Aww, won't anyone think of those poor investors?

LOL.

Gary the point is $15 has not happened. Using a converse argument I suppose a $5 min wage would promote more employment and fewer failed businesses. Those that are closing I assert are were marginal at best and were doomed, as many small businesses are.

---

Gary the point is $15 has not happened. Using a converse argument I suppose a $5 min wage would promote more employment and fewer failed businesses. Those that are closing I assert are were marginal at best and were doomed, as many small businesses are.

Oh, so if it was $14.99 and not $15.00 that would make all the difference in the world? However at least one local increase has happened since the adoption of the law. It was only the beginning, not the end. How much more to come? How many more join the ranks of the unemployed?

Also your attitude seems to be that all business owners are so fat cat that they don't deserve a raise. Tell that to the owners wife when she does her weekly shopping with every other business having raised its prices.

Or perhaps you think customers are so dumb that they won't do their shopping just outside city limits at the stores that did not have to raise prices? allowing stores inside city limits to jack prices as they see fit?

Multi-nationals, I understand your thought process, they just transfer profits from some Podunk backwards hick town with very low incomes and massive poverty into the mega-city to pay the high income city workers their fat cat wages. Income redistribution at its finest.

All the places mentioned closing are Mom and Pop. Single location. Not chains. Small business, the backbone of America. The backbone is being cracked if not broken, locally.

I suppose all small businesses are doomed. They don't have dozens of far flung locations where they can siphon off some profits to cover a local disruption. Is that what you want to see; only munti-national companies with their off shore profit centers that don't pay tax?

Now if you read very carefully, you will note that I did not say here that the minimum should stay the same or go lower. I am saying that raising it in just one city is monumentally stupid. At least a state, but preferably nationally.


In any case Los Angeles, just did the same thing. It took exactly two weeks for the chain multi-nationals to roll out across the board prices increases in the city limits. The first of LA's increases is still two years off! Two years of fat cat profiteering!

---

All the places mentioned closing are Mom and Pop. Single location. Not chains. Small business, the backbone of America. The backbone is being cracked if not broken, locally.

I suppose all small businesses are doomed. They don't have dozens of far flung locations where they can siphon off some profits to cover a local disruption. Is that what you want to see; only munti-national companies with their off shore profit centers that don't pay tax?

Compared to large multinationals who hugely benefit from economies of scale small business are pretty much doomed anyways.

Besides, whats the point of local stores if they can't even pay their employers decent wages? I mean, there is no point in being employed if the wage you earn still requires you to rely on food stamps and others forms of welfare.

Gosh, so by the democrats passing highly protectionist trade measures such as minimum wage laws, the US business man has had his wallet fattened! Wow, never thought I'd ever hear the truth on these boards!!!

By never increasing the minimum wage, even though that wage stopped being a minimal living wage, they kept businesses wage costs artificially low. That allowed business to either increase their profit margins, or keep their prices low so as to attract more customers without hurting their bottom line. Its what gave extra power to corporations like Walmart who, already benefiting from economies of scale, could further lower their products prices without it really affecting their bottom line, thus giving them an even bigger competitive advantage.

Further laws that hampered minimum wage employees to organize/unionize further kept the natural tendency to increase wages in check, thus further distorting the market.

Of course, this also means that it becomes harder for low wage workers to ever get out of their predicament. The poverty trap keeps people in place, and in this case made it even harder for them. Sure, low prices from Walmart meant that people didn't really starve, because they earned just enough to buy food at Walmart, but the prices of everything else did increase over time. Education, rent, cars, fuel and consumer products all got more expensive and thus became harder for low wage workers to afford. And some of those things are necessary to climb out of poverty.

So who has benefited from this? The people? No, given that the middle class is dead and the wealth gap is bigger than ever we can safely say that the people did not benefit from this at all. Small businesses? No, because a low minimum wage gave an even bigger competitive advantage to big corporations. Corporations then? Well yes, they are the ones that did benefit from this the most. Lower costs, a bigger competitive advantage, etc.

Why don't Americans take their holiday time?

Bit worrying to see this...

