Quote :

"They don't have tens of thousands of competitors. You've got the nearby fast food and retail stores, a few resturants, and that's it."

Why? 78% of those living in poverty own at least one car, why can't they go to a job that is not nearby?

Quote :

"Not according to"

From the first review: "she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to $7 an hour"

Quote :

"It doesn't take more than one employee at most gas stations, so they must be skilled enough to work alone. You'll be hard pressed to find unskilled or minimium wage workers in gas stations."

Ah, you got me there. Should not have included gas stations in the list. So, you will not find minimum wage employers are large chains or gas stations, only at restaurants and small retail outlets where managers can keep an eye on the workers.

So, Kris, seeing as the average minimum wage employer is employing around 10 workers, we can guestimate that if we have 10,000 minimum wage workers then we must have 1,000 minimum wage employers (ignoring unemployment). That is a rediculously competitive market.

1/9/2007 9:57:42 AM

Quote :

"People without relibale transportation don't have a lot of options with employers, even still, most large employers of minimium wage are large retail chains."

That's funny, because one of the major complaints about public transportation is that it only serves commercial destinations.

1/9/2007 10:00:32 AM

Quote :

"The pervasive unfairness in the way the great wealth of the United States is distributed should be seen for what it is, an insidious disease eating away at the structure of the society and undermining its future"

What a load of crap. In this guy's world, wealth isn't earned, it isn't worked for using your mind and body... No, wealth is simply distributed. He doesn't acknowledge the consequences of people's behaviors and actions in their pursuit of money. Capitalism is simply a disease of unfairness.

1/9/2007 11:20:11 AM

Quote :

"Why? 78% of those living in poverty own at least one car, why can't they go to a job that is not nearby?"

Between a family of what? I seriously doubt that 78% of the people in poverty own their own car.

Quote :

"From the first review: "she decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled--at $6 to $7 an hour""

There was a bit more in it than that.

Quote :

"So, you will not find minimum wage employers are large chains or gas stations, only at restaurants and small retail outlets where managers can keep an eye on the workers."

Generally at a retail store you have a manager and several assistant managers, it's fairly easy for them to keep an eye on their employees.

Quote :

"So, Kris, seeing as the average minimum wage employer is employing around 10 workers"

So does that statistic come from any sort of research outside of the study done to see how much stuff you can pull out of your ass?

Quote :

"That's funny, because one of the major complaints about public transportation is that it only serves commercial destinations."

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about, try again.

1/9/2007 12:01:55 PM

Quote :

"Between a family of what? I seriously doubt that 78% of the people in poverty own their own car."

"About 70 percent of poor households own a car or truck, and more than a quarter own two or more cars." This article is from 1999 and was the only one to list an actual percentage. A January 2004 article said "Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars"
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_51/ai_56220678
And a percentage of those that do not have a car live in cities with mass transit, either bus or rail, making a car unnecessary. Either way, so my memory was off by a few percentage points, but the point still stands. The poor are not as stupid as you let on, they're not going to let themselves be trapped in a localized labor market if higher wages are just a scooter away.

Quote :

"Generally at a retail store you have a manager and several assistant managers, it's fairly easy for them to keep an eye on their employees."

Then I guess I'm wrong about the reasons. Either way, they get paid quite a bit more than minimum wage. My roomate worked as a stocker at Wal-Mart for $7.60 an hour.

Quote :

"So does that statistic come from any sort of research outside of the study done to see how much stuff you can pull out of your ass?"

No, it was a guestimate. We don't have statistics on that, so what number do you want to use? Surely the average McDonalds doesn't employ 100 low-level workers.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/9/2007 12:30:40 PM

Quote :

"That has nothing to do with what I was talking about, try again."

Really? You said that one of the reasons that the unskilled labor market isn't all that competitive and is 'riddled with buyer market power' is because unskilled workers don't have the reliable transportation necessary to access a wide range of employers. Yet public transportation serves predominately commercial locations, i.e. it provides reliable transportation to a wide range of potential employers.

Of course, the real key word is 'unskilled'. As long as anyone is and continues to remain unskilled, they will never command anything greater than bottom dollar when it comes to wages.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2007 12:33:56 PM

Quote :

"Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars"

Ah, households, so now we have to figure out how many working people live in this household.

Quote :

"The poor are not as stupid as you let on, they're not going to let themselves be trapped in a localized labor market if higher wages are just a scooter away."

Then they have to spend even more money on the ever rising fuel costs.

Quote :

"Then I guess I'm wrong about the reasons. Either way, they get paid quite a bit more than minimum wage."

So you have no reasoning at all.

Quote :

"My roomate worked as a stocker at Wal-Mart for $7.60 an hour."

A stocker is a good bit different than what we're talking about.

