Let me know where I've missed something
The wages paid to In n Out Burger employees, the fresh materials used in their products, and the fact that their products cost less than McDonalds. I'm not familiar with In-n-Out, so you'll have to be more specific about their wages (more than $7.25/h?), their burgers (higher quality?), and their business (walk-in restaurant? Amenities?) |
|
|
|
For that to be true, you would have to assume that raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of products&services, and does not raise the price of everything at the same time as well (I.e. a min wage earner earning $5, then getting wages raised to $7, will still be earning an equivalent of $5 when adjusted by the resulting inflation).
You need to demonstrate some things to follow that line of logic. They are: - The efficiency of $5 workers vs. $8 workers I'm saying you are using nominal values, when the real value of those is the same. The efficiency of a worker earning $5 in year 1 is the same as the efficiency of a worker earning $8 in year 2 when adjusted for the 60% inflation caused by the rise in that wage. Now, I'll grant you that the inflation jump won't be in the entire economy. As i mentioned previously, high level services and products used by wealthy people will probably not be affected, but things used by those same minimum wage earners, like fast food, bread, milk and other produce, discount store prices, and other businesses like that will be. - The operating margins of the company
In a perfectly competitive market, margins, and thus profits, are zero. A lot of the companies that have minimum wage workers are in industries with enormous competition. McD's has Burger King, White Castle, Hardee's, Checkers/Rally's, Wendy's, Arbys, Roy Rogers, and even Taco Bell to compete against if you include substitutions. Thus I expect their margins to be tiny, pennies per hamburger (close to $0.13 for a BigMac back in 2001, no idea what now). Small margins = raise prices or reduce costs (employees) - The law of diminishing returns regarding more workers
This is almost irrelevant, as any company that hopes to compete would keep only the workers it needs. Companies don't hire more employees just to give someone a job. Those that do that are beaten out on price and fail. - The quality of service or products using cheaper labor
Again, irrelevant, because the quality of the product or service is what you are selling, not what you are giving away for free. The reason Checkers/Hardee's can charge more than McD's for their burgers and still stay in business is because they provide more quality burgers. It is NOT because they pay their employees more, and the employees choose to make better burgers as a "thank you" to the company. So, if the quality of your product sucks, yes, you can hire more competent employees and pay them a higher wage (which wouldn't have anything to do with minimum wage laws), but then you would have to include that increased cost in your product, or go broke. And if the quality of your product sucks compared to your competitor, but you are both paying the same wages, then obviously something else is wrong. And if your product just plain sucks, then no amount of well paid employees will help you anyway. Let me know where I've missed something |
|
|
|
it's worth noting that the idea that we suffocate in an environment or an atmosphere without co2 is wrong -- we do not suffocate, we do breathe, even el 100% oxygen, because the body is producing co2 as you breathe so there's always enough co2 to in the lungs to trigger your respiration reflex.
FirstIdiot can't even get his analogies right. Not even that. I loled. plus the analogy is stupid because it doesn't capture minimum wage and its economic implications.
Please give him some (A LOT of) credit; at least he's not cunicula. |
|
|
|
Yes I missed your lesson on where supply/demand curves break down. Rather, if you had such a lesson, I didn't see it.
That's unfortunate. Perhaps you can help by pointing it out? I likely missed it because I confused it with just another random debate post. No, I am asking you what the "other factors" you mentioned you knew are making the unemployment rate stay stable despite the cost of labor being increased.
Perhaps because the minimum wage floor puts enough money in the lowest wage earners' pockets that they can actually become (to a point) effective participants in the economy, which in turn helps drive the economy. For that to be true, you would have to assume that raising the minimum wage does not increase the cost of products&services, and does not raise the price of everything at the same time as well (I.e. a min wage earner earning $5, then getting wages raised to $7, will still be earning an equivalent of $5 when adjusted by the resulting inflation). There's a balance in everything.
Ah, I remember examining and looking for that balance in one of my economics classes. We still used supply/demand/price/quantity graphs to find out where it was and what overall effect it has. |
|
|
|
|
Yes I missed your lesson on where supply/demand curves break down. Rather, if you had such a lesson, I didn't see it.
No, I am asking you what the "other factors" you mentioned you knew are making the unemployment rate stay stable despite the cost of labor being increased.
|
|
|
|
Did you read the paper I posted? The one about not finding any correlation between wage floors and unemployment rates?