"This year four in 10 Americans do not intend to take all of their holiday time, partly in fear of losing their job or because it isn't encouraged by their employer."

Why don't Americans take their holiday time?

Bit worrying to see this...

"This year four in 10 Americans do not intend to take all of their holiday time, partly in fear of losing their job or because it isn't encouraged by their employer."

A lot of people are worriers and also think they'll get an edge up by showing devotion to their job by not taking time off.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Why don't Americans take their holiday time?

Bit worrying to see this...

"This year four in 10 Americans do not intend to take all of their holiday time, partly in fear of losing their job or because it isn't encouraged by their employer."

A lot of people are worriers and also think they'll get an edge up by showing devotion to their job by not taking time off.

Well, a company I used to work for did things the right way, in my opinion.

Every year, on the anniversary date of your hire, you got an extra check for your vacation money. The first year, you got one week of pay. The third year you got two weeks of pay. The seventh, you got three weeks.

You were then free to take off all the *unpaid* time you wanted, as long as it was reasonable, with enough advance notice (two months in advance, unless it was an emergency). The only reason they would really say no would be if enough people had already requested that date range that it would create a staffing shortage if they let you have it.

Every year in which I wished to take vacation(s), in early January, I would contact HR and request this particular week off here, and those two weeks off there. Upon approval (usually on the spot) I would get written confirmation, and would then plan my vacations accordingly.

But whether or not I actually took them (some years I didn't ask for any), I still got my vacation pay, so it was all good.


Funny thing. This company was headquartered in the People's Republic of California. The vacation system was the ONE thing they got right, in my opinion. Lots of other stuff, I thought they were a bunch of pricks over, but that is quite beside the point. I wound up working for them for about 10 years, so it was all good.

Show me someone that claims to like everything their boss does, and I will show you a brown-nosing butt-kisser. Every knife is hidden behind a smile.

Funny thing. This company was headquartered in the People's Republic of California. The vacation system was the ONE thing they got right, in my opinion.

Yes, that is the law in California, vacation is earnings and you can't take it away from an employee once accrued. But nothing says you have to accrue it either.

---

So what is going on?

Gary I do consider the source, Faux news. Since I live across Puget Sound from Seattle and most of my local news comes from there I hear of very few locals complaining. Most seem to find it to be a non event since it has not gone into effect yet.

Wow, not even in effect yet? Wow.
Or maybe, they started counting the "homeless Kurt Cobain wannabes" again?

Seriously, though ... . Gary, your ending comment in the opening post sounds Marxist! "Everybody wants to work." (Funny how so many miss this, as well as "from each according to his abilities".)

Personally, I do believe most want to work and that living on assistance is not easy. (I know how hard this has been on a friend and his small family the last 1.5 years.) But can we really say everyone wants to work? 100%? While 47% sounds ridiculous, is no one lazy?

Is welfare more valuable than work?

Yes.

So good to know that Welfare is more valuable that work.

Thats why we work.

Well, just goes to show that there are dolts out there. :)

I believe that assessment of Janne is unfair as English is not his first language.
Perhaps you could have restated your point or your question.
Welfare has multiple meanings. For example, I was concerned about your welfare when you disappeared from posting for some time about a year ago.
It need not only refer to government assistance.

Is welfare more valuable than work?

Yes.

So good to know that Welfare is more valuable that work.

Thats why we work.

Well, just goes to show that there are dolts out there. :)

I believe that assessment of Janne is unfair as English is not his first language.
Perhaps you could have restated your point or your question.
Welfare has multiple meanings. For example, I was concerned about your welfare when you disappeared from posting for some time about a year ago.
It need not only refer to government assistance.

:)
Welfare has synonyms here as well.
Welfare is called Välfärd here meaning sometimes Well-being and has almost the same pronounciation.
Välfärd also means that sociaty take care of less fortunate.

Is welfare more valuable than work?

Yes.

So good to know that Welfare is more valuable that work.

Thats why we work.

Well, just goes to show that there are dolts out there. :)

I believe that assessment of Janne is unfair as English is not his first language.
Perhaps you could have restated your point or your question.

