• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

Anthony60 said:
So, you feel that minimum wage can just be raised artificially by about 20%, and everyone is better off? Just to point out one basic effect, you raise the price of something, and the demand will go down. But, if I am reading this correctly, you feel increasing the cost will also increase the demand. Obviously, that is not true.
Click to expand...

The minimum wage is an artificial (not organic) means of setting pay level minimums. And no; I do not advocate a 20% increase, since from $7.25 to $12.00 is a 65.5% increase. And yes; everyone benefits when we expand our middle class, economically. And since minimum wage workers' pay is not likely to be socked away in Cayman Trusts, it indeed would explode demand, since it would affect nearly 50% of our workforce. (The epitome of high monetary-velocity-point)

And cost is a calculation (%) based on demand side, too. So while increased labor cost would rise, for it to remain at or near the same percentage, sales need not increase at the same rate that wage minimums are raised. Plus other fixed monthly costs remain the same, and are thus now a lower percentage, which can actually result in higher gross profits for smaller retailers (McDonalds, which are franchises) and in fact be a windfall for larger retailers (Walmart which serves the lower-income market) since nearly half of their customers now have substantially more to spend on food, clothing and durable items.

Consider the Big Mac Index, which has been the bailiwick of Economist (mag), which enables us to consider what FMW increases have done to a bellwether item, sold by franchise operations which are the epitome of FMW-affected labor cost ...

http://koios.us/ph/bm-fmw.png
 
Sisyphus said:
The minimum wage is an artificial (not organic) means of setting pay level minimums. And no; I do not advocate a 20% increase, since from $7.25 to $12.00 is a 65.5% increase. And yes; everyone benefits when we expand our middle class, economically. And since minimum wage workers' pay is not likely to be socked away in Cayman Trusts, it indeed would explode demand, since it would affect nearly 50% of our workforce. (The epitome of high monetary-velocity-point)

And cost is a calculation (%) based on demand side, too. So while increased labor cost would rise, for it to remain at or near the same percentage, sales need not increase at the same rate that wage minimums are raised. Plus other fixed monthly costs remain the same, and are thus now a lower percentage, which can actually result in higher gross profits for smaller retailers (McDonalds, which are franchises) and in fact be a windfall for larger retailers (Walmart which serves the lower-income market) since nearly half of their customers now have substantially more to spend on food, clothing and durable items.

Consider the Big Mac Index, which has been the bailiwick of Economist (mag), which enables us to consider what FMW increases have done to a bellwether item, sold by franchise operations which are the epitome of FMW-affected labor cost ...

http://koios.us/ph/bm-fmw.png
Click to expand...
But you do realize that what you posted goes completely against the laws of supply and demand? And there is really no reason to believe that those laws will be suspended in this case.
 
Anthony60 said:
But you do realize that what you posted goes completely against the laws of supply and demand? And there is really no reason to believe that those laws will be suspended in this case.
Click to expand...

No. Do you know you're wrong?
 
Anthony60 said:
Go ahead and explain, I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, because I don't see anyway that it would work that way.
Click to expand...

Whew. Fairly complex, but here's a primmer:

The laws of supply and demand work nicely in computer models, and are covered early on in business schools at universities across America, to give students a cursory sense of how markets can function, at times, but most businesses and the products we buy are based purely on point-of-diminishing-return. Plus branding (artificially raising demand for product X) and channel strategies (managing supply of product X) make the concept of supply and demand nearly laughable. But Rush Limbaugh, who knows nothing of markets or economics, talks about it like it's some kind of holy grail, and the Rightie Retards who listen to him talk about it like they know something, which they do not.

Like I said, it's cursory. But that's my take on supply and demand.

Next, and if you wish, I could explain actual market dynamics. You merely need to ask.
 
Sisyphus said:
The minimum wage is an artificial (not organic) means of setting pay level minimums. And no; I do not advocate a 20% increase, since from $7.25 to $12.00 is a 65.5% increase. And yes; everyone benefits when we expand our middle class, economically. And since minimum wage workers' pay is not likely to be socked away in Cayman Trusts, it indeed would explode demand, since it would affect nearly 50% of our workforce. (The epitome of high monetary-velocity-point)

And cost is a calculation (%) based on demand side, too. So while increased labor cost would rise, for it to remain at or near the same percentage, sales need not increase at the same rate that wage minimums are raised. Plus other fixed monthly costs remain the same, and are thus now a lower percentage, which can actually result in higher gross profits for smaller retailers (McDonalds, which are franchises) and in fact be a windfall for larger retailers (Walmart which serves the lower-income market) since nearly half of their customers now have substantially more to spend on food, clothing and durable items.

