dreamdancer 0 #1 October 5, 2011 to each his due... Quote We know following a recent study that those firms and sectors most affected by the minimum wage have experienced significant increases in productivity as a result. Businesses don't just meekly absorb higher wages: they seek to change working patterns and investment decisions to enable them to succeed given higher costs (though admittedly larger firms find this easier than smaller ones). The Low Pay Commission was pipped to the post in arriving at this finding by a certain Sidney Webb who had precisely this insight a century ago -- armed with little more than economic intuition and precise prose, rather than today's econometric models. In a world where few policies have a straightforwardly positive impact -- where even apparently benign measures often have malign side effects -- the minimum wage stands out as something of an exception. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/gavin-kelly/2011/09/minimum-wage-pay-bottom-paidstay 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 #2 October 5, 2011 Bored from all the sitting around down there on Wall Street? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #3 October 5, 2011 To a degree, yes. Problem with imposing costs on business is that although they will innovate, retool, invent, etc to a degree; there is a tipping point where more drastic measures - such as taking processes overseas - becomes the "best" choice. The Revenge Of Unintended Consequences is not limited to Technology. Everyone acting in what they percieve to be their own best interest would seem a good model for progress - and it is - but only for the short term. What we seem to lack these days are leaders motivated to improve the good of the whole over the long term. Our economic and political systems simply do not incent that behavior." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 October 5, 2011 Have you the ability to examine all sides of an issue? I think you do but you choose not to. I'll also reiterate the persistent complaint about you - that you do not think for yourself but copy and paste th eideas of others. What are YOUR thoughts regarding paying more for something? I could pay $200k per year to my secretary and get improved performance from him right up to the day I go bankrupt. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #5 October 5, 2011 Quote We know following a recent study that those firms and sectors most affected by the minimum wage have experienced significant increases in productivity as a result. Businesses don't just meekly absorb higher wages: they seek to change working patterns and investment decisions to enable them to succeed given higher costs...Productivity is measured as economic output per worker. How do you know the "increases in productivity" through "changed working conditions" doesn't just mean they expect two workers to cover the workload previously shared by three? Is there a net improvement to the economy, or to society, if fewer people are employed but those that are, are expected to work even harder? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 October 5, 2011 We covered this one before - it wasn't a good show for DD. He was thrilled at how self scanners at the grocery store lets one clerk be 300% more productive - because 1 person now does the work of 4. Seems to miss the point that 3 people now have no income. And this is a problem - the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. And 20 yo's who drop out of community college because "it's too expensive" despite living at home will not fare well in this environment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #7 October 5, 2011 Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite)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
mnealtx 0 #8 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Maybe you better find jobs for those 3 laid off cashiers, first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #9 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Maybe you better find jobs for those 3 laid off cashiers, first. another luddite... (who'd have thought there'd be so many this day and age) Quote The principal objection of the Luddites was to the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludditestay 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
mnealtx 0 #10 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Maybe you better find jobs for those 3 laid off cashiers, first. another luddite... (who'd have thought there'd be so many this day and age) Still can't find jobs for those three, eh?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #11 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Maybe you better find jobs for those 3 laid off cashiers, first. another luddite... (who'd have thought there'd be so many this day and age) Still can't find jobs for those three, eh? you accept that you're a luddite then...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
mnealtx 0 #12 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Maybe you better find jobs for those 3 laid off cashiers, first. another luddite... (who'd have thought there'd be so many this day and age) Still can't find jobs for those three, eh? you accept that you're a luddite then... You accept that you have no clue what you're talking about, then...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #13 October 5, 2011 Quote The Luddite fallacy is an opinion in development economics related to the belief that labour-saving technologies (i.e., technologies that increase output-per-worker) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour. The concept is named after the Luddites of early nineteenth century England. The original Luddites were hosiery and lace workers in Nottingham, England in 1811. They smashed knitting machines that embodied new labor-saving technology as a protest against unemployment, publicizing their actions in circulars mysteriously signed, "King Ludd." This is considered fallacious because, according to neoclassical economists, labour-saving technologies will increase output per worker and thus the production of goods, causing the costs of goods to decline and demand for goods to increase. As a result, the demand for workers to produce those goods will not decrease. Thus, the "fallacy" of the Luddites lay in their assumption that employers would keep production constant by employing a smaller albeit more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant. Economist Alex Tabarrok summarises the neoclassical presentation of the fallacy as such: If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacystay 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
