Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Nachos
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Hands off! This is Nacho Cheese! Page 100!
Asura.Kingnobody said: » So, you couldn't show anywhere that haves $15+/hr minimum wage in the US, and yet demand me to show evidence of what happens to a city's cost of living when minimum wage goes up to $15/hr? Don't you realize that it is impossible to prove what doesn't exist? Oh my god, that was the point you were making? Forgive me for assuming that a higher-functioning human being was incapable of being that obtuse. Both state and federal minimum wage has risen multiple times before, correct? $7 or $15, the trend would still be evident if one existed.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Name a city in the US that has minimum wage at $15+/hour. I'm sure you would find one and be completely wrong about it. Asura.Kingnobody said: » I'm sure that if you say that most studies show that raising minimum wages will decrease the number of jobs out there as "false cause fallacy" also. And then demand research on that. Also, you really need to familiarize yourself with what a fallacy is and isn't. The idea that a minimum wage increase could increase overall costs by even as much as the wage increase demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. The only way a wage increase can increase cost more than it's associated weight is if the price is artificially inflated, as labor is less than 100% of the cost. I keep seeing those kinds of doomsday arguments presented in opposition, and it's not that it's specifically bunk, but that it's being offered as a counter-argument instead of the real reasons no to increase minimum wages. I'm saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If labor accounts for say 50% of cost associated with a product, and labor increases by 10%, the associated increase is 10% of 50%, so the increase to the total cost of the product is 5%. The only way a 10% increase in minimum wage would increase a product cost by 10% or more is if either the entire cost is labor or they artificially pad the price for some reason. That's not even considering that MOST poverty level jobs don't actually pay the federal or even state minimum wages. So if the federal minimum is 7.25, and the state minimum is 9, and most people make 9.50-10.50, increasing the federal minimum up to 9.50 will have virtually no impact on prices or cost of living. Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Hey! Can we talk about the anti-rape nail polish and the ridiculous outrage of it by feminazis? Did we already cover that? Can we discuss why it's a bad thing for people to come up with this defense? I'm sorta intrigued by this, do you have some kind of link? I seriously don't get the outrage. Rape is not a construct of our modern culture. It's an ugly facet of humanity. Why not embrace the defense mechanism instead of whining because sometimes humans do awful things? So I assume the outrage is that defensive products are being sold instead of focusing on prevention of the assault in the first place? Generally, activists will find something to get upset about on a regular basis even if it's not worth getting upset about. That extends to people who get upset because someone is upset about something stupid. Rape is a touchy subject, so it makes sense that people who identify with victims or are victims themselves attach an elevated level of emotion to the subject. Women are responsible for their own safety, because the world has plenty of terrible people (most of them men). They should be provided every opportunity to defend themselves against aggressors. This is not about blaming the victim, and the equivocation with that concept manages to take a good idea and twist it into a discussion about why women AREN'T able to protect themselves. It's almost like the victim culture is fighting back against progress to defend its perpetuation.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » I'm saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If labor accounts for say 50% of cost associated with a product, and labor increases by 10%, the associated increase is 10% of 50%, so the increase to the total cost of the product is 5%. The only way a 10% increase in minimum wage would increase a product cost by 10% or more is if either the entire cost is labor or they artificially pad the price for some reason. You are only looking at one piece of the puzzle. Odin.Jassik said: » That's not even considering that MOST poverty level jobs don't actually pay the federal or even state minimum wages. So if the federal minimum is 7.25, and the state minimum is 9, and most people make 9.50-10.50, increasing the federal minimum up to 9.50 will have virtually no impact on prices or cost of living. Also, if the federal minimum wage is raised by an X%, don't you think the state's minimum wage will not be raised by that same %? Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Hey! Can we talk about the anti-rape nail polish and the ridiculous outrage of it by feminazis? Did we already cover that? Can we discuss why it's a bad thing for people to come up with this defense? I'm sorta intrigued by this, do you have some kind of link? I seriously don't get the outrage. Rape is not a construct of our modern culture. It's an ugly facet of humanity. Why not embrace the defense mechanism instead of whining because sometimes humans do awful things? So I assume the outrage is that defensive products are being sold instead of focusing on prevention of the assault in the first place? Generally, activists will find something to get upset about on a regular basis even if it's not worth getting upset about. That extends to people who get upset because someone is upset about something stupid. Rape is a touchy subject, so it makes sense that people who identify with victims or are victims themselves attach an elevated level of emotion to the subject. Women are responsible for their own safety, because the world has plenty of terrible people (most of them men). They should be provided every opportunity to defend themselves against aggressors. This is not about blaming the victim, and the equivocation with that concept manages to take a good idea and twist it into a discussion about why women AREN'T able to protect themselves. It's almost like the victim culture is fighting back against progress to defend its perpetuation. I think you should always strive to address the cause, but knowing that there is a risk and doing nothing out of principle is idiocy, regardless of how sensitive the issue is, yeah. