patrick.net

spydah_hh says

Here first thing is first... There are only 28... YES 28 McDonald restaurants in Australia

I don't know where you got your #s -- there are over 900 McDonald's in Australia. This according to McDonald's own website.spydah_hh says

In Texas you can buy a 2,926 sq ft 2-STORY home for $350k.

Maybe some miserable fucking scrubhole outside Ft Worth or Odessa, but you're not going to be buying a spread like that for 350 in the capitol city, (Austin -- not Round Rock! Not the same city, so don't even try it). And that has more to do with Austin being a speculative playground right now. But that's another story.

spydah_hh says

With high minimum wage it's only natural for McDonalds to have such a small amount of restaurants because let's face it Mikey D's wouldn't even be capable of opening that many stores and providing that many jobs in Australia as they have in Texas with minimum wage being $16/hr. This alone is proof that higher minimum wage kills jobs..

There's no proof here whatsoever. There's only rhetoric, and as you can see, even that doesn't hold up under even the most casual scrutiny.

indigenous says

You are your own caricature

Try with your left hand, buddy. It has a slightly different feel!

Reality says

hmm, the minimum wage law literally says jobs paying less than a certain amount are outlawed. duh.

I'm not sure what point you think you're illustrating with this. Yes -- jobs paying below a living wage are "outlawed" -- however, inflation as it is measured today in this country, is pegged to some very dicey metrics. Even at 10 dollars an hour, you're well south of the poverty line in America. That's inexcusable for a country this wealthy. It's even embarrassing.

Reality says

LOL. No they did not have laws mandating a livable minimum wage. Their minimum wage law was put in place when the Aussie dollar was half of US$. A$16 was less than US$8 when the law was put in place.

Australia had exactly such mandates in place since the late 19th century. Their dollar was never as anemic as you suggest -- certainly not in 2005 when the AFPC was first established to oversee fair pay practices. Trust me, the AUS dollar was never half the USD in 2005 or at any point in your lifetime. I have done business with and in Australia for the last 25 years.

Reality says

Laws mandating livable wage (i.e. wage enough to provide for a family) is just another way of saying each family can only have one bread winner legally; everyone else, especially at the lower social strata, would have to start at illegal jobs like drug dealing and prostitution first.

Wha?? That's a really fucking bizarre extrapolation. It's not any such thing.

Reality says

Further proof that the Australian phenomenon is the result of currency appreciation due to commodity boom in the past decade.

You're fixating upon one facet of the overall picture.

Here is an old video from the Sowell man, you see this argument is very old and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Bb9zJJVdUd8

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Black unemployment was the same as white unemployment right up to the time some mutt decided to have a minimum wage and has never been the same since because it was not economically viable to hire them.

In case you want to pull the race card Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams are black.

JodyChunder says

I don't know where you got your #s -- there are over 900 McDonald's in Australia. This according to McDonald's own website.spydah_hh says

You're right I Stand corrected on this there are over 780+ Mc Donalds in Austarila.

JodyChunder says

Maybe some miserable fucking scrubhole outside Ft Worth or Odessa, but you're not going to be buying a spread like that for 350 in the capitol city, (Austin -- not Round Rock! Not the same city, so don't even try it). And that has more to do with Austin being a speculative playground right now. But that's another story.

Actually I did more research on this. I decided to compare homes for sale in Canberra Aus. and Austin, Texas as they're both the capital of their country/state or lets just say governance.

What I found is a lot worst than I realized from my previous comparison (I admit I rushed).

Anyway, Most homes in Canberra Aus. cost well over 400k and those are just flats with mostly 1 bed and 1 bath and an occasionally two bed and 1 bath. A 350k home in Austin, texas will net you about a 2,000-2900sq ft 2 story 3 beds and 2-3 baths.

