Comment Re:Tornados? (Score 1) 256
So what happens when a tornado hits, rips off the 60 metre blades and throws them around?
You're right. This is why they don't allow cellular towers or satellite dishes in populated areas.
So what happens when a tornado hits, rips off the 60 metre blades and throws them around?
You're right. This is why they don't allow cellular towers or satellite dishes in populated areas.
all the bird carcasses
It's really touching how concerned people proponents of fossil fuels suddenly become about wildlife when the discussion turns to wind energy..
You don't think artificially jacking wages up will have any impact on inflation?
That's correct. History has shown that increased wages have had a negligible impact on inflation.
Too bad your post and your sig contradict.
You are really going to have to explain that one.
their customers will have more money so they will be able to afford the price increases.
I disagree. Say someone earns someone earns $60 per day before the wage increase and $120 per day afterward. A product costs $60 before the price increase and $120 afterward. What can the customer afford in each case?
Are you willing to prove your point by taking a pay cut to 3 dollars per hour?
Probably not. The minimum wage will kill us is just as valid as trickle down economics, and job creator theory. As in not at all.
Very seldom is prosperity achieved through poverty. Do you have any examples?
under the present minimum wage, one qualifies for government assistance, which means the money is coming out of the taxpayers wallet.
As wages rise, businesses' labor costs will rise, which tends to increase the prices they have to charge to recover the cost of providing goods or services. Some of these goods and services are necessities, and the threshold for government assistance is indexed to costs of necessities. So increasing wage level increases costs, which increases the general price level, which increases the CPI, which increases how much one can make while remaining eligible for entitlements, which puts the taxpayers' situation right back where it was.
But they do not have to do that now, because somehow or another Conservative politics rails against the minimum wage, while at the same time using tax dollars to subsidize the wages it pays it's employees.
You can spout the screed all day, give all of your reasons that we can't do this - but you cannot deny that government subsidies are exactly what this is.
Can you tell me - why can Walmart and McDonalds get these subsidies?I though that government is always less efficient than the private sector? Which means that Walmart and Mickey D's will be much more efficient paying their employees directly. And let me get this straight - if higher wages cause these problems, why isn't everyone paid 2.50 an hour? That wage paid dpoesn't know who is getting it, Could be that lowlife worker, or the esteemed head of the corporation. Then your CPI would lower, and all will be well in the world. Right?
RIght wing politics has turned it's sychophants into communists when it suits them sucking up my tax dollars.
If someone's labor is not worth the minimum wage they will just remain unemployed.
Don't think individually, think about the company's labor force as a whole.
If the company is profitable, isn't that proof that they're earning their wages?
Why is profitability always a factor in the salary increases of upper management but never a factor in the salaries of workers?
No, the amount that should be paid is the amount that an employer and an employee agree upon. Which is better, that an employer willing to pay $6 an hour not hire anybody while jobless people willing to work for $6 an hour continue to not find jobs, or that the employer actually hire those people for $6 an hour even though it is less than minimum wage?
So you are in favor of The government and industry conspiring to take your tax money.
The world doesn't work that way any more Tovaritsch. It's not going to happen at all when the largest employer in the country is sucking up my tax dollars so it can pay its employees less.
That's not true. In order to pay the McDonald's worker $15.00 an hour, they will have to basically double all of their prices
That canard has been debunked long ago.
We have seen big jumps in the minimum wage many times (many of them in my lifetime) and they have never resulted in equal jumps in prices. Because if those companies could increase those prices, they would have already, minimum wage increase or no.
so you are telling me businesses in seatle are opening in record numbers now right?? no one is leaving right???
Seattle is not only the fastest-growing city in the United States, but employment is growing there faster than the national average. Anywhere you go in Seattle, you see new commercial buildings going up. You think that's because businesses are leaving?
Where I live one can survive on twelve dollars an hour.
Yeah, but some people want indoor plumbing. Go figure.
I think it will largely end up being a feel-good measure that well-off, well-meaning people can use to congratulate themselves about
And the LAST thing we want is for anyone to feel good about a few extra dollars in a worker's paycheck. Why, that's un-American!
I mean, if managements starts to see something good start to come from paying workers more, what's next? That's meddling with the primal forces of nature, is what.
This is also detrimental to businesses in the long term, since it means that increases to the minimum wage tend to be large and create a correspondingly large jumps in expenses.
It's interesting that you never hear this argument used in reference to extreme jumps in executive-class incomes.
Somehow, if a CEO's income goes from $40million to $60million, it's all, "Well, look how profitable the company has been." But for some reason, "Look how profitable the company has been." is never an acceptable argument for higher worker wages.
Have God let me fork several versions of current Earth and I'll find the optimum min wage.
ALL of the cost of goods falls into only two categories: labor, and profit.
And one of those is nothing but a tax on productivity (profits).
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th century philosopher who had a great debate with Karl Marx (Proudhon was opposed to centralized state ownership of anything), had some very interesting things to say on the subject of profits and their relation to labor. Even though some of his thought veered into anarchism territory, and later he went off the rails with some anti-semitic comments, his logical arguments about profits and capital are well worth considering.
A lot of what we take for granted about the relationship between capital, profits and labor are really just a construct of an economic philosophy embraced by the oligarchy benefited by it, and which is starting to show its limits in a global market in late-stage capitalism.
BLISS is ignorance.