Quote :

"Surely the average McDonalds doesn't employ 100 low-level workers."

No, mcdonalds employs WAY more than that. Each mcdonalds doesn't compete with one another for labor, they collude with one another, and only compete with the few other large corporations employing large amounts of the unskilled workforce, thus our problem arises, not enough competition.

Quote :

"Yet public transportation serves predominately commercial locations, i.e. it provides reliable transportation to a wide range of potential employers."

So it does, for those few workers lucky enough to live and work near a bus route.

Quote :

"Of course, the real key word is 'unskilled'. As long as anyone is and continues to remain unskilled, they will never command anything greater than bottom dollar when it comes to wages."

It doesn't matter if they stay unskilled, there will always be an unskilled workforce, whether it cycles or not, and if it is paid less than it should be, the market fails and we all suffer.

1/9/2007 3:55:46 PM

Quote :

"A stocker is a good bit different than what we're talking about."

Please explain how a stocker is not unskilled labor.

Quote :

"Each mcdonalds doesn't compete with one another for labor"

Really? Because I thought the vast majority of McDonalds in the United States were independently owned franchises, not corporately owned. I'm sure each franchisee is free to pay his workers what he'd like.

Quote :

"So it does, for those few workers lucky enough to live and work near a bus route."

Absolutely right. Public transportation serves what, three people?

1/9/2007 4:13:48 PM

Quote :

"Please explain how a stocker is not unskilled labor."

They generally do heavy lifting all day, and many work late at night, these are both skills all potential employees cannot offer, thus the pay disparity.

Quote :

"Really? Because I thought the vast majority of McDonalds in the United States were independently owned franchises, not corporately owned. I'm sure each franchisee is free to pay his workers what he'd like."

I doubt it, owners of a franchise are only allowed to do very certain things.

Quote :

"Absolutely right. Public transportation serves what, three people?"

It can serve a thousands and still only be a few relative to the entire US unskilled workforce.

Quote :

"Gonna have to disagree on that one. Stocking is not a trade one can market oneself with."

That's irrelevant, the ability to lift boxes all day and work late at night are things that not all people can offer.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2007 5:53:54 PM

Gonna have to disagree on that one. Stocking is not a trade one can market oneself with.

1/9/2007 5:56:40 PM

^ It hurts me to do so, but I agree. According to the North Carolina Career Outlook Handbook 2006, "Stock Clerks and Order Fillers" had a 2005 average annual entry-level salary of $14,750 and an overall average annual salary of $21,030. In addition, the growth outlook for the job classification in question is "low" with a less than one percent projected average growth rate. Of course, one could argue the classification, but it doesn't look good for the marketability of "stockers."

1/9/2007 9:24:44 PM

Quote :

"I doubt it, owners of a franchise are only allowed to do very certain things."

And I doubt that McDonald's exerts any control whatsoever over employee pay. After the franchisee pays their 4% royalties and franchise rent, and as long as the store passes corporate inspections, I doubt McDonald's gives two shits about what you do with the rest of the money.

Quote :

"It can serve a thousands and still only be a few relative to the entire US unskilled workforce."

Ah, that must be the result of the fact that busses only serve the nicest neighborhoods.

Quote :

"They generally do heavy lifting all day, and many work late at night, these are both skills all potential employees cannot offer, thus the pay disparity. [...] the ability to lift boxes all day and work late at night are things that not all people can offer."

You're saying that putting boxes on a shelf is not an unskilled job because not everyone can put boxes on a shelf?

1/9/2007 9:29:24 PM

Stocking is alot tougher than it sounds. I mean you're expected to do so many cases an hour. It takes training. Stockers can move up to Lead stockers who can move up, Grocery Managers, who can move up to Asst. Managers etc

1/9/2007 9:40:37 PM

I'm not saying that it's not hard work. I know that stocking is hard work.

But it is a job that requires no prior experience, special education, or special training, i.e. it's an unskilled job.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 9:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2007 9:52:56 PM

^^ Nope. It's listed as "short OJT (less than one month)"--same source as above.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ^]

1/9/2007 9:53:53 PM

Quote :

"And I doubt that McDonald's exerts any control whatsoever over employee pay"

I was unable to find anymore evidence, so unless you can, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, the prices and everything else are set by the corporate office, so I figure wages are too.

Quote :

"Ah, that must be the result of the fact that busses only serve the nicest neighborhoods."

You still don't understand.

Quote :

"You're saying that putting boxes on a shelf is not an unskilled job because not everyone can put boxes on a shelf?"

Not able or not willing, moving heavy boxes all day is very difficult, and many people are either not willing, or not able to do it. But I think the problem you have is that you think a skill is a natural talent or something you learn, this isn't the case, it's simply something that sets you apart from other workers, whether it be a doctorate in astrophysics or able and willing to lift heavy boxes.