I also did a quick comparison of the 2014 Nissan Altima sedan in AUS they start at 33k while the U.S. starts at 22k. It's quite simple the cost of living in Aus is very high way high.

http://www.nissan.com.au/Cars-Vehicles/Altima/Overview

http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/variant/index/dealer_locator_form?globalModelLineName=altima&modelLineCode=ALT&zipCode=94533&tool=model.vlp.build.button&lang=en

indigenous says

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Again, this argument only sounds compelling if you overlook the fact that it takes place in a vacuum. It totally, laughably neglects a crucial feature of the law of demand, which is that it holds only when everything else in the economy remains unchanged; ceteris paribus can only be realized in a controlled test environment where all of the independent variables other than the one under study can be controlled for, so that the effect of a single independent variable on the dependent variable can be isolated. One such variable is that, people who aren't so near the hairy edge feel better; they feel more secure; they have more ability to save and invest or to spend back into the economy. (They also pay more in taxes.)

As the owner of multiple small businesses in and around San Berdoo, I can tell you that I've witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. And trust me, when demand for products is high, I push extra hard to meet it. I'm not gonna lay off my workers or stop hiring, regardless of whether or not the minimum wage is rising. It's not just me; when demand was expanding strongly in 1997, the min wage hike did not affect the unemployment rate at all. It's speculator-caused recessions that cause jobs to dry up, with demand for products falling -- and entirely independent of the minimum wage. Show me ONE fucking example of a recession that was caused by a minimum wage increase! Buncha boogeyman bullshit.

Meanwhile, the price increases needed to fully compensate businesses for the additional costs of paying that measly ten dollar increase everyone's shitting themselves over would be modest. Something on the order of about 2.7% -- 3%. As a real world example -- remember a few years ago when Santa Fe raised its minimum wage from $5.15 to $8.50? (I do.) The price of my favorite meal in downtown SF, a $10 three piece fried chicken dinner with fried okra and cornbread and hominy and collard greens and cheese grits and fresh peach ice cream and a big ass'd glass of real chocolate buttermilk increased to...$10.31. If you think .33 is gonna keep Jody Chunder or any other lard-veined, red-blooded Americans like me away from the gut wagon, you can fucking forget it!

On the other hand, American middle class families just don't dine out as much these days, because they can't afford to...because they don't get paid shit! And it's Koch smokers like you that try to brainwash them into thinking that things are just as they should be!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/opinion/granderson-red-lobster/

spydah_hh says

A 350k home in Austin, texas will net you about a 2,000-2900sq ft 2 story 3 beds and 2-3 baths.

I have a son in Austin. I know that market pretty well. If we are talking Austin proper, I think your numbers are a little...off.

jvolstad says

Education will do it better.

Yeah, cause that's real fucking affordable. Come on...

tovarichpeter says

$10 minimum wage will lift 5 million out of poverty

those who are working.. will do nothing for those unemployed and
facing poverty..

what is your plan to get the unemployed working ? all you get is silence.

The liberal left is so blinded they just dont get this ... their policies have failed.

indigenous says

Here is an old video from the Sowell man, you see this argument is very old and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

JodyChunder says

Show me ONE fucking example of a recession that was caused by a minimum wage increase! Buncha boogeyman bullshit.

how do you set the standard for min wage ? is is based on worker in Urban California, which is certainly different than rural California, or middle America, or the Southern States. If we were to apply the Min Wage Standards based on SF prime, it certainly would impact your own business.

Obama's so called plan is a dismal failure.

Where is the Beef ?

Democrats have no idea how to expand jobs across the board,

so their new plan is to increase min wage...

We find that during the recession (2008 Q1 to 2010 Q1), employment losses occurred throughout the economy, but were concentrated in mid-wage
occupations. By contrast, during the recovery (2010 Q1 to 2012 Q1), employment gains have been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, which
grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations. Specifically:

Lower-wage occupations constituted 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
Mid-wage occupations constituted 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
Higher-wage occupations constituted 19 percent of recession job losses, and 20 percent of recovery growth.

indigenous says

Names?

John F. Kennedy, had Richard Nixon won the 1960 elections the world would be a nuclear wasteland today. All of the other bullshit he is credit for really over shadows his greatest feat as the leader of the free world. And possibly the last true leader America ever had.

