the aren't is like the example you started with.

I'll also point out that this isn't done because it's the right thing for Bob to do from some kind of moral standpoint (although he's free to do so if he wants). It's the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do from a business standpoint. Anyone wanting to grow their business to the size of Bob's business will have to pay their employees wages appropriate to the value of the labor (which is a function of the costs charged to the businesses customers for the good/services his workers provide or create). Their wages aren't really set by him, but by those customers (just like with my fryolator example earlier). A widget factory worker will earn more than a McDonald's fry guy not because of any difference in need by the worker, but because of the relative value placed on widgets versus fries. If Bob owns a bunch of burger franchises, his employees will likely be paid less on average than if he owns a custom luxury car parts manufacturer/installer. Why? Because people will pay more for the latter than for the former. That's why. It's all market driven.

The best way for people to improve their wages is to engage in labor that others value more. Period. There really is no short cut or cheat to this. Trying to artificially declare that the fry maker's labor should command X dollars more per hour is completely counterproductive since the value we place on the output of each workers labor is relative. Dollars are just a median for exchanging those relative valuations. You can't cheat that fact. Well, not for long, and not without harmful side effects to your economy. Which is why it's a bad idea.

Edited, Dec 11th 2015 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Dec 11 2015 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also point out that this isn't done because it's the right thing for Bob to do from some kind of moral standpoint
Thanks for driving home my point that you don't have any.Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#82 Dec 11 2015 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Hey, gbaji, you ******** there's a little excluded middle going on in that vacuum chamber you call your skull.


As opposed to the excluded middle where everyone either earns a minimum wage or is rich? Most people already earn a "living wage". Most people, if they are not yet earning a living wage, will be in time as their work experience and skill increases. This whole thing is a solution in search of a problem. It's political rhetoric, designed to get people riled up over something that they'd realize is perfectly normal and natural if they just bothered to stop and engage their brains.

Newsflash. Overwhelmingly, in a free market (or one just close to it like ours), people are paid exactly the wages that their labor is worth. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

Edited, Dec 11th 2015 5:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Dec 11 2015 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Hey, gbaji, you ******** there's a little excluded middle going on in that vacuum chamber you call your skull.

Newsflash. Overwhelmingly, in a free market (or one just close to it like ours), people are paid exactly the wages that their labor is worth. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
Overwhelmingly, in a free market (or one just close to it like ours), people are paid exactly the least amount the employer can get away with and enrich themselves, workers be damned. If you think otherwise, well, again, no brains and no morals
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#84 Dec 11 2015 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
It's pretty monumentally unlikely that a set of 100 unskilled workers could generate a yearly output valuable enough to pay their minimum wage salaries, plus the equipment lease costs, plus building costs, plus utility costs, and materials cost and have a million dollars left over.


It's not that unlikely if you have a base of IP.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#85 Dec 11 2015 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Overwhelmingly, in a free market (or one just close to it like ours), people are paid exactly the least amount the employer can get away with and enrich themselves, workers be damned. If you think otherwise, well, again, no brains and no morals


I don't think otherwise. I just understand that what the employer can "get away with" is counter balanced by the workers in the labor market attempting to earn as much as they can "get away with". Which drives them to do things like leave a low paying employer to work for one that pays higher wages. Which drives them to do things like obtain training so as to increase the wage they can command. Which drives them to go to universities so as to command higher wages s well. Why do you think people do those things if they didn't expect to earn more money as a result? I assume you believe that a college degree is important and valuable. Why do you suppose that is? If the workers really had no power in the market as you seem to assume, then a piece of paper wouldn't magically change things. The employer would just pay the guy with the degree minimum wage as well.

Clearly there is more to the wage calculation than just "employer pays the worker whatever he feels like paying him". But your entire argument assumes otherwise. Which is why it doesn't work.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Dec 11 2015 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
It's pretty monumentally unlikely that a set of 100 unskilled workers could generate a yearly output valuable enough to pay their minimum wage salaries, plus the equipment lease costs, plus building costs, plus utility costs, and materials cost and have a million dollars left over.