Quote :

"But it is a job that requires no prior experience, special education, or special training"

Being a pro football player doesn't require that either, it just requires that you can do your job very well.

1/9/2007 10:49:12 PM

Quote :

"You still don't understand."

Don't understand what? That public transportation is available in many places that can transport those without private transportation to a job? Or that public transportation is incapable of transporting everyone to the job of their choice?

Quote :

"Not able or not willing, moving heavy boxes all day is very difficult, and many people are either not willing, or not able to do it. But I think the problem you have is that you think a skill is a natural talent or something you learn, this isn't the case, it's simply something that sets you apart from other workers, whether it be a doctorate in astrophysics or able and willing to lift heavy boxes."

1) Not willing to do a job is neither my problem nor the government's.
2) The difficulty of a job doesn't determine whether a skilled person is required to perform it.
3) What's your point? Lifting boxes requires no special training and no extraordinary natural talents. Stocking is an un-skilled job.

Quote :

"Being a pro football player doesn't require that either, it just requires that you can do your job very well."

Yeah, tell me about it. Those professional football players don't work at all to get to their position. And I hear that Troy Smith is one lazy SOB.

[Edited on January 9, 2007 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2007 11:15:47 PM

^^ Most of your positions are SO ridiculous! In fact, Michael Jordan and other elite professional athletes have often been used as examples by professors attempting to explain certain aspects of economics. Why do you think Jordan was so highly paid as a player? It was because he had skills that were in VERY short supply (scarce), to say the least. I mean, some of this stuff is not that hard to understand--unless you just don't want to understand it.

1/10/2007 12:25:20 AM

Quote :

"Don't understand what?"

Buses only provide transportation for specific people to specific places.

Quote :

"Not willing to do a job is neither my problem nor the government's"

It still effects the economy, and that effects both us and the government.

Quote :

"The difficulty of a job doesn't determine whether a skilled person is required to perform it."

If EVERYONE can't do it, then it is SKILLED.

Quote :

"Stocking is an un-skilled job."

no, it requires the skill of being able to lift heavy things all day and to work at night, everyone isn't able to do that, thus it is skilled. I don't know how to explain this any further.

Quote :

"Yeah, tell me about it. Those professional football players don't work at all to get to their position. And I hear that Troy Smith is one lazy SOB."

If it was unskilled, then everyone could and would do it, but it is skilled thus the workforce is limited. This isn't a difficult concept.

Quote :

"^^ Most of your positions are SO ridiculous! In fact, Michael Jordan and other elite professional athletes have often been used as examples by professors attempting to explain certain aspects of economics. Why do you think Jordan was so highly paid as a player? It was because he had skills that were in VERY short supply (scarce), to say the least. I mean, some of this stuff is not that hard to understand--unless you just don't want to understand i"

You don't understand what I was saying, I was saying that professional athletes are skilled.

1/10/2007 12:30:48 AM

^ You should be focusing on scarcity. Elite athletes can command higher wages because they have scarce skill sets. Concerning these elite athletes, in order to "do your job very well," as you put it, you need several things: natural talent (it always helps and is usually present in the great ones); "special training" (Do you think coaches, assistant coaches, strength coaches, and so on get paid millions to produce nothing?); and "prior experience" (What about youth leagues, high school, college, other pro leagues? Do you think an elite athlete just pops up one day ready for the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and so on?).

Please rethink your position(s).

1/10/2007 12:54:43 AM

You still don't know what I am talking about. I was using athletes to illustrate how someone whoe doesn't neccesarily have any kind of training can still be skilled. I don't think you've read my posts, that or you haven't bothered putting the effort in to understand what I've said.

Quote :

"in order to "do your job very well," as you put it, you need several things: natural talent (it always helps and is usually present in the great ones); "special training" (Do you think coaches, assistant coaches, strength coaches, and so on get paid millions to produce nothing?); and "prior experience" (What about youth leagues, high school, college, other pro leagues?"

These aren't required. If you've got someone who can outplay everyone else, he'll be paid to play, no matter if he doesn't have any of that stuff. It's not like a doctor who must have gone through training.

1/10/2007 1:13:16 AM

Quote :

"If EVERYONE can't do it, then it is SKILLED."

You heard it here folks, there is no such thing as an unskilled job, thanks to the existance of quadropegics.

Quote :

"I doubt it, owners of a franchise are only allowed to do very certain things."

And wages are one of them. You need approval to change your prices because that is what customers see. However, neither customers nor McDonalds see the effects of wages which come out of the franchisee's pocket. McDonalds gets 4% of sales, regardless of whether or not the establishment made a profit.

Quote :

"Ah, households, so now we have to figure out how many working people live in this household."