Can you explain why there is no correlation, when the basic law of supply and demand says there should be? Haven't a number of people opened your eyes to this? I mentioned examples myself regarding the basic supply/demand curve (not necessarily related to minimum wage floors). The basic supply/demand curve doesn't necessarily apply in the real world, where there are other factors. Off the top of my head, it's easy to point out that anything below $8 an hour is just noise (made by screaming libertarians). As I pointed out earlier, I don't see a shortage of Walmart workers in Walmart stores, even at minimum wage levels. (I definitely see a shortage at my local WalMarts) So, it's NOT because an increase in minimum wage increases the cost of goods & services, which increases their price, which in turn pushes up the price of everything else, causing a sort-of inflation, and in the end making the minimum wage earners earn (and cost) the same amount of value they have before, even if the numbers on their paychecks increased? Which, while making their purchasing power be basically what it was before, makes everything in the country go up in price, and thus making the country as a whole be less competitive compared to the rest of the world? If these supply/demand factors I mentioned are not it, then what factors are? |
|
|
|
A ray - slim though it might be - of hope for some of this forum's participants, then...  Makes me curious what you used to believe. A brief summary: I've wandered all over the political spectrum, from "rebellious" anarchism (the teenaged, unfocused, fuck the system type) to card-carrying democrat (voted for Clinton both times), to Ron Paul Republican, to minarchist libertarian, and finally, to AnCap. I was under the impression you were not from US |
|
|
|
i think you made some good points. Gold really isnt a great money from a technical standpoint. it would likely be deflationary and this would likely lead to hording which would hamper economic growth.
Gold has a historical record of increasing supply roughly equal to population growth. There have been some blips, but roughly speaking, gold has held it's value pretty steady since well before that long-haired hippy started preaching against the moneylenders on the temple steps. Is THAT why long-term investment in gold yields something like 3% return? Is that inflation adjusted?  Apparently.. yes. "Since 1900 to 2011 bullion made real returns of only 1.3% a year..." Real returns - returns adjusted for changes in prices due to inflation or other external effects |
|
|
|
i think you made some good points. Gold really isnt a great money from a technical standpoint. it would likely be deflationary and this would likely lead to hording which would hamper economic growth.
Gold has a historical record of increasing supply roughly equal to population growth. There have been some blips, but roughly speaking, gold has held it's value pretty steady since well before that long-haired hippy started preaching against the moneylenders on the temple steps. Is THAT why long-term investment in gold yields something like 3% return? |
|
|
|
|
The French also invented Daft Punk, so I hope this exchange can also trade it harder, better, faster, stronger!
|
|
|
|
This one was used by Matthew too  |
|
|
|
I miss Matthew Wright. He was a treasure trove of this things. This was one of his  |
|
|
|
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
That last one really needs to be qualified, and specifically mean fiscal conservative. A lot of older people are social conservatives, and that's always bad. And actually, the word conservative in there isn't even right, either. I know it's a colloquial meaning of conservative, i.e. "thinking about economics from the right political position," but conservative really just means resistance to change, and fear of trying something new, even in the face of conflicting evidence. In that sense, Comunist USSR was extremely conservative, both socially and economically, Democrats are mildly conservative, wishing to preserve the status-quo of the current tax rates and entitlement programs, but being somewhat lenient on social issues, and libertarianism is extremely liberal in all senses. So, if you don't mind, since I came from the liberal, Democratic, immigrant, same-sex left, I'll continue to have disdain for anything conservative  |
|
|
|
And some more embarrassing naivete from same discussion Regarding the main point, gold; the reason gold standard really bothers me is because I feel it would be way too similar to last year's oil spike: people hoard it, driving the cost of it up artificially. At least oil is renewable; gold is not quite as much. If gold were the currency standard, people hoarding gold would make its value go up. Food would cost less and less gold comparatively. That's deflation. Should the bubble pop, or another type of currency enter the market, the gold, having almost no utility value, would crash, and food would cost more and more gold. Inflation. We would essentially be in a perpetual cycle, driven by people not smart enough to realize what they're doing. Am I incorrect in understanding this? Also, our economy, and our population, has expanded exponentially in the last few decades. With a limited supply of gold, we would have less and less gold per person. Scarcity would again lead to deflation (price of money/gold going up). Even with banks using low reserve rates and re-loaning the money, I can't see something like gold growing fast enough to support this, can you?
|
|
|
|
Created a disqus account, and it pulled my various posts from random blogs from years ago. Stumbled onto this "gem" I posted on a personal finance site, where I was arguing about monetary policy. Man, I'm blushing reading some of this "Modern" economy is different from 30's and 40's economy due to drastically increased speed and globalization. Gold production could ALMOST keep up with economic expansion in the 30's without causing too much deflation. I don't think that is the case now (considering The Wizard of Oz, it doesn't seem like it was back then, either).
Inflation "forces" the economy to move. Businesses rush to continue to invest, expand, and create ways of turning their value-losing cash into more cash in order to outpace inflation. Customers rush to buy goods and services, or to invest in businesses, to make sure their money does not lose value either. Deflation would mean people would have an incentive to hold on to their cash and watch it grow, rather than spend it. Deflation also runs the risk of self-feeding stagnation: people hold onto their money instead of buying things, economy slows and available cash declines, cash increases in value even more, people have even more incentive to hold onto their cash instead of grow it, and on and on (until we have a cash bubble, like the tulip mania in Netherlands). Both runaway inflation and runaway deflation are bad, but I believe low 2% to 3% inflation is better and safer than 2% to 3% deflation, and has a way lower risk for making things go really bad.