It's not that unlikely if you have a base of IP.


What are the 100 unskilled workers doing? Negotiating international contracts? Lobbying governments? Yeah. Probably not the business model to use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Dec 11 2015 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Maybe go talk to them about it for a while first, then come back a bit more educated on the subject.
It just so happens that I was talking to someone who does just ever so coincidentally run a very successful generic business about this very topic and he or she said you're wrong. What are the odds, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#88 Dec 11 2015 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
All of my cousins own successful generic businesses and we were talking over Thanksgiving and they all agreed with me and said I was right. They also all said they never saw it phrased as well as I did and I made them think about it in new ways they'd never considered before.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Dec 11 2015 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
In short, the whole system is broken because the work those 100 employees do apparently isn't worth doing.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#90 Dec 12 2015 at 1:54 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Most things aren't worth doing, that's just a fact.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#91 Dec 12 2015 at 3:57 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Unless its arguing on the internet. Worth every second!
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#92 Dec 12 2015 at 6:40 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
No it isn't.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#93 Dec 12 2015 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yes, it is.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#94 Dec 12 2015 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Is it?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#95 Dec 12 2015 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
It's pretty monumentally unlikely that a set of 100 unskilled workers could generate a yearly output valuable enough to pay their minimum wage salaries, plus the equipment lease costs, plus building costs, plus utility costs, and materials cost and have a million dollars left over.


It's not that unlikely if you have a base of IP.


What are the 100 unskilled workers doing? Negotiating international contracts? Lobbying governments? Yeah. Probably not the business model to use.


Working on an stablished production line producing med products. Its hilariously lucrative.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#96 Dec 12 2015 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Is it?


God, get a load of this fence sitter, Samira.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#97 Dec 15 2015 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
In short, the whole system is broken because the work those 100 employees do apparently isn't worth doing.

I always find it amazing that those worthless jobs that people don't deserve to get paid for help keep the country functioning on a daily basis. Just picture what society would be like with no fast food, no retail stores, no anything that requires a cashier or shelves to be stocked.
#98 Dec 15 2015 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
In short, the whole system is broken because the work those 100 employees do apparently isn't worth doing.


No. My argument is that the system is *not* broken, because if the work those 100 employees do actually does generate a large amount of revenue, then they will be paid more than minimum wage (probably a lot more). The absurd argument I'm trying to counter is that we must raise minimum wage because of <insert social outrage here>, without any consideration for the fact that those who do earn just minimum wage do so because the value of what they do isn't great enough to command a higher wage.

That valuation isn't set by the employer, it's set by the consumer of the goods the labor of the workers produces. The guy working the fry station at McDonalds isn't paid much because people don't place a huge value on french fries. What kills me is when this is pointed out, invariably those arguing for raising the minimum ignore the real cases and start spouting off about imaginary situations involving highly skilled people generating massive profit per worker for their employers, but are still stuck earning minimum wage. Apparently because of <evil> or something.

The market does a remarkably good job at setting prices. Including labor prices. It typically only breaks for one of two reasons: A monopoly forms allowing one player to take advantage of said monopoly, resulting in harm for others. Or, government steps in takes advantage of its power over the market, resulting in harm for others. Obamacare is the latter problem. It's not solving anything. It's making things worse. And some of us saw this and warned about it years ago.

Thinking you can improve people's economic condition by raising minimum wage is like thinking you can help people finish a 5k race faster by moving the starting line (but it's still 5k). Its' nonsense. Distance traveled (or relative income) is always measured from the starting point, no matter where that starting point is. Changing it doesn't actually accomplish anything. Not in terms of relative time/effort to run 5k, and not in terms of relative time/effort to gain a "living wage". It's just not something you can cheat. And it's bizarre to me how many people can't see this.

Edited, Dec 15th 2015 5:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Dec 15 2015 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
It's pretty monumentally unlikely that a set of 100 unskilled workers could generate a yearly output valuable enough to pay their minimum wage salaries, plus the equipment lease costs, plus building costs, plus utility costs, and materials cost and have a million dollars left over.