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I'm saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If labor accounts for say 50% of cost associated with a product, and labor increases by 10%, the associated increase is 10% of 50%, so the increase to the total cost of the product is 5%. The only way a 10% increase in minimum wage would increase a product cost by 10% or more is if either the entire cost is labor or they artificially pad the price for some reason. You are only looking at one piece of the puzzle. Odin.Jassik said: » That's not even considering that MOST poverty level jobs don't actually pay the federal or even state minimum wages. So if the federal minimum is 7.25, and the state minimum is 9, and most people make 9.50-10.50, increasing the federal minimum up to 9.50 will have virtually no impact on prices or cost of living. Also, if the federal minimum wage is raised by an X%, don't you think the state's minimum wage will not be raised by that same %? You're only making your point weaker. Labor cost associated with material cost is also less than the whole and will always rise at a lower rate. And states having minimum wages higher than the federal only makes the possible impact of a higher minimum even less. Econ was one of the classes I had to take for my business degree, obviously isn't not required for accounting. Edit: just in addition, states minimum wages can never be lower than the federal minimum, so any state that has it's wage set at the federal minimum will necessarily increase by the same amount, states that are set higher will already be in compliance and won't have to change anything unless they decide to do so. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » It's almost like the victim culture is fighting back against progress to defend its perpetuation.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » I'm saying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If labor accounts for say 50% of cost associated with a product, and labor increases by 10%, the associated increase is 10% of 50%, so the increase to the total cost of the product is 5%. The only way a 10% increase in minimum wage would increase a product cost by 10% or more is if either the entire cost is labor or they artificially pad the price for some reason. You are only looking at one piece of the puzzle. Odin.Jassik said: » That's not even considering that MOST poverty level jobs don't actually pay the federal or even state minimum wages. So if the federal minimum is 7.25, and the state minimum is 9, and most people make 9.50-10.50, increasing the federal minimum up to 9.50 will have virtually no impact on prices or cost of living. Also, if the federal minimum wage is raised by an X%, don't you think the state's minimum wage will not be raised by that same %? You're only making your point weaker. Labor cost associated with material cost is also less than the whole and will always rise at a lower rate. And states having minimum wages higher than the federal only makes the possible impact of a higher minimum even less. Econ was one of the classes I had to take for my business degree, obviously isn't not required for accounting. You fail to realize that the price of products are going to increase in addition to the additional costs. If a part sale price is $.50 and costs $.45 to produce, but because of the cost of labor increase due to minimum wage, the part now costs $.48 to produce, do you think the sales price of the part is going to stay at $.50? Or will it increase to $.53? You are assuming that the sales price will forever remain constant, which reality will show it will not. Add up those little nickles and dimes increases and all of the sudden, the whole product will cost an additional $5 to produce outside of your own labor increases. And that's just manufacturing. Service costs have their own little nuances too. You also fail to remember that the costs increase, but not the productivity. There are more factors into this than you realize. I guess manufacturing and business methods wasn't a required class for your "business degree." Odin.Jassik said: » Edit: just in addition, states minimum wages can never be lower than the federal minimum, so any state that has it's wage set at the federal minimum will necessarily increase by the same amount, states that are set higher will already be in compliance and won't have to change anything unless they decide to do so. I'm a victim of American culture. Now give me money!
[+]
If you're selling a product at 50 cents that costs 45 cents to make, you've failed horribly with bad business decisions, and should look at getting your head examined.
Business models (like the poor example KN is using) is essentially what causes them to fail - they focus entirely on saving pennies rather than bringing in dollars. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Also, if the federal minimum wage is raised by an X%, don't you think the state's minimum wage will not be raised by that same %? Let me spell it out very simply, so you can grasp it. As long as labor is less than 100% of the total cost, the cost cannot increase at a higher rate than the increase in labor. You don't compound total labor, it's additive, so the only way that the price of something can increase at a higher rate than costs is if its being artificially inflated. Since labor is less than 100% and most labor is already above the minimum, cost won't increase significantly. Its basic economics. You have literally no understanding of manufacturing processes or cost analysis, remember when you tried to explain Kanban? Yeah...
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Edit: just in addition, states minimum wages can never be lower than the federal minimum, so any state that has it's wage set at the federal minimum will necessarily increase by the same amount, states that are set higher will already be in compliance and won't have to change anything unless they decide to do so. You're making the statement that if the federal minimum increases, so would states, that's just flat out wrong unless the states were then at a lower rate than the new minimum. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If you're selling a product at 50 cents that costs 45 cents to make, you've failed horribly with bad business decisions, and should look at getting your head examined. Having a 10% profit margin in my example is actually a very successful business. Not even the "big evil oil companies" or "evil bankers" have a 10% profit margin. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Business models (like the poor example KN is using) is essentially what causes them to fail - they focus entirely on saving pennies rather than bringing in dollars. Don't look at things in big numbers, most manufacturing plants sell their parts for less than $.50 per part, some sell them for more than $.50 per part and have even lower margins. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » I'm a victim of American culture. Now give me money! I'm a victim of "white privilege"! Give me money too!
