billvon 3,119 #51 July 22, 2011 >you're still importing labour from mexico. No, we're not, because people like you just raised the minimum wage, and so companies can't afford to have things built here any more. It's now much cheaper to send the WORK to Mexico, have it performed there, then have the products sent back. So now we have more US people out of work and fewer people making even more money. Congratulations; you've just made the rich richer, the poor poorer - and helped out Mexico in the process. >you see more money going to the chinese working class Yep, it's a good way to help China (or Mexico) while hurting the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #52 July 22, 2011 Quote>you're still importing labour from mexico. No, we're not, because people like you just raised the minimum wage, and so companies can't afford to have things built here any more. It's now much cheaper to send the WORK to Mexico, have it performed there, then have the products sent back. So now we have more US people out of work and fewer people making even more money. Congratulations; you've just made the rich richer, the poor poorer - and helped out Mexico in the process. >you see more money going to the chinese working class Yep, it's a good way to help China (or Mexico) while hurting the US. but you're importing mexican (and other south american) labour at the moment? meanwhile oil gets more expensive so goods from china get more expensive. meanwhile wages in china are going up so the wage difference is getting smaller. in a globalised system helping china (or mexico) is also helping oneself...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #53 July 22, 2011 >but you're importing mexican (and other south american) labour at the moment? No, right now we're hiring US people for US jobs, which we'll be able to do as long as someone doesn't do something foolish like raise the minimum wage. >in a globalised system helping china (or mexico) is also helping oneself... Well, I'll let you help China, then. Many people here want to help the people of the US first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #54 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteWith US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how) That means three other cashiers aren't being employed. Same reason why companies try to automate when labor expense get too high. You don't have a firm grasp on the economic concepts or the basic math."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 July 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWith US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how) That means three other cashiers aren't being employed. Same reason why companies try to automate when labor expense get too high. You don't have a firm grasp on the economic concepts or the basic math. This was truly a facepalm moment. He hasn't figured out, or addressed the fact that higher productivity means fewer workers. And it's not just 3 fewer cashiers, it's also 2-4 baggers no longer needed because in self service you do it yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #56 July 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWith US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how) That means three other cashiers aren't being employed. Same reason why companies try to automate when labor expense get too high. You don't have a firm grasp on the economic concepts or the basic math. so workers should be kept in dead end jobs that could be automated? i've pointed out that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity (which is how an economy grows). you deal with that fact...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #57 July 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWith US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time. so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how) That means three other cashiers aren't being employed. Same reason why companies try to automate when labor expense get too high. You don't have a firm grasp on the economic concepts or the basic math. This was truly a facepalm moment. that i understand how capitalism works?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #58 July 23, 2011 Quote so workers should be kept in dead end jobs that could be automated? i've pointed out that raising the minimum wage will increase productivity (which is how an economy grows). you deal with that fact... So a job that was great for young kids, seniors, and those without a higher level of education is bad. Maybe you are right, we should have the people who filled those positions unemployed. Or we could force employers to pay them 50k a year even though their skills a minimal. That grows the economy for sure, and will make employers hire like crazy. Win win, we can have 25 dollar big macs at McDonalds. You do realize that what you are claiming about automation is now completely contrary about your statement earlier about needing to reduce the value of capital. Youy have not pointed out a single thing. You have made some claims that you haven't supported, that any one with a basic grasp on economics would dispute. This conversation is fruitless. You talk a big game but you have no idea what you are talking about."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #59 July 23, 2011 Why not just pass a law that sets the minimum wage at $100,000 per year? In your world, that would solve our problems with poverty, wouldn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #60 July 23, 2011 Quote You do realize that what you are claiming about automation is now completely contrary about your statement earlier about needing to reduce the value of capital. no, it's not stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #61 July 23, 2011 Quote Quote You do realize that what you are claiming about automation is now completely contrary about your statement earlier about needing to reduce the value of capital. no, it's not Glad you cleared that up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #62 July 23, 2011 QuoteWhy not just pass a law that sets the minimum wage at $100,000 per year? In your world, that would solve our problems with poverty, wouldn't it? why not just pass a law that sets interest rates at 1000% - in your world that would help the rich wouldn't it?