Consider the Big Mac Index, which has been the bailiwick of Economist (mag), which enables us to consider what FMW increases have done to a bellwether item, sold by franchise operations which are the epitome of FMW-affected labor cost ...

http://koios.us/ph/bm-fmw.png
Click to expand...
Why do you presume "other fixed monthly costs remain the same"? Wouldn't their labor costs increase as well?
 
radcen said:
Why do you presume "other fixed monthly costs remain the same"? Wouldn't their labor costs increase as well?
Click to expand...

Labor increases in size, but not percentage when the demand side is considered.

Static costs are myriad, i.e. equipment leases, occupancy cost quite often, etc, etc.

That help?
 
Sisyphus said:
Labor increases in size, but not percentage when the demand side is considered.

Static costs are myriad, i.e. equipment leases, occupancy cost quite often, etc, etc.

That help?
Click to expand...
Before we continue any further, can you participate in a discussion without being insultingly condescending?

I've noticed this seems to be pretty standard with you.
 
radcen said:
1. Before we continue any further, can you participate in a discussion without being insultingly condescending?

2. I've noticed this seems to be pretty standard with you.
Click to expand...

1. Nope
2. You're keenly perceptive
 
Sisyphus said:
Whew. Fairly complex, but here's a primmer:

The laws of supply and demand work nicely in computer models, and are covered early on in business schools at universities across America, to give students a cursory sense of how markets can function, at times, but most businesses and the products we buy are based purely on point-of-diminishing-return. Plus branding (artificially raising demand for product X) and channel strategies (managing supply of product X) make the concept of supply and demand nearly laughable. But Rush Limbaugh, who knows nothing of markets or economics, talks about it like it's some kind of holy grail, and the Rightie Retards who listen to him talk about it like they know something, which they do not.

Like I said, it's cursory. But that's my take on supply and demand.

Next, and if you wish, I could explain actual market dynamics. You merely need to ask.
Click to expand...

Funny, without even knowing it, you lay out the case for supply & demand and then call it laughable???
Oh, please, don't even try and explain market dynamics! Though, I am always interested in the dysfunctions of the liberal mind. It's not your fault.
 
Anthony60 said:
Funny, without even knowing it, you lay out the case for supply & demand and then call it laughable???
Oh, please, don't even try and explain market dynamics! Though, I am always interested in the dysfunctions of the liberal mind. It's not your fault.
Click to expand...

Then explain how I did, to help me stop laughing my ass off.

Thanks,

-S
 
Sisyphus said:
Then explain how I did, to help me stop laughing my ass off.

Thanks,

-S
Click to expand...

I didn't know I was dealing with a drone, sorry to have tried to engage in a discussion. But you keep laughing, it's probably your best option.
 
Anthony60 said:
I didn't know I was dealing with a drone, sorry to have tried to engage in a discussion. But you keep laughing, it's probably your best option.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. So with nothing you chose the lame, "You proved my point" tactic. Frankly, none too surprising.

So to prove my point, try to explain to me why the iPhone is more expensive than an Android-based phone. Perceived premium quality, targeted at specific consumers they know will pay more? Or limited supply, thus demand driving it higher? (tip: the former)

In fact, Apple needs to keep their products at a higher price-point, to preserve their premium brand ID. They're swimming in them, and can produce any quantity they wish. And it's a postage stamp compared to a Samsung Galaxy S4, which sells for hundreds less, which too can be produced in any supply, but is scaled to target demand based on price-point. It ain't winter wheat. It's a branded item (how we feel about something) which we marketing folks can thank the cattle industry for, since once was a time beef was a commodity driven very much by the laws of supply and demand, until ranchers with better products branded them (literally, and in a marketing sense) so buyers would know theirs was better and would pay a premium.

Demand is therefore us, collectively. We're big pie that businesses want to get a slice of. So business does not create wealth, it thrives on it. It exploits and consolidates wealth, exclusively. So if more wealth is what we want, drive pay upwardly. Businesses will be capitalized to grab a piece of the growing market for goods and services. Banks will fight over who can capitalize the enterprises. The money supply will scale to the market, since borrowing from the Fed will increase in close parallel to the new investment into GETTING AFTER CONSUMER WEALTH.