It's not that unlikely if you have a base of IP.


What are the 100 unskilled workers doing? Negotiating international contracts? Lobbying governments? Yeah. Probably not the business model to use.


Working on an stablished production line producing med products. Its hilariously lucrative.


Those 100 minimum wage workers are the only employees the company has? Where does this mythical case exist? Nowhere, right?

The example I was responding to was one in which those were the entire workforce generating a million dollars of profit for the owner. If your response assumes that these 100 are just part of the workforce that generates that profit, then your response isn't valid. And I'm sure even you aren't going to insist that an IP based business consists solely of some low paid people putting stuff into packaging on a floor somewhere. That's a tiny portion of an IP based business.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't even that. In the real world, the more value workers generate per worker for the employer, the more they tend to get paid. I know it's a great narrative for some to try to pretend that somewhere there's some evil owners making millions off the backs of employees paid pennies, but it just doesn't exist. Either the profit per employee is so low that even spreading all of it out among all the workers would be insignificant to them, and probably a disaster to the business, or the smaller number of employees relative to profit already results in higher wages for the workers.

In the real world there are no businesses generating $1m/year profits while employing just 100 identically skilled and paid minimum wage workers, thus providing that seemingly easy math for higher pay as presented in the original case. In the real world businesses are made up of employees doing different tasks that have different value to the business, and thus get paid different amounts of money. And in all cases, the amount you get paid is some function of the relative value of what you do. While I'm sure there may exist some employers who actively engage in ******** over their workers, that's the exception, not the rule. Businesses don't tend to stay in business for very long doing that. And no, there's no need for government to step in to "fix" something that isn't broken.

Edited, Dec 15th 2015 5:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Dec 15 2015 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
In short, the whole system is broken because the work those 100 employees do apparently isn't worth doing.


No. My argument is that the system is *not* broken, because


Woah. Who said anything about it being your argument? That's me. I'm saying the system is pretty ******* broken.

Quote:
The absurd argument I'm trying to counter is that we must raise minimum wage because of <insert social outrage here>, without any consideration for the fact that those who do earn just minimum wage do so because the value of what they do isn't great enough to command a higher wage.


--and that is what I mean. If the value of what they're doing isn't great enough to command a wage that is worth doing the work for, then why do it at all?

Honestly, raising the minimum wage doesn't do a whole lot to help people. It is really just a bandaid adhesive medical strips or a quick fix to a much larger problem:

xantav wrote:

I always find it amazing that those worthless jobs that people don't deserve to get paid for help keep the country functioning on a daily basis. Just picture what society would be like with no fast food, no retail stores, no anything that requires a cashier or shelves to be stocked.


This. This is the problem right here. We need to be able to imagine society without these things. Republicans decry poor people's dependency of the government, yet, look at what we are all really dependent on. We need to completely rethink the way we live as a whole, because the way we're doing things now-- finding a job, buying/renting a home, paying the same bills every month-- isn't working so good anymore. Companies are already threatening to replace their cashiers with iPads if the minimum wage goes up-- it's only a matter of time before they ******* do it anyway. I can hardly think of a single task carried out in a low wage job that couldn't be done by a machine, if not today, then in the near future.

So what then? We hear so much about how evil Socialism is, but no one is advocating total Socialism-- cold turkey in place of what we have today. We need to stop pumping money into this machine that is killing us and invest in ways people and families can become self-sustaining without total dependency on the aforementioned "conveniences" of modern life. Tax the hell out of it instead. Shrink it. Instead of "small government," we need "small business." We can trim the morbidly obese excess of wealth off the top and make so much better use of it. I imagine the methods we could use would be a lot like that we might see when we inevitably start colonizing space, only here at home. We do not need fast food, or Nikes, or all this cheap plastic ******** shoved down our necks and screaming in our faces everywhere we look.



Edited, Dec 16th 2015 6:04am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#101 Dec 15 2015 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
We need to stop pumping money into this machine that is killing us
And deprive stockholders of yet another solid gold Gulfstream? Can't have that, eh gbaji?


Edited, Dec 15th 2015 9:24pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)