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #63 July 23, 2011 >so workers should be kept in dead end jobs that could be automated? Apparently you don't think so. So your solution to reducing poverty is: -lay people off -increase pay to the privileged How long do you think _that_ can go on before the poor rise up against you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #64 July 23, 2011 no, my solution to poverty is increasing basic pay to the poorest workers (and i don't think workers on minimum pay are 'privileged' as you seem to) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #65 July 23, 2011 Quote Quote no, my solution to poverty is increasing basic pay to the poorest workers (and i don't think workers on minimum pay are 'privileged' as you seem to) Minimum wage needs to obviously be decreased and the huge pool of untapped child labor needs to be utilized if we are ever going to make this country great again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #66 July 23, 2011 >no, my solution to poverty is increasing basic pay to the poorest workers You just advocated laying off three workers so the fourth could run an automated checkout system. Why do you want to lay off workers? Just to give more money to the remaining privileged worker? If so, great; but your two-class system isn't likely to be very popular here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #67 July 23, 2011 Quote>no, my solution to poverty is increasing basic pay to the poorest workers You just advocated laying off three workers so the fourth could run an automated checkout system. Why do you want to lay off workers? Just to give more money to the remaining privileged worker? If so, great; but your two-class system isn't likely to be very popular here. no, i advocated economic efficiency. you seem to want a load of workers doing pointless jobs for you (which is one reason why the rich are trying to dumb down the education system). once again you have called a worker on minimum wage 'privileged' - odd...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #68 July 23, 2011 >no, i advocated economic efficiency. By laying off workers. To refresh your memory, from a recent post of yours: Drew: "With US grocery worker labor costs increasing stores moved to self-service checkout lines where a single clerk can run four at a time." Dreamdancer: "so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages..." So your solution is fewer people employed, but those privileged few making more than they did before. >once again you have called a worker on minimum wage 'privileged' He certainly is, compared to the three workers laid off in the Dreamdancer model. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #69 July 23, 2011 Quote>no, i advocated economic efficiency. By laying off workers. are you argueing that the self service checkouts etc... shouldn't be installed? are you a secret luddite? in this (extreme example given to me) what happens to the 3 workers now available to boost the economy?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #70 July 23, 2011 >in this (extreme example given to me) what happens to the 3 workers now available >to boost the economy? You tell me; I was replying to your suggestion that laying off workers will grow the economy. I am eager to hear how increasing unemployment (and paying the remaining workers more) will boost the economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #71 July 23, 2011 Quote>in this (extreme example given to me) what happens to the 3 workers now available >to boost the economy? You tell me; I was replying to your suggestion that laying off workers will grow the economy. I am eager to hear how increasing unemployment (and paying the remaining workers more) will boost the economy. increased productivity is usually a good thing for the economy (or we'd all still be throwing spears). you're not a believer in capitalism then? the remaining checkout clerk now has increased disposable income. 3 workers a few months later are employed elsewhere in a growing, more productive economy. billvon continues to fret about chinese and mexican (other) workers...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #72 July 23, 2011 >the remaining checkout clerk now has increased disposable income. 3 workers a few >months later are employed elsewhere in a growing, more productive economy. ?? Aren't those 3 workers now competing for all the other people laid off by the checkout machines? Why would employers now pay more for people they don't need? But it does go a long way towards creating a true two-caste system - the privileged employed and the poor unemployed, jobs outsourced to machines and unemployable under the the now-higher minimum wage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #73 July 23, 2011 Quote>the remaining checkout clerk now has increased disposable income. 3 workers a few >months later are employed elsewhere in a growing, more productive economy. ?? Aren't those 3 workers now competing for all the other people laid off by the checkout machines? Why would employers now pay more for people they don't need? you haven't acknowledged a productivity increase. is there a productivity increase or not? using your arguement miners would still be using picks and shovels. remember that extra disposable income which is now circulating, boosting the economy - that's what is going to employ the unemployed...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #74 July 23, 2011 QuoteQuote>the remaining checkout clerk now has increased disposable income. 3 workers a few >months later are employed elsewhere in a growing, more productive economy. ?? Aren't those 3 workers now competing for all the other people laid off by the checkout machines? Why would employers now pay more for people they don't need? you haven't acknowledged a productivity increase. is there a productivity increase or not? using your arguement miners would still be using picks and shovels. remember that extra disposable income which is now circulating, boosting the economy - that's what is going to employ the unemployed... The UAW is a perfect example of how higher wages do not result in greater productivity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 July 24, 2011 you're a very patient man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
