CPWill you screwed up your quotes and I don't feel like sifting through it to fix it, so this is my reply to your last post.
The logic in your business example is so bizarre and twisted it is incomprehensible psychobabble. You've attributed cause effect in so many different directions it borders on insanity. The idea that a business paying it's workers $100 more would result in a 98% net loss for everyone involved is such incredible hyperbole I have to wonder where you get these ideas from.
see, it's when you post stuff like that that I think you don't even bother to really read the posts that you are responding to. I pointed out that the claim that
businesses would do better with a MW increase because of the increase in business was crap because
they were the ones providing the funds in the first place. I used basic math and citation to demonstrate how this very simple point would work itself out in real life, and your response.... since apparently you are unable to answer the
math... is to accuse others of psychobabble.
Well, alrighty then. I continue on secure in the observation that even MW's defenders are unable to come up with a logically coherent argument in its favor, and are forced to depend instead on emotional hyperbole. Which, it is hilarious to see you accuse anyone else of, given the way in which you toss out accusations that folks who disagree with you must be working on behalf of some kind of secret cabal of rich people :lol:
Yes Wal-Mart's cheap goods have some positive effects.
Yes. For example, they significantly lower the cost of living for our poor and low-income, thereby increasing their disposable income and standards of living.
However they also have negative effects on the surrounding community. You have to weigh the entire net effect of this kind of business. Cheap goods but they pay poverty wages for everyone who works there
That, however, is false. You appear to be confusing "what the bag-boy makes" with "what everyone makes" at Wal-Mart.
Glassdoor.com tracks Walmart salaries. It seems that (for example) Assistant Managers can make anywhere between $31K and $80K (Average of $44K), while Pharmacists bring in a range of $97K to $149K (Average of $120K). Far from your claims that everyone is shoved down to minimum wage, it seems that associates earn raises as they gain experience and skill sets, and the average wage for a Wal-Mart Associate is $8.89 an hour. Cashiers make $8.52/hr (average), and overnight stockers $9.67/hr.
Huh. That's interesting. It looks like once again basic application of logic to evidence available demonstrates that you either have no idea what you are talking about, or do not care, preferring to sling emotionally-charged rhetoric in place of reason.
The profit is funneled out of the community. Watch "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" for another perspective on this. These low wage workers become welfare cases that the state government has to prop up, subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits.
This is also a false argument. If all of those workers ceased working at Wal-Mart, they would not suddenly no longer draw government subsidies, they would
increase the subsidies they draw. Conversely, if the government were to suddenly cease it's subsidy programs, there is no mechanism that would then force Wal-Mart to raise its' wages.
The workers can less afford healthcare if they get sick and run up the costs of healthcare because they can't pay the bills.
Actually, it turns out that
Walmarts' health plan for associates is cheaper, and offers more coverage than Obamacare.
These things do not strengthen the community, they weaken it terribly.
Oh, I don't know. I think offering the poorest of the poor a path out of poverty while lowering the cost of living for the community at large (but especially, again, for our low-income populaces) is a pretty beneficial set of things, by and large.
The point I've made numerous times in this thread is that the majority of people are median, they will be paid a median, low wage. That is the problem with the middle class, the median class, they have too little spending power. Individual achievement is not going to magically fix this.
:lol: yeah. Right.
Look, man, the median middle class right now live lives unimaginable to anyone else in human history. We are
incredibly wealthy. We've gotten here precisely because a few hundred years ago we decided to adopt forms of government that unleashed the individual.
We're talking about the economy, not how individuals can improve their lives.
Oh. Well then I could care less about how you want to manipulate numbers - I am interested in how poor people can improve their lives. If you are
not interested in how individuals can improve their lives, well, I can understand then why you would be in favor of a MW increase, as it funnels more money to your preferred political party via unions, and can thus be understood as a power play. Thank you for your honesty.
At the end you revert to a laissez faire worldview where you think if we just let things play out it will fix everything and be great. We've already tried this many times, it doesn't work.
:lol:
Quite the contrary, economic freedom seems to be the
only thing that works. That free trade worldview has lifted more people out of poverty in the last three decades than the rest of human history
combined. You are probably making the common left-wing mistake of confusing a free economy with a lack of rule of law.
What we end up with is a wild, unbalanced system that breaks everything as it spins out of control. It just happened back in 2007 and you guys still don't get it. You de-regulate and let things play out and what you get is a violent game where the big players loot and pillage and the common person foots the bill.
Dude what in the
world makes you think that the
heavily regulated financial industry in 2007 was lasseiz faire?