All of that other bullshit he is attributed for doing, he was just doing his brother's bidding for him. Those were Roberts lofty pie in sky dreams.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

Simple stuff you raise the price of an employee he is no longer worth what he is getting paid so the owner is forced to hire only experienced guys as they can produce enough to be worth the wages or he can automate or he can do without.

Again, this argument only sounds compelling if you overlook the fact that it takes place in a vacuum.

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

It sounds like your business' are retail? What is the training required for these jobs? What are the implications for someone being untrained in these positions? In a trade or manufacturing the implications of both can be huge, not to mention the output. And the labor cost component of the sale.

Actually I can see your perspective in a retail environment but not in other fields. As an employer you are constantly weighing the value of the individual to your business, in most the employer has to make an investment in the worker at entry level positions chances are good the worker does not even know how to work for 8 hours let alone be productive or punctual or dependable or have a modicum of good manners, or the simple idea of exchange.

So rather than make this investment with exposure to unemployment, disability, workers comp, labor lawsuits, stupid mistakes, etc. The employer automates as with self check out, robotic equipment, online sales, of outsourcing, etc.

He does not locate where his cost from these factors are higher such as South Central LA or Detroit or DC. The statistics are not going to be even either you are going to have astronomical unemployment where enterprise is most inhibited by the culture or government intervention. After the riots in LA in 92 stores did not come back as the costs were too high. In Detroit the government corruption and cost are too high for a business to want to go there, this is the future of Chicago the influences of these two are palpable when you go there, also this has had a palpable effect on Calif.

The guys most likely to hire the entry level worker is small business and the guy who has been impacted the most has been small business.

Now it is true technology has made many jobs irrelevant. Which points out the importance of small business as it is always nascent to the future. (think Apple starting in a garage).

The way that Apple in the garage gets to be Apple now is investment. What turn China from a great place to invest to a lousy one is over-investment. This is not going to be even it will reach a tipping point and the investment will leave an area. Minimum wage is one of these factors. As it makes the employee that much more unnecessary to focus on the customer and exchanging with the customer.

Of course you are going to deny all of this and ignore the evidence in favor of your empirical viewpoint from San Berdoo. I will say what I should have said at first and last I will agree to disagree.

CaptainShuddup says

indigenous says

Names?

John F. Kennedy, had Richard Nixon won the 1960 elections the world would be a nuclear wasteland today. All of the other bullshit he is credit for really over shadows his greatest feat as the leader of the free world. And possibly the last true leader America ever had.

All of that other bullshit he is attributed for doing, he was just doing his brother's bidding for him. Those were Roberts lofty pie in sky dreams.

I think once you start deifying someone you are in trouble.

Although Kennedy did a good job regarding national defense, except regarding Viet Nam, I would stop short of deifying him. The stage is set for the "great" ones by having a great enemy to make them look great.

Nixon might have done similar things? He did open trade with China, he did end the Viet Nam war, on the other hand he ended Bretton Woods of which he may not have had a choice. It is not as clear cut as it would appear at first glance.

I would rather look to Coolidge for doing the most important thing regarding the economy shrink government and keep government meddling to a minimum. But not a deity he did not realize the problems created by the central bank or that much of the boom of the 20s was caused by undervaluing the Dollar as China has done with the Yuan.

IThe Professor says

Who them?

The entry level workers.

indigenous says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and weighing it all against some careful research.

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!

JodyChunder says

indigenous
says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom
grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based
upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and
weighing it all against some careful research.

Yes as far as you know...

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

You reject the profound thinking of Dr Sowell and Dr Williams both of whom grew up in the projects and instead go with your empirical experience.

Empiricism has served me fairly well. I'm just sharing my perspective based upon what I have experienced in my life and the mistakes I've learned from, and weighing it all against some careful research.

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

JodyChunder says

By the way, there are at least four things I can think of right off the bat that are hampering the next Apple: patent hoarders, education (both the cost and the quality of), an over-lawyered playing field and our serial bubble economy. Not the cost of labor!