Most poor households are single-parent households. So, on average, the answer is somewhat close to 1.

Quote :

"Then they have to spend even more money on the ever rising fuel costs."

Yes, just like they spent money buying clothes to wear to work. Besides, a good scooter can get 80 miles per gallon. So, at $2.13 a gallon a worker will need to buy $0.27 worth of gas for every 10 miles they commute to and from work.

1/10/2007 1:14:24 AM

^^ Un-FUCKING-believable!

1/10/2007 1:18:54 AM

Quote :

"In this guy's world, wealth isn't earned, it isn't worked for using your mind and body... No, wealth is simply distributed. He doesn't acknowledge the consequences of people's behaviors and actions in their pursuit of money. Capitalism is simply a disease of unfairness."

So let's say I agreed with work and consequences of behaviors, but agreed that there is a great deal of "unfairness" in capitalism? i mean, there is a great deal of unfairness if you consider fairness the possibility that the wealth of an organization would be spread to more and more hands, which isn't always the case, as the wealthiest small percentage in society still control an increasingly larger portion of the wealth and capital.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 4:38 AM. Reason : .]

1/10/2007 4:35:03 AM

step one: eliminate corporate welfare.

step two: the min. wage shouldn't apply to anyone suppported by their parents.

1/10/2007 6:14:39 AM

^^ But is it?
"...the CBO estimate of the top 10 percent's share of after-tax income ended up unchanged from 1988 (33.1 percent) to 2003 (33 percent)"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6886

The portion of the wealth controlled by the wealthiest among us fluctuates over time in response to market conditions. But it has always returned to the long-term average eventually.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 8:37 AM. Reason : sp]

1/10/2007 8:37:02 AM

Quote :

"Buses only provide transportation for specific people to specific places."

Busses provide transportation to anyone who gets on the bus. Obviously, busses have routes that must be followed. However, in a conversation concerning methods for those without cars to reach available jobs, you cannot dismiss public transportation as an option (which you seem to be doing) just because it doesn't provide transportation for all people to all locations. Especially given the fact that the many public transit systems are specifically geared towards lower income individuals, servicing where they live, work, and shop. It's not a coincidence that there's a bus stop in the Food Lion parking lot on Avent Ferry.

Quote :

"If it was unskilled, then everyone could and would do it, but it is skilled thus the workforce is limited. This isn't a difficult concept. [...] These aren't required. If you've got someone who can outplay everyone else, he'll be paid to play, no matter if he doesn't have any of that stuff. It's not like a doctor who must have gone through training."

Yes, I realize that being a professional athelete is a skilled profession. My original comment was in response to you saying that being an NFL player requires no prior experience, education, or special training. I have no doubt that if there was someone who could play at a professional level without those things he would still be hired. However, I challenge you to find a professional athelete in a major sport (e.g. not curling) who has never been coached, trained, or participated in organized sports prior to being hired. If you find one (if there are any they're going to be few and far between), I'd be willing to bet they've received significant amounts of 'informal training' such as pick-up games, gym time, etc.

The comparison to doctors isn't valid because required training for doctors is a public safety concern.

1/10/2007 8:50:46 AM

Quote :

"You heard it here folks, there is no such thing as an unskilled job, thanks to the existance of quadropegics."

I hoped at least you would know what unskilled labor is.

Quote :

"And wages are one of them."

Do you have proof? I seriously don't know if they can or not, I simply doubt that they can.

Quote :

"So, on average, the answer is somewhat close to 1."

I'll guess that this statistic was pulled out of your ass as well.

Quote :

"Besides, a good scooter can get 80 miles per gallon. So, at $2.13 a gallon a worker will need to buy $0.27 worth of gas for every 10 miles they commute to and from work."

Economics is the study of what people do, not what they should do, and although you may think poor people should drive a scooter, that has no impact on what actually happens.

Quote :

"the min. wage shouldn't apply to anyone suppported by their parents"

Why not? They're part of the economy just like anyone else, the economy functions just as poorly when they don't get a competitive wage.

Quote :

"Especially given the fact that the many public transit systems are specifically geared towards lower income individuals, servicing where they live, work, and shop. It's not a coincidence that there's a bus stop in the Food Lion parking lot on Avent Ferry."

The point is that this is irrelevant to our market power debate, if anything it helps my case by further limiting the few large chains that these people can sell their labor.

Quote :

"My original comment was in response to you saying that being an NFL player requires no prior experience, education, or special training."

They don't, if you can play better than anyone else, they'll damn sure pay you to play.

Quote :

" However, I challenge you to find a professional athelete in a major sport (e.g. not curling) who has never been coached, trained, or participated in organized sports prior to being hired."

That's irrelevant, they point is that the job doesn't REQUIRE any sort of special training.