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If you're selling a product at 50 cents that costs 45 cents to make, you've failed horribly with bad business decisions, and should look at getting your head examined. Having a 10% profit margin in my example is actually a very successful business. Not even the "big evil oil companies" or "evil bankers" have a 10% profit margin. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Business models (like the poor example KN is using) is essentially what causes them to fail - they focus entirely on saving pennies rather than bringing in dollars. Don't look at things in big numbers, most manufacturing plants sell their parts for less than $.50 per part, some sell them for more than $.50 per part and have even lower margins. The business basics are the same, so making $50million on a billion parts isn't very effective, or financially sound. Basically, the labor cost should never exceed 30%, and your product and production cost should never exceed 40%, leaving an effective 30% profit margin. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Also, if the federal minimum wage is raised by an X%, don't you think the state's minimum wage will not be raised by that same %? So would DC. So would Massachusetts. But I'm sure that the 21 states that do have a higher than federal minimum wage would increase their minimum wage to be over the federal. Maybe not in the exact moment of the change, but they will soon afterwards. Ok, I just got off the phone with Connecticut, DC, and Massachuesetts and they agree with me that it's not contingent. They also have no idea where you're going with this either.
[+]
Well I just got the phone with Obama and he said you guys crack him up and are all doomed to poverty until you take matters into your own hands.
[+]
Actually, DC is an interesting case, since it's not a state, does it still states rights or just municipal rights?
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Well I just got the phone with Obama and he said you guys crack him up and are all doomed to poverty until you take matters into your own hands. there it is. no one gives a ***, except maybe your parents, if you're lucky.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If you're selling a product at 50 cents that costs 45 cents to make, you've failed horribly with bad business decisions, and should look at getting your head examined. Having a 10% profit margin in my example is actually a very successful business. Not even the "big evil oil companies" or "evil bankers" have a 10% profit margin. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Business models (like the poor example KN is using) is essentially what causes them to fail - they focus entirely on saving pennies rather than bringing in dollars. Don't look at things in big numbers, most manufacturing plants sell their parts for less than $.50 per part, some sell them for more than $.50 per part and have even lower margins. The business basics are the same, so making $50million on a billion parts isn't very effective, or financially sound. Basically, the labor cost should never exceed 30%, and your product and production cost should never exceed 40%, leaving an effective 30% profit margin. Walmart has a 3.386% net profit margin Toyota has a 4.360% net profit margin Bank of America is leading the pack with a 9.913% net profit margin, net of interest expense The point is, most companies very rarely show a high profit margin, and 10% is considered very high. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ok, I just got off the phone with Connecticut, DC, and Massachuesetts and they agree with me that it's not contingent. They also have no idea where you're going with this either. Good for you! Way to show your own stupidity in matters beyond your scope, even though you like to argue for the sake of argument. They're not contingent unless the federal wage is set higher than the state wage... which is what I *** said. Those states aren't obligated to change anything unless the fed rate is higher.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » They're not contingent unless the federal wage is set higher than the state wage... which is what I *** said. Those states aren't obligated to change anything unless the fed rate is higher. Still an idiot I see. Here, let me hold your hand while you read this: Quote: The Connecticut minimum wage rate automatically increases to 0.5 percent above the rate set in the Fair Labor Standards Act if the Federal minimum wage rate equals or becomes higher than the State minimum. Quote: The District of Columbia minimum wage equals the Federal minimum wage plus $1.00 if it is set below the Federal rate. Quote: The Massachusetts minimum wage rate automatically increases to 10 cents above the Federal rate if the Federal rate equals or becomes higher than the State rate. These states will automatically increase to stated amounts when and if the federal minimum comes close to the state minimums. So, if the federal rate increases, so does the states automatically. Try again? (incoming state law fallacy excuse) Apparently people in CA have nothing better to do than camp out waiting for donuts.
 (You can click on the picture to read the story.)
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » They're not contingent unless the federal wage is set higher than the state wage... which is what I *** said. Those states aren't obligated to change anything unless the fed rate is higher. Still an idiot I see. Here, let me hold your hand while you read this: Quote: The Connecticut minimum wage rate automatically increases to 0.5 percent above the rate set in the Fair Labor Standards Act if the Federal minimum wage rate equals or becomes higher than the State minimum. Quote: The District of Columbia minimum wage equals the Federal minimum wage plus $1.00 if it is set below the Federal rate. Quote: The Massachusetts minimum wage rate automatically increases to 10 cents above the Federal rate if the Federal rate equals or becomes higher than the State rate. These states will automatically increase to stated amounts when and if the federal minimum comes close to the state minimums. No So, if the federal rate increases, so does the states automatically.No, must be higher Try again? No (incoming state law fallacy excuse) This seems like quite a bit of effort to deflect from my request to substantiate your initial argument. It probably would have taken less time to do that in the first place. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.