Also, why specifically "gold" for a standard? Why not silver, platinum, or tulips? I don't believe gold can increase in quantity rapidly enough to keep up with our economic expansion, so it would lead to severe deflation. Fiat currency allows us to more or less control inflationary and deflationary forces (start or stop the printers, so to speak). We can't control the amount of gold in mines. Also since we are globalized, and can easily buy other types of commodities or currencies, why even a "standard?" If you are worried about USD, you can buy precious metal ETFs, stocks, or even Euros/Yen. As I see it, due to much more globalized economy, extremely fast speed of transactions, and with way fewer barriers, we already have a somewhat free market for currency, one that competes against other forms of currency and valuables. The only barrier left is free immigration: we can't easily escape taxes by moving to another country.
-- Rassah (3 years ago)
|
|
|
|
There are a variety of reasons people may choose to use banks instead of just keeping their own secure wallets. Perhaps they trust the bank to do a better job of securing the bitcoins than they believe they can do themselves?
Blockchaininfo.com provides the security, but leaves one last component that decrypts your private key to you. It's like they store your money in a highly secure bank vault, but still need your key to open your suitcase of money inside. And what happens if you lose your keys? A bank can drill open the bank vault, but I don't think anyone will be drilling open your private keys. The bank will store your keys. That's where their part of the security comes in. You just have to make sure you remember your password to decrypt that key, which you can also write on a piece of paper to store at home. Frankly, same for your keys: blockchain.info let's you print your private keys to store at home, or back them up to a number of online storages. So, you get the convenience of banking anywhere online, they provide the security, and you provide backups if you want. Perhaps the banks provide a convenience for engaging in bitcoin based transactions in the physical world (debit cards, checks, etc)?
. . . It's already possible to store all your coins directly on your device, or sign and send transactions for coins that exist on blockchain, without the online bank having access to them. Right up until you drop your phone in the toilet, or it gets stolen, and then you lose all access to any addresses that had the private key on that device. Same as above. My phone wallet's private key is safely backed up at home. If I lose the phone or it gets stolen, the phone is locked, and I just move the money elsewhere. Perhaps the banks offer reduced transaction fees?
That is only possible within the bank, by bypassing the Bitcoin network (the way MtGox gives you a BTC address, but actually stores everyone's coins in a single pool). I guess that could be a bonus if you're only doing business with others who also bank at the same place It is also possible if multiple banks (in the interest of reducing their own transaction fees) agree to settle up interbank transactions at the end of the day (or week, or month, etc) with a single transaction. That may happen, and depending on the size of future transaction fees may be inevitable, but then people would have to chose, pay a transaction fee, or give someone else full control of your money. We're used to giving others full control of our money because normal money can't work any other way. With the possibilities that Bitcoin allows, and a few more scams and bank failures, not giving the bank control may become the norm. |
|
|
|
There are a variety of reasons people may choose to use banks instead of just keeping their own secure wallets. Perhaps they trust the bank to do a better job of securing the bitcoins than they believe they can do themselves?
Blockchaininfo.com provides the security, but leaves one last component that decrypts your private key to you. It's like they store your money in a highly secure bank vault, but still need your key to open your suitcase of money inside. Perhaps the banks offer to pay a small interest rate on deposits?
Maybe with Bitcoin slowly growing in value anyway, there won't be a demand for it. And if their is, hopefully the banks will separate banking (storing your money safely) from investing (letting you put some of your money into accounts used for loans and other investments). But you're probably right, we'll likely have interest bearing accounts, with subsequent bank failures from managers who got too greedy, and people learning lessons over and over about not investing everything they have in one place. Perhaps the banks provide a convenience for engaging in bitcoin based transactions in the physical world (debit cards, checks, etc)?
Bitcoincard, and phone wallets will hopefully solve that problem. Or any new technology we haven't seen yet. It's already possible to store all your coins directly on your device, or sign and send transactions for coins that exist on blockchain, without the online bank having access to them. Perhaps the banks offer reduced transaction fees?
That is only possible within the bank, by bypassing the Bitcoin network (the way MtGox gives you a BTC address, but actually stores everyone's coins in a single pool). I guess that could be a bonus if you're only doing business with others who also bank at the same place |
|
|
|
|
^^ Which may be difficult when Bitcoin already allows you to transfer address to address yourself, and services like blockchain.info have shown that it's possible to provide the convenience of online banking without the bank having any access to your coins.
Exchanges are still a problem in their current "pool all btc together" form, and MtGox could easily be reporting a higher BTC balance than they actually have, and no one would be able to verify that.
|
|
|
|
With the updates you gave me, we actually have 63.88189276 bitcoin available to donate now. This includes the 1BTC we just got about half an hour ago (no info on who it's from). In total that comes up to about $856 USD (we also have 8.048BTC sitting in the Ron Paul account, and I have NO idea what to do with that) BTW, I'd like to point out that I am currently sitting on a pile of 525 BTC, or $7,061.25, including $2,265 USD worth from totally anonymous sources which would be extremely easy to take a chunk of without anyone noticing. Despite that, I've accounted for every Satoshi, and have not scammed anything at all. So, yay for a Bitcoin thing that's not mired