1/10/2007 12:59:17 PM

Quote :

"I'll guess that this statistic was pulled out of your ass as well."

"fifty-five percent of children who live in single-parent, mother-only families are poor"
http://www.divorcereform.org/pov.html

It's odd that we're the only ones that need to back up what we say with evidence.

Quote :

"Economics is the study of what people do, not what they should do, and although you may think poor people should drive a scooter, that has no impact on what actually happens."

What is the relevance here? You have not provided ANY proof to imply that the labor market is uncompetitive. The only semblance of reason why you said it was uncompetitive was that poor people cannot travel to work, so we provided linked government statistics that most poor people own a car. In addition, many poor are located in urban areas with readily available public transportation. In addition, scooters are available for cheap and are cheap to operate.

If poor people are not taking advantage of scooters or busses it is because 73% of them already own automobiles and choose to use them, nothing else.

So, your only reason why labor markets might have been uncompetitive was bogus. Which is besides the point, if the labor market was uncompetitive we would lots of direct evidence to demonstrate it, we have none. I'm not saying none exists, but since you refuse to accept anything we say without evidence then shouldn't we return the favor?

1/10/2007 1:59:40 PM

Quote :

"The portion of the wealth controlled by the wealthiest among us fluctuates over time in response to market conditions. But it has always returned to the long-term average eventually."

Seems like I read in The Economist not that long ago (I think it was The Economist, it's the magazine I read the most on these subjects) that it's gone from 50% of the wealth controlled by the top 30 years ago compared w/ 60% today. I'd have to look that up again.

1/10/2007 2:47:47 PM

Quote :

"I hoped at least you would know what unskilled labor is."

I don't think LoanSnark has given a specific definition in this thread, but it has to beat your definition by which there are no unskilled workers or unskilled jobs.

Quote :

"The point is that this is irrelevant to our market power debate, if anything it helps my case by further limiting the few large chains that these people can sell their labor."

At first it was people without reliable transportation don't have access to a significant number of potential employers. Now, reliable public transit which serves a large number of potential workplaces is somehow "further limiting" the choice of potential employers. Have you ever ridden a bus, other than to school? As a local example, the CAT bus has routes all up and down Capital Blvd, providing access to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses ranging from mom-and-pop to large retail and from commercial to light industry. Please explain to me again how public transportation limits the number of potential employers that a worker has access to.

Quote :

"That's irrelevant, they point is that the job doesn't REQUIRE any sort of special training."

There are very many jobs that don't REQUIRE any sort of special training, but the fact is you will not be hired for those jobs without some training or demonstration of your skills. What can happen de jure is largely irrelevant to what does happen de facto.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2007 4:23:24 PM

Well, yes, no one is saying their share of national income is not huge, just that it was equally huge back in 1988. But, again yes, 2003 was 4 years ago and their share has gone even higher nowadays, but even these do not exceed the records set in the 1920s.

Either way, what do you suggest we do about the recent windfall of the richest among us? Like so much the left gets upset about, the cure for a real problem is treated as the problem, completely ignoring the real problem that caused it (in this case a shortage of entrepreneurs). Well, the cure for a high return on capital is a high return on capital. As capital piles up in markets the return on that capital will fall, reducing the capitalists share of income.

1/10/2007 4:26:40 PM

or we could let the middle and lower classes just keep more of their income right now.

or we could shift the tax burden.

this sums my stance up better, one way to look at it:

Quote :

"Just as an individual should have the right to control his or her own body, each individual should also have the right to control the fruits of his or her labor. People should have the freedom to engage in voluntary economic exchanges, and to form voluntary economic organizations, whether for non-profit or profit purposes, as long as they respect the equal rights of others. a) Property Rights Based on Justice. There are two forms of property: 1) human-made products, such as cars, houses, and machinery; and 2) land, which refers to spatial locations, along with the natural resources within those locations - therefore, land was not produced by any person. Out of justice and practicality, it is proper to allow an individual to keep the rewards from his or her labor. So, there should be the least taxes possible on labor, because taxes on labor take the fruits of labor. Such taxes are not only unjust, but also lower the incentive to be productive. Taxes on income, sales, or buildings all take away the rewards of labor and productivity, so they are the most harmful kinds of taxes. The least harmful tax is a tax on land location value or on extraction of natural resources, because those are not products of labor, but are fixed resources. Land is fundamentally different from products made by human effort, because no person can produce land, meaning locations and natural resources. So, property in land needs to be treated somewhat differently from other types of property, in order to prevent over-concentrated ownership of land and natural resources. "

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfcpl.html

from the more econ. liberty-based wing of the Democratic Party.

Quote :

""... a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...." "

~Thomas Jefferson

Today, that money should not be used to prop up the top capitalists through corporate handouts of any form, from subsidies to companies like wal-mart abusing the medicaid system to provide benefits at the cost of the taxpayer.