Funny I agree! But all these are problems that are caused by the government.

indigenous says

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

They're entirely relevant, and you're conflating investors with speculators.

thomaswong.1986 says

how do you set the standard for min wage ? is is based on worker in Urban California, which is certainly different than rural California, or middle America, or the Southern States. If we were to apply the Min Wage Standards based on SF prime, it certainly would impact your own business.

Yeah, I'd be sitting even prettier.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

hmm, the minimum wage law literally says jobs paying less than a certain amount are outlawed. duh.

I'm not sure what point you think you're illustrating with this. Yes -- jobs paying below a living wage are "outlawed" -- however, inflation as it is measured today in this country, is pegged to some very dicey metrics. Even at 10 dollars an hour, you're well south of the poverty line in America. That's inexcusable for a country this wealthy. It's even embarrassing.

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all? Everyone has to start somewhere. Chances are that person starting the very first job in his/her life is still living with parents! No wonder we have a high youth employability problem.

JodyChunder says

Australia had exactly such mandates in place since the late 19th century. Their dollar was never as anemic as you suggest -- certainly not in 2005 when the AFPC was first established to oversee fair pay practices. Trust me, the AUS dollar was never half the USD in 2005 or at any point in your lifetime. I have done business with and in Australia for the last 25 years.

In April of 2001, the Australian Dollar was equivalent to less than 48 US cents. I'm pretty sure that I was alive in 2001, and 2001 was within the last 25 years. In fact, as recently as 2009, the A$ was below 65 US cents.

Reality says

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all?

That's a very bizarre conclusion, and entirely your own. This would be like me saying, "livestock should not be fed meal comprised of other livestock; therefore, livestock should not be fed at all." What?

JodyChunder says

Laws mandating livable wage (i.e. wage enough to provide for a family) is just another way of saying each family can only have one bread winner legally; everyone else, especially at the lower social strata, would have to start at illegal jobs like drug dealing and prostitution first.

Wha?? That's a really fucking bizarre extrapolation. It's not any such thing.

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

JodyChunder says

Reality says

What's your point? People making below poverty line (before counting support from family) shouldn't be allowed to work at all?

That's a very bizarre conclusion, and entirely your own. This would be like me saying, "livestock should not be fed meal comprised of other livestock; therefore, livestock should not be fed at all." What?

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch. Such a law would indeed ensure that no livestock would be fed. Only pets would be fed.

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living? People live by consuming the output of other people's work. There are literally less productive people in this world who can not produce enough to trade for food and housing all on their own (a classic example of that would be some young person trying out the very first job in his/her life). Should they not be allowed to work at all? That's what your "livable wage" law is essentially advocating.

Reality says

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

It's bizarre because it makes not one fucking iota of sense on this or any other planet in this solar system.

Besides Cost of Living is not figured in relative terms. CPI is approximated using a geometric mean formula which grossly understates real inflation.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

What is bizarre about it? Cost of living and poverty line are relative measures that move up with the average income. What you are proposing is as silly as a law to make everyone's income above average!

It's bizarre because it makes not one fucking iota of sense on this or any other planet in this solar system.

Besides Cost of Living is not figured in relative terms. CPI is approximated using a geometric mean formula which grossly understates real inflation.

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income. If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . . either you build zillions of apartments to ensure everyone in town can have his/her own apartment without having to live with their parents, or more likely the hapless 15yr old is banned from working by your law.

Reality says

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living?

You are considering only two variables in the equation in order to create a boogeyman. The cost of living goes up (by a miniscule percentage) but guess what? Revenues also go up!

Reality says

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch.

Not at all. Look again at the impact the minimum wage hike Santa Fe' had in 2004. None of the sturm und drang that you and other libertarians like to proffer.

Let me try out some of your specious reasoning here: the less we can get away with paying for labor, the more money there would be in the overall economy -- dollar for dollar. Right? By this logic, I should actually debit my employees for the privilege of providing their labor to me.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

Those are all fine points but irrelevant as the investor is simply going to say deal me out, I get treated better elsewhere.