That becomes his issue when he posts about things specifically related to USA internal politics. Know what is being discussed before talking about it.

Welfare has multiple meanings. For example, I was concerned about your welfare when you disappeared from posting for some time about a year ago.
It need not only refer to government assistance.

---

So what is going on?

Gary I do consider the source, Faux news. Since I live across Puget Sound from Seattle and most of my local news comes from there I hear of very few locals complaining. Most seem to find it to be a non event since it has not gone into effect yet.

Wow, not even in effect yet? Wow.

Except it has, at least one step.

Or maybe, they started counting the "homeless Kurt Cobain wannabes" again?

Seriously, though ... . Gary, your ending comment in the opening post sounds Marxist! "Everybody wants to work." (Funny how so many miss this, as well as "from each according to his abilities".)

Personally, I do believe most want to work and that living on assistance is not easy. (I know how hard this has been on a friend and his small family the last 1.5 years.) But can we really say everyone wants to work? 100%? While 47% sounds ridiculous, is no one lazy?

What hearsay. The people know for a fact that no one is lazy. Everyone contributes. There is no 47% or even 99% or 1%! All are equal.

Give your irony detector a clean out! It was very intentional so that there could be no issue with lazy complaints.

---

[quote] So what is going on?

Gary I do consider the source, Faux news. Since I live across Puget Sound from Seattle and most of my local news comes from there I hear of very few locals complaining. Most seem to find it to be a non event since it has not gone into effect yet.

Wow, not even in effect yet? Wow.

Except it has, at least one step.

Pardon for posting before reading the rest of what you and betreger said regarding the issue.

Or maybe, they started counting the "homeless Kurt Cobain wannabes" again?

Seriously, though ... . Gary, your ending comment in the opening post sounds Marxist! "Everybody wants to work." (Funny how so many miss this, as well as "from each according to his abilities".)

Personally, I do believe most want to work and that living on assistance is not easy. (I know how hard this has been on a friend and his small family the last 1.5 years.) But can we really say everyone wants to work? 100%? While 47% sounds ridiculous, is no one lazy?

What hearsay. The people know for a fact that no one is lazy. Everyone contributes. There is no 47% or even 99% or 1%! All are equal.

Give your irony detector a clean out! It was very intentional so that there could be no issue with lazy complaints.

Rather more likely is that the irony detector was spot on, and continues to be and that I was attempting to draw you out into expressing what you really believe regarding the desire to work versus laziness.

Rather more likely is that the irony detector was spot on, and continues to be and that I was attempting to draw you out into expressing what you really believe regarding the desire to work versus laziness.

However it is irrelevant to the question if an individuals total compensation is more if they work less, as willingness to work would not be a factor in the decision: To Work or Not?

---

To work or not?
I wonder how humanity has survived so long:)
Work is in physics, the amount of energy converted when a transfer takes place under the action of a force.
Per definition that means every human are working.
But why so big differences in earnings when you work for a living?

Work is in physics, the amount of energy converted when a transfer takes place under the action of a force.
Per definition that means every human are working.
But why so big differences in what you do for a living?

Jann you ask a very deep philosophical question. Due to the large number of ideologues it will never be answered in our lifetimes.

---

Work is in physics, the amount of energy converted when a transfer takes place under the action of a force.
Per definition that means every human are working.
But why so big differences in what you do for a living?

Jann you ask a very deep philosophical question. Due to the large number of ideologues it will never be answered in our lifetimes.

I know:) But the thread title led me in to that.
Why work if you don't need to do that?
I'm fortunate enough to not have to work any more since I'm getting old.
I do it anyway when I feel for it.

Rather more likely is that the irony detector was spot on, and continues to be and that I was attempting to draw you out into expressing what you really believe regarding the desire to work versus laziness.

However it is irrelevant to the question if an individuals total compensation is more if they work less, as willingness to work would not be a factor in the decision: To Work or Not?

I was about to say "fair enough" to it being irrelevant to your question.
But is it?
Are the only rewards of work monetary? (Is it foolish to [i]not]/i] look at work solely based on money?)