In adherence to this topic, a raise in min. wage should be accompanied by a drop in another tax.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2007 4:36:18 PM

ok after reading this thread i have concluded that either:

a)Kris is a complete dumbass
b)he's trolling the hell out of you people
c)Kris is a complete dumbass

1/10/2007 4:49:18 PM

Kris is a troll, he always has been. But he lets us talk and feel all important dispensing truth to madness, so the insanity continues.

^^ Eh? You made a leap that does not follow. When the medicaid law was being written a wise man spoke up and said "poor people are going to use this program as an alternative to private healthcare." Sure enough, many moons later you are now complaining that poor people are using medicaid as an alternative to private healthcare.

Well, the solution is not to punish Wal-Mart by expanding the existing intrusions of government. No, the solution is to make sure only truely needy people are eligible to take advantage of the program.

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/10/2007 5:09:39 PM

Quote :

"Wal-Mart acknowledges that in many states Medicaid offers families better opportunities. In fact, Wal-Mart’s own Scott was quoted saying, “In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value, with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums.” "

http://www.house.gov/list/press/mi01_stupak/062205walmart.html

So I suppose the answer is lower the income limits.

The CEO of Wal-Mart has been calling for an increased min wage: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/

Meanwhile, the House passes the min. wage: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/minimum.wage.ap/index.html

[Edited on January 10, 2007 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2007 5:28:46 PM

Quote :

"fifty-five percent of children who live in single-parent, mother-only families are poor""

That's not what I asked for. We're trying to find how many working people are in this household, not how many children belong to single parent families.

Quote :

"It's odd that we're the only ones that need to back up what we say with evidence."

You're the only one making up statistics.

Quote :

"You have not provided ANY proof to imply that the labor market is uncompetitive."

The unskilled labor market is, by nature, prone to monopsonistic market power. I never said it is or isn't right now. I hear people that incorrectly claim that a price floor can only result in less demand for labor, this isn't the case.

Quote :

"The only semblance of reason why you said it was uncompetitive was that poor people cannot travel to work, so we provided linked government statistics that most poor people own a car. In addition, many poor are located in urban areas with readily available public transportation. In addition, scooters are available for cheap and are cheap to operate."

Then you've missed the point. The main reason it is uncompetitive is that you've got only a few large companies buying all the labor. Few buyers many sellers. This leads to an imbalance in competition, which leads to market power.

Quote :

"I'm not saying none exists, but since you refuse to accept anything we say without evidence then shouldn't we return the favor?"

The problem here is you list direct statistics, then you get upset when I call you out for them.

Quote :

"Have you ever ridden a bus, other than to school? As a local example, the CAT bus has routes all up and down Capital Blvd, providing access to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses ranging from mom-and-pop to large retail and from commercial to light industry. Please explain to me again how public transportation limits the number of potential employers that a worker has access to."

I've already explained it, stop trying to make this debate circular.

Quote :

"ok after reading this thread i have concluded that either: a)Kris is a complete dumbass b)he's trolling the hell out of you people c)Kris is a complete dumbass"

Then you must not know economics. I'm explaining a very simple economic concept.

1/10/2007 6:10:52 PM

Quote :

"The main reason it is uncompetitive is that you've got only a few large companies buying all the labor."

Patently wrong. There are many companies--large and small--who buy labor.

Quote :

"I've already explained it, stop trying to make this debate circular."

Then try again. You have yet to explain how providing transportation limits the number of potential employers a person has access to.

1/10/2007 7:16:21 PM

Quote :

"The unskilled labor market is, by nature, prone to monopsonistic market power. I never said it is or isn't right now."

Whether it is "prone to monopsonistic market power" is begging the question. You do not know whether it is or not. It is my assertion that it is not prone to this for many very good reasons that I have provided. You have provided no good reasons to believe that it is beyond transportation difficulties which does not apply today and, arguably, never applied.

1/10/2007 7:28:43 PM

Quote :

"If the federal wage does rise in 26 months to $7.25 an hour, about 5.6 million people - 4 percent of the work force - who make less than that would be directly affected, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal leaning group. The group estimates that an additional 7.4 million workers would benefit indirectly as raising the floor would ripple through the work force."

They will not benefit, there is no way small companies can offer these types of raises and there is no way that huge companies can offer raises to their thousands of employees. People will be laid off and prices will be raised so how is it a good thing when it will ultimately shift the worth of the dollar?

1/11/2007 12:07:25 AM

Quote :

"There are many companies--large and small--who buy labor."

But almost all of the labor is bought from large corporations.

Quote :

"You have yet to explain how providing transportation limits the number of potential employers a person has access to."

My apologize, I assumed you knew the difference between a bus and a car.

