Originally Posted By: Derid

There is plenty of evidence that it would have an effect on profitability - its called a bell curve. Some surely would be able to successfully pass on costs, the problem is you are making sweeping statements assuming all would, which is just another assumption you pulled out of nowhere because it conveniently fits your ideology. The fact is, you have no idea how many would or would not be able to pass on costs and remain competitive.


Both scenarios are obviously hypothetical.

Scenario A: Paying livable wages and healthcare would bankrupt currently profitable corporations.

Scenario B: Paying livable wages and healthcare would result in passing costs to the consumer.

You are saying, with almost certainty, that Scenario A will happen and that these corporations are so dependent on government sponsoring labor costs via welfare that they could not function without it.

In such case, isn't it the argument for getting government out of business of retail and fast food labor costs? After all, you are proponent of free market and advocate 'natural' price (of labor) equilibrium dictated by the market.

Please clarify your position so we can proceed.

Quote:
You have yet to define what a "livable wage" is as well


I think it is well understood that take home of poverty level + $1 is a working definition of a livable wages. I realize it is not ideal definition and was shown to low-ball it in expensive metropolitan areas, but there are government agencies that calculate it based on regional costs, basket of goods and so on and try to define it as well as possible.

Quote:
Given the level of inflation created by increasing wages


Actually, this is not a 'given' anymore and has been shown to not always be the case.

Have you read Ron Unz's essay discussing this? He isn't exactly bleeding heart liberal.

Last edited by sini; 12/08/12 01:06 PM.
[Linked Image]