That's how it works. Period. Heck; even VCs and Wall Street Bankers would tell you businesses create wealth, but do not try to borrow a dime from them saying you have a business idea that will "create wealth" (a market simply because the business was opened). They'll laugh you out of the joint, and tell you they need wealth out there (market studies) that you think you can get a piece of (business plan).
 
Anthony60 said:
I was in a store yesterday and the Samsung Galaxy S4 and the iPhone 5 were both $699.
Click to expand...


iPhone 5 is $199 (16 GB) and $399 (32 GB) with a 2-year contract. Add $450 for no contract. So whether you or your service provider eats the $450, they're $650 and $850, in essence.

Galaxy S4, at the high end, if not the highest of "Android-based" smartphones, is $100 to $200 less than an iPhone 5, in most retail outlets, while you can get the Galaxy S III for $200 just about anywhere, no contract.

If supply & demand drove prices, they'd be a dire shortage of iPhone 5s and Galaxy S4s, while Galaxy S IIIs would be in gross over-supply. But then, S&D is laughable when pricing most of the products we buy. They're priced more based on brand and channel strategies. Supply is whatever it needs to be. And demand is driven by my ilk: marketing departments.
 
Sisyphus said:
iPhone 5 is $199 (16 GB) and $399 (32 GB) with a 2-year contract. Add $450 for no contract. So whether you or your service provider eats the $450, they're $650 and $850, in essence.

Galaxy S4, at the high end, if not the highest of "Android-based" smartphones, is $100 to $200 less than an iPhone 5, in most retail outlets, while you can get the Galaxy S III for $200 just about anywhere, no contract.

If supply & demand drove prices, they'd be a dire shortage of iPhone 5s and Galaxy S4s, while Galaxy S IIIs would be in gross over-supply. But then, S&D is laughable when pricing most of the products we buy. They're priced more based on brand and channel strategies. Supply is whatever it needs to be. And demand is driven by my ilk: marketing departments.
Click to expand...

Verizon iPhone 5 16GB is $129 at WalMart! Galaxy S4 is $189. You liberals don't know how to shop! But, since when does the government care what they spend?
 
Anthony60 said:
Verizon iPhone 5 16GB is $129 at WalMart! Galaxy S4 is $189. You liberals don't know how to shop! But, since when does the government care what they spend?
Click to expand...

Here's from Walmart.com, minutes ago:

walmart-smartphone.png
 
Sisyphus said:
Here's from Walmart.com, minutes ago:

walmart-smartphone.png
Click to expand...

You don't have the S4 there. Either way, The Verizon S4 is $199 and the iPhone 5 is $129. That's the in store price. If you go all the way down to an iPhone 4, I think it is 0.97 cents. I think that AT&T has the S4 for for around $168. Still more than the iPhone 5.
 
Anthony60 said:
You don't have the S4 there. Either way, The Verizon S4 is $199 and the iPhone 5 is $129. That's the in store price. If you go all the way down to an iPhone 4, I think it is 0.97 cents. I think that AT&T has the S4 for for around $168. Still more than the iPhone 5.
Click to expand...

Correct. But it shows clearly that 33% of folks searching "smartphone" bought either an iPhone 4 for $549 or an iPhone 5 for $649. So you're either misinformed or lying about the price of an iPhone 5 at Walmart.
 
please dont kill it greedy monster
 
Sisyphus said:
iPhone 5 is $199 (16 GB) and $399 (32 GB) with a 2-year contract. Add $450 for no contract. So whether you or your service provider eats the $450, they're $650 and $850, in essence.

Galaxy S4, at the high end, if not the highest of "Android-based" smartphones, is $100 to $200 less than an iPhone 5, in most retail outlets, while you can get the Galaxy S III for $200 just about anywhere, no contract.

If supply & demand drove prices, they'd be a dire shortage of iPhone 5s and Galaxy S4s, while Galaxy S IIIs would be in gross over-supply. But then, S&D is laughable when pricing most of the products we buy. They're priced more based on brand and channel strategies. Supply is whatever it needs to be. And demand is driven by my ilk: marketing departments.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. Demand at every price point will, over time, equal the supply at that price point.

For the moment I shall assume that you are so brilliant compared to us mere mortals that we just cannot fathom your statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom