Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- From: James Arthur <dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 30, 6:27 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 6:45 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:28 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Except they don't, and can't.
They can't drive them down and don't drive them down in the current
situation. But in that experiment we have a minimum wage. So when we
have a minimum wage, companies can't do the thing that we both, I
assume, would agree are bad.
Why can't they? They could, at least, force everyone to accept
minimum & no more
No they can't do that because the workers currently have enough income
that doing things like moving to get a new job or even taking a day of
work to go for an interview are practical.
(i.e., if indeed before they could force acceptance
of less than minimum wage).
What you need to now understand is that
that experiment does not apply to the case without minimum wages.
Companies have no such pricing power
with a minimum wage in existance
>nor intention,
You are imputing intentions other than the intention to optimize
profit. The one and only intention of a corporation is and should be
to optimize their return on investment. Anything other than that is
not their proper function.
Following your premises, if companies have ultimate power to set pay,
are hell-bent on increasing profits, and lowering wages increases
profits, it follows that companies should actively lower wages to the
legal limit: minimum wage.
No, they can't do that because the employees have the where-with-all
to leave. You seem to have missed the part of the discussion where I
made the analog with making a boat seaworthy so that the rising tide
can lift it.
Why don't we all get minimum wage then?
If the logic is sound but the conclusion false, the premises must be
flawed.
You are suggesting a conclusion based on a mistaken view of my logic
and premises and then suggesting that it indicates that the premises
is flawed. There is a flaw but it is in the addition premises you
inserted.
I was summarizing in presenting your premises, but trying to be fair.
The logic was neither mine nor yours, but simply what follows from the
premises.
ISTM that workers have ways of demanding their pay, and employers--who
need workers--are forced to comply
a) in accordance with the supply of such workers, the demand for
them, and the value their work creates for their employers and
b) by pure economics.
Namely, while you propose companies lower wages to increase profits, I
propose paying sustenance wages decreases profits. Unhappy,
unskilled, hungry, disgruntled employees aren't as productive. It
behooves companies to pay more. So, mostly, they do.
You've shown above that workers *do* have the ability to demand pay,
and have illustrated one way to do it--saving, giving you freedom,
mobility, confidence, and choices. Another way is to simply work
more. No one says you have to work 40 hours, or have only one job.
There are many good ways.
Subsidies and social programs drive down wages, this I concede.
I have not understood how you feel the existence of a (low) minimum
wage and a few workers receiving it in any way forces employers to pay
almost everyone else considerably more. ISTM that, all by themselves,
workers and employers do a pretty good job of sizing up jobs, and
negotiating what they're worth.
(sorry for any typos--I've got a cat bashing my hands, swatting the
mouse, and walking on the keyboard, demanding affection)
Cheers,
James Arthur
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- From: MooseFET
- Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- References:
- Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- From: James Arthur
- Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- From: MooseFET
- Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- Prev by Date: Re: Transistor matching--- Vbe or Hfe
- Next by Date: Re: Ping John Larkin: Tek 11801 setup
- Previous by thread: Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- Next by thread: Re: Oh my Gawd! Carly!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