mnealtx 0 #14 October 5, 2011 Maybe you can hire those 3 laid off cashiers to help you with your cut/paste business.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #15 October 5, 2011 so long as you agree you are a luddite carry on 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 3,090 #16 October 5, 2011 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #17 October 5, 2011 Quote A century has passed since the first call for a British national minimum wage (NMW). That remarkable Fabian tract discussed wage setting, coverage, monopsony, international labour standards, inspection and compliance and the interaction between the NMW and the social security system. The NMW was finally introduced in 1999. It has raised the real and relative pay of low wage workers, narrowed the gender pay gap and now covers around 1-worker-in-10. The consequences for employment have been extensively analysed using information on individuals, areas and firms. There is little or no evidence of any employment effects. The reasons for this include: an impact on hours rather than workers; employer wage setting and labour market frictions; offsets via the tax credit system; incomplete compliance; improvements in productivity; an increase in the relative price of minimum wage-produced consumer services; and a reduction in the relative profits of firms employing low paid workers. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19742/1/Why_Has_the_British_National_Minimum_Wage_Had_Little_or_No_Impact_on_Employment.pdfstay 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
lawrocket 3 #18 October 5, 2011 Quote so long as you agree you are a luddite carry on Seems like you are more of the Luddite mold. The Luddites were, after all, artisans. The Luddites were primarily members of the textile guilds, or what would now be known as "union." Recall that guilds were formed by members of a particular trade, they had long apprenticeship programs, and thrived on inefficiency that drove money to them. When their jobs could be done by unskilled labor and machines which could produce inexpensive textiles at consistent quality, the union went berserk, destroying mills and other capital and doing their best to ensure that the lowly scabs doing their jobs would starve if they had to. Of course, guildsmen took their racket to other fields... Now we see modern day Luddites camping out on Wall Street... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #19 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote so long as you agree you are a luddite carry on Seems like you are more of the Luddite mold. nope. try again... Quote In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludditestay 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
lawrocket 3 #20 October 5, 2011 In other words, opposed to forms of efficiency... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 October 5, 2011 Quote Quote the more productive we get, the fewer workers we need. and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... (the industrial revolution was very productive - yet we still need workers. i think kelpdiver would have been a luddite) Actually, I'm in the side that didn't drop of college, learned useful skills and have for the most part have been living well on the technology booms in the Bay Area. Cheaper prices don't help those who have no job at all. Only by dropping wages in the first world nations towards that of developing nations will you get past the growing problem. Speaking to the industrial revolution back when shipping product was slow and expensive and the populations were smaller and frequently killed off in wars misses the current reality. DD - you're going to have to figure out how to get past your incredibly inconsistencies. You speak for the common man, yet are fine with developments that put them out of work. You speak about the badness or inequal wealth distribution, but the industrial revolution you imply was a positive for all caused a rather nasty transfer of wealth. It's entertaining stuff, but intellectually very unreliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #22 October 6, 2011 Quote and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... Properly stated, China does not take jobs. Positions in the US are moved there by the leadership of companies looking to maintain/increase profits. In their short-term glee over low prices for cheap crappy goods; consumers then fuel the death spiral of US manufacturing. Welcome to the dark side of globalization of labor." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #23 October 7, 2011 Quote Quote and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... Properly stated, China does not take jobs. Positions in the US are moved there by the leadership of companies looking to maintain/increase profits. In their short-term glee over low prices for cheap crappy goods; consumers then fuel the death spiral of US manufacturing. Welcome to the dark side of globalization of labor. US workers are still the most productive workers in the world What screws them here is the cost of gov regulation and oversite. We could complete if the gov would get off the backs of business"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #24 October 7, 2011 Quote Both of you cut it out. Thank you, Billvon...!! Alla that high fallutin', Ivy league, big word slingin', wuz startin' to chap my ass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 589 #25 October 7, 2011 Quote Quote Quote and if you don't get productive the more jobs china will take... Properly stated, China does not take jobs. Positions in the US are moved there by the leadership of companies looking to maintain/increase profits. In their short-term glee over low prices for cheap crappy goods; consumers then fuel the death spiral of US manufacturing. Welcome to the dark side of globalization of labor. US workers are still the most productive workers in the world What screws them here is the cost of gov regulation and oversite. We could complete if the gov would get off the backs of business http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/obama-on-60-minutes/ I never thought I would see you quoting Obama.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
