The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Corporate social irresponsibility

Not when some asshole CEO decided to switch everyone from FT to 30 hours week so he can make political grand-stand.

These aren't some abstract political ideas these CEO asshats are messing with, these are livelihoods of other people.

Yes, yes and yes, because alternative is welfare and doing nothing.



Absolutely not, because "market forces" include $2/day salary for working in sweatshops in third world. Using "market force" as an excuse to drag America down to such level all in the name of profit is EXACTLY why I say market force doesn't always work.

1) Blame the politicians who arrogantly and ignorantly decided to play God and pretend like they could make things better. Good intent or not, politicians are not capable of engineering society. Obamacare was just a fete to Big Pharma and Big Insurance anyhow.

2) Like I said, many people do not need a livable wage. You should really spend a little effort thinking through unintended consequences. Also remember that the same rules you institute with evil evil pizza shack moguls in mind, will also apply to the corner store who is considering hiring an extra clerk so they have more free time.

3) At 2$/hr you wont find many takers in the US yet, thankfully. Unless people wise up to the destructiveness their good intentions actually manifest when turned into reality via govt violence that might change though. If you think that market forces would drive labor down to 2$/hr in a free society you arent thinking it through sufficiently. Conversely, low wages for a particular field simply sends a needed signal to society that " hey! we dont need any more people doing this! its worthless! Find something else to do!". Such signals are needed in order for the economy to run smoothly, and for people to plan intelligently regarding future careers. Your method sends the signal that "hey it doesn't matter, no matter what you will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if you choose to dig holes and fill them back up - someone has you covered!". Which is the wrong signal to send.

You advocating market force while conveniently ignoring WHO is on other side of that competition (hint - not an open democratic societies that allow its citizens decent living) is nothing short of a farce.

"Many people don't need livable wage" is an absurd argument. You ether have government or parents paying "the rest", both are 'safety nets'.

With all this complaining about "big government" you don't seem to have the problem with handouts to businesses in form of complimenting wages with welfare, because they colluded to set wages below livable wage.

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT acknowledge that when Papa Jones pays minimum wage, no beni 30h/week "part time" wage to someone, who in turn have to get A) all taxes reimbursed B) welfare handouts from the government, then Papa Jones effectively passes his costs onto government, and us the taxpayers? Why should I pay, with my tax dollars, for Papa Jones labor costs?

Lets say your argument is right. You would be wrong in one part. You do not know what labor cost is.

Papa Johns is going to have a hard time selling hot fresh pizzas made in China.

Besides, I have never been a "free trader". I differ with many libertarians regarding the free trade issue, even though my principles are the same because I view the trade/economic model slightly differently. Explaining it would bring us into the weeds, so I will leave it for another post.

Suffice to say in short, that I endorse free trade with other free traders and free societies and endorse tariffs against regimes that make effective use of slave labor or interventionism. An economy is something shared, and sharing your economic pool in an unrestricted manner with those who would piss in it is unwise.

-

Many people not needing a "livable" wage is simply an obvious observation. I find it hard to believe you would even try to make a contradictory case. "Livable" is also a relative term.

Lets look at this from a couple different angles -

First, it should be self evident that if less jobs are available then there will be more people with no non-supported income at all.

Second, lets talk about livability for a second. Kids, are going to be living with their parents regardless in almost all cases. Having a job simply lets them start gaining work experience and making their own monetary decisions, as well as getting the things they want without having to bug their parents for it. As far as students and young adults go, standards of living are different. A "livable wage" to someone living in a dorm, or in a house/apt with several roomates (like a great many people, including myself, did during their youth) is completely different than a "livable wage" for someone who wants to support a spouse and multiple offspring. Drying up the source of jobs for these people is completely counterproductive. Perhaps you think students taking on even more debt, being less able to work is a good idea- I would not agree at all.

-
I do not see why Papa Johns should concern themselves with the idiocies of govt any more than needed. If the govt does idiotic things and creates silly arbitrary rules in a doomed attempt to engineer society, its simply for the rest of us - Papa John included, to navigate the waters of stupidity as best we can, even if that means making decisions that seem silly on the face of it.

-
0.23 does not "sound" like a lot, when thinking in term of one pizza. However, in a macro sense it adds up to quite a sum. Also, there are other factors regarding price and marketability.

Lets say a pizza is $10. Not only is a 2.3% increase in inputs significant, but from a marketing standpoint 10.23 is an odd number to pay for anything. There is a reason everything is $x.99 and that is market psychology. Also, in increased costs are passed on - this can of course result in reduced sales.

So forgetting the supposed " rights" of workers for a second - lets think about the input supplier- people who sell the flour and tomatoes etc. Lets also not forget the shareholders... many of whom are not pizza moguls, but rather retirees with PapaJohns shares in their 401k, municipalities, and even unions who have Papa Johns stock in their pension portfolios...

In the real world, economics is complex. "Fairness" and causality can neither one be boiled down to simple 1-1 relationships, there are a lot of moving parts.

You are desperately trying to move away the argument from the "livable wages" by coming with a long list of excuses and special cases.

Underlying argument, that you are yet to address, is that unless all jobs pay livable wages, that allow recipients of said livable wages to afford basics of food, shelter, clothing and medical care then two things happen: a) they supplement income from the outside source, be it from parents, government or raking up credit card or student debts b) they live below poverty line. There is no c).

Special circumstances, like students holding part time jobs while at school, are still offloading labor costs on the outside source.

Your overall argument sums up to - "more people should be on welfare and/or poor". When combined with your distaste of welfare it simplifies to "more people should be poor".

I don't think it will come as a surprise, but I disagree. Thankfully, so is the rest of the country. See election results.

No, they arent special circumstances. They are typical. Seriously, did you know anyone in their late teens and early 20's who never had a roomate? Its kind of ironic, that you use the assertion that "I am avoiding an argument" while you yourself completely avoid dealing with the numerous obstacles that reality throws up against your desire for societal engineering being able to have a positive outcome.

I am not desperately doing anything but pointing out that your logic is overly simplistic, and unrealistic. It does not, will not, and can not be beneficial to those of us who live in reality. Your premises are faulty, your data is lacking and if you are trying to answer the question of "How can we improve living for the poor while lessening welfare outlays" your mental model is wholly insufficient to provide the answer you seek.

The path to prosperity is less govt tinkering. Its really that simple. More prosperity equates to more people working, and less people on welfare. When more people are needed for employment, demand for labor increases and supply decreases pushing wages higher.

You make absurd conclusions on the basis that politicians should play SimCity, except they are all uniformly poor at it and reality is far more complex than any simulation.

More people do disagree with me for now, however noone has ever made a case that popularity and morality are one in the same. Or popularity and correctness, or popularity and anything but.. popularity.

The net result of your policies, despite all the intentions and simplistic moralizing in the world will be quite simple: More poverty, less prosperity, less opportunity, less liberty, and a generally worse living environment for everyone - not only including, bus especially for the people you purport to help.

And that, is the hard reality. The results speak for themselves, and the results are poor.

Feel free to also address the argument of this discussion.



While above might be one of your more cherished believes, it does not address anything I have said.

Its irrelevant, all jobs pay livable wages when you get right down to it. If you want to be formal about it which it is seeming the direction you are taking this to focus so intensely on the point:

We can call your assertion true for now, however that truth does not support any other arguments you typically seem inclined to make.

So I am not sure why you spend so much time on it, and avoid the more interesting discussion regarding the ramifications of policies you generally consider friendly. (Like Obamacare)