They're entirely relevant, and you're conflating investors with speculators.

Either way it doesn't matter. The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

Do you not understand higher wages bid up the cost of living?

You are considering only two variables in the equation in order to create a boogeyman. The cost of living goes up (by a miniscule percentage) but guess what? Revenues also go up!

What Revenue? Tax revenue or revenue for businesses catering to consumers? Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

JodyChunder says

Reality says

No, what you are proposing is the equivalent of that livestocks have to be fed only with feeds that cost as much per pound as the livestocks themselves would fetch.

Not at all. Look again at the impact the minimum wage hike Santa Fe' had in 2004. None of the sturm und drang that you and other libertarians like to proffer.

In case you did not realize, 2004-2008 Santa Fe economy was driven by a massive real estate bubble, quite unrelated to minimum wage one way or another.

Let me try out some of your specious reasoning here: the less we can get away with paying for labor, the more money there would be in the overall economy -- dollar for dollar. Right?

Wrong. It has nothing to do with getting away with less or getting away with more. Let the market clear, so as to maximize jobs / employment / market-exchange.

By this logic, I should actually debit my employees for the privilege of providing their labor to me.

That's what minimum wage laws have already led to: unpaid internships and surplus graduate school students!

Reality says

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income.

No it isn't.

Reality says

If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . .

"Snotty faced 15 year olds" are not the demographic I'm concerned with here. But I think I'm getting a glimpse of the real narrative here.

Reality says

What Revenue? Tax revenue or revenue for businesses catering to consumers?

Both, of course.

Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

Pure bullshit. Show me one single example of a recession or spike in unemployment caused by a hike in the minimum wage anywhere in the world.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

Cost of living is bid up by rising household income.

No it isn't.

Of course it is. It's ludicrous to make a law that mandates every person in a household having a job at all should be able to afford his/her own place. It's common to find more than one income in a household.

JodyChunder says

Reality says

If you pass a law that insists a snotty faced 15yr old delivering papers and making hamburger have to be paid enough to have his/her own apartment . . .

"Snotty faced 15 year olds" are not the demographic I'm concerned with here. But I think I'm getting a glimpse of the real narrative here.

What's your point? I was a snotty faced 15yr old once. I'm grateful for "being exploited" and gaining my first work experience at that job.

indigenous says

The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

I can't create jobs for people who don't have money to spend on my products and services. Get it?

JodyChunder says

Either way, how can workers laid off help generate revenue?

Pure bullshit. Show me one single example of a recession or spike in unemployment caused by a hike in the minimum wage anywhere in the world.

You living in one right now! Why else do you think there is a massive youth unemployment problem? The combination of de jure minimum wage and de facto minimum wage due to student debt and welfare/taxation have convinced many young not to work a legit job.

Reality says

What's your point?

Because snotty-faced 15 year olds is what springs to mind for you when I'm discussing living wages -- which is insane, as a 15 year-old is still a fucking dependent and not the subject being considered. Red herring, etc, etc.

I hope you grew out of your enjoyment of exploitation. But if not, don't go around assuming your masochism is a one-size fits-all neurosis.

Reality says

Of course it is

Nope.

JodyChunder says

indigenous says

The irrelevance is that unless the business is able to create jobs everything you said is irrelevant.

I can't create jobs for people who don't have money to spend on my products and services. Get it?

So you think you'd create more jobs if you are required to pay them more while they don't have jobs?

Reality says

You living in one right now!

If you're really trying to suggest that our current economic twilight is the result of the minimum wage, then you're a lost soul.

JodyChunder says

Because snotty faced 15 year olds is what springs to mind when I'm discussing living wages -- which is insane, as a 15 year old is still a fucking dependent.

People at minimum wage jobs often are dependents. Everyone has to start somewhere. You are proposing to ban the dependents from working. That's horrible for both the young needing work experience and the families that count on the dependents for part of the household income.