Quote :

"You do not know whether it is or not"

No more and no less than you do.

Quote :

"It is my assertion that it is not prone to this for many very good reasons that I have provided."

What exactly would those be?

Quote :

"You have provided no good reasons to believe that it is beyond transportation difficulties which does not apply today and, arguably, never applied."

The problem is that you have few buyers and many sellers, thus unless the sellers unionize, the buyers will have market power.

1/11/2007 12:28:02 AM

The impact on the dollar will be minimal, this is because economics actors will take action to mitigate their damages. Specifically, society will adjust to need less low-wage labor by substituting with capital intensive processes. Therefore, it is likely price rises will not be statistically significant. To quote myself from Page 1:

Quote :

"For example, a recent study in Ohio, I believe, found just such an adjustment in response to the new higher minimum wage. Specifically, it turns out fast-food chains are very good at minimizing labor costs thanks to the use of pre-packaged food (pre-cut fries, pre-shredded lettuce, etc). Therefore, when the minimum wage was raised there was a sizeable increase in employment at fast-food chains. This is because labor-intensive independent restaurants were forced to raise prices more than labor-conserving chain restaurants, and customers bolted. So, back to the original point, a free economy can adjust to absorb quite a lot of meddling. All in all, the economic impact of the minimum wage hike was minimal as all the business lost by independent restaurants was picked up by chain restaurants. No, my objection to the minimum wage is that it is immoral for two reasons: on a civil rights level, as TULIPlovr pointed out, AND on a cost-benefit level. While chain stores were able to fill all the business lost by the independent stores with no loss of economic activity, they did it with absolutely less labor. Those workers had to go somewhere, not all of them found work in the chain stores. And being who they are, fully grown working poor, many do not have permanent addresses, no phone, or were even being paid under-the-table, so unemployment insurance may be unavailable and they will probably not show up on government statistics trying to measure unemployment (which are collected via phone surveys). Now, I admit this is not a huge number of people. By one estimate, for every 10% raise in the minimum wage employment drops only 1%. So, a $1 raise is a 20% increase so employment will drop 2%. So what? The vast majority of workers are being helped, right? Well, but do we have the right to sacrifice the lives of 2% just to make life more comfortable for 98%? While surviving on a low wage is difficult, it is nothing compared to surviving on no wage at all, which results in homelessness and possible death. This is why I am a strong advocate of increasing the EITC. There is no question that the EITC results in hard and very measurable economic loss in Government statistics as we are taking money away form the most productive in society and giving it to the least productive. But this is a small price to pay to actually help the poor and is not a potential death sentence for 2% of the same."

It bears pointing out that the fast food chains were always cheaper than the independent establishments they replaced. Customers were consciously paying more for local flavors or better service. But the higher minimum wage drove the price differential too high for customers to justify. Therefore, it is quite likely that the higher minimum wage actually resulted in the reduction of prices, if you averaged the aggregate.

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 12:36 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/11/2007 12:31:54 AM

Quote :

"But almost all of the labor is bought from large corporations."

And you accuse others of pulling things out of their ass! According to the 2003 census, 57,447,570 people are employed by businesses with less than 500 employees and 55,950,473 are employed by businesses with 500 or more employees. Of those employed at companies with more that 500 employees, only 30,089,358 work at companies with more than 10,000 employees.

For some perspective, Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States with 1.8 million employees. Tyson foods is the 50th largest company with 114,000 employees.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html#EmpSize
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/by_employees/index.html

Quote :

"My apologize, I assumed you knew the difference between a bus and a car."

Oh, so now we're comparing busses and cars? I thought minimum wage earners didn't have cars!

Quote :

"People without relibale transportation don't have a lot of options with employers"

How silly of me! I didn't realize that "people without relibale transportation" means "people with cars."

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 8:56 AM. Reason : ]

1/11/2007 8:53:23 AM

Quote :

"According to the 2003 census, 57,447,570 people are employed by businesses with less than 500 employees and 55,950,473 are employed by businesses with 500 or more employees. Of those employed at companies with more that 500 employees, only 30,089,358 work at companies with more than 10,000 employees."

Unfortunately we aren't talking about the entire labor market, we're talking about unskilled labor.

Quote :

"Oh, so now we're comparing busses and cars? I thought minimum wage earners didn't have cars!"

You've missed the point, so just think about it, what is the major difference between a bus and a car? Think about it in terms of where you can go, which is more restrictive?

Quote :

"How silly of me! I didn't realize that "people without relibale transportation" means "people with cars.""

Missed the point agian.

1/11/2007 12:32:50 PM

LoneSnark could you explain this?

Quote :

"Now consider what’s been happening to the bulk of the American population, the ordinary men and women who have to work for a living somewhere below the stratosphere of the top corporate executives. Between 2000 and 2006, labor productivity in the nonfarm sector of the economy rose by an impressive 18 percent. But workers were not paid for that impressive effort. During that period, according to Mr. Sum, the inflation-adjusted weekly wages of workers increased by just 1 percent. That’s $3.20 a week. As Mr. Sum wryly observed, that won’t even buy you a six-pack of Bud Light. Joe Six-Pack has been downsized. Three bucks ain’t what it used to be."

1/11/2007 12:35:48 PM

Easy, the cause is two fold. The first cause is that cash wages do not include all forms of compensation. Tips, retirement, employer provided healthcare, bonuses, and other benefits are not included in the statistics. The figures you need to look at are called "total inflation adjusted compensation" which shows a substantial increase over the last six years (which include a recession, war, etc).

The second cause is what you expect: the share of production going to the nations entrepreneurial class is quite a bit higher today than it was six years ago. As I tried to point out, this is neither unusual nor chronic, it is cyclical and given time it will go away by itself. The cure for high profits is high profits. As people earn ever more from their investments they will invest ever more which will bid down the return on those investments and bid up labor compensation.

Quote :

"Unfortunately we aren't talking about the entire labor market, we're talking about unskilled labor."

Do you have any reason to believe the two are dissimilar?

[Edited on January 11, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/11/2007 2:32:04 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately we aren't talking about the entire labor market, we're talking about unskilled labor."

Well then, supply numbers to back up your assertion that "almost all of the labor is bought from large corporations."

Quote :

"You've missed the point, so just think about it, what is the major difference between a bus and a car? Think about it in terms of where you can go, which is more restrictive? [...] Missed the point agian."

The only point to be gotten is that you can't remember what you're talking about. This whole bus thing originated with you stating that "[p]eople without relibale transportation don't have a lot of options with employers." Which isn't untrue, but after it was pointed out that public transportation is available to a large group of people and provides reliable transportation to a large number of employment opportunities, you've repeatedly balked and refused to acknowledge the usefulness of public transportation. Now you claim to have been talking about cars, even though the only time cars have entered the conversation was when LoneSnark mentioned them (and you subsequently refused to believe that 70-something percent of poverty households own a vehicle).

1/11/2007 3:42:22 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any reason to believe the two are dissimilar?"

Yes. Large corporations employ larger amounts of unskilled labor. Additionally unskilled labor doesn't have the same options as skilled labor, who can work skilled or unskilled jobs.

Quote :

"Well then, supply numbers to back up your assertion that "almost all of the labor is bought from large corporations.""

I looked on the BLS, but it was difficult to find any statistics about unskilled workers.

Quote :

"Which isn't untrue, but after it was pointed out that public transportation is available to a large group of people and provides reliable transportation to a large number of employment opportunities, you've repeatedly balked and refused to acknowledge the usefulness of public transportation."

Do you still not understand that using public transportation LIMITS the places that you can go?

Quote :

"Now you claim to have been talking about cars"

No, I brought up cars to try to help you understand why people without access to reliable transportation don't have a whole lot of options. I was trying to show you how cars offer more options than busses. This is a simple thing, how can you still not understand it?

1/11/2007 7:27:22 PM

Quote :

"I looked on the BLS, but it was difficult to find any statistics about unskilled workers."

We're supposed to take your word for it because it's difficult to find statistics?

Quote :

"Do you still not understand that using public transportation LIMITS the places that you can go?"

I understand that perfectly. Do you still not understand that public transportation is LESS limiting than having NO reliable transportation, which was your original statement/concern?

Quote :

"This is a simple thing, how can you still not understand it?"

1) Your first mention of a car in this thread was to say that you don't believe that 70% of poverty households own a car. Your second mention of a car is to say that you've already explained that cars provide unrestricted transportation. How is anyone supposed to magically know that you're talking about cars?
2) No fucking shit a car is less restrictive than a bus line.
3) Having a car is not (generally) considered to be a lack of reliable transportation, which was what your original statement concerned--those without reliable transportation (i.e. without a personal vehicle) are limited in their employment opportunities. For those without reliable transportation (i.e without a personal vehicle), how does public transportation limit their employment opportunities?
4) Nice try.

1/11/2007 7:50:53 PM

Shouldn't we give up talking about "limited transportation options" since we have already demonstrated that transportation is readily available for those in poverty? 73% own at least one car. The rest, presumably, figure they do not need a car to acquire adequate employment; either because public transportation takes them where they want to go, they own a bike/scooter/motorcycle, or like the employment opportunities within walking distance.

The fact is, the bare minimum necessary, a motorcycle and raincoat, can be had for a few days work; so it wouldn't make sense to find poor people missing out on good jobs due to nothing more than a little distance.

1/11/2007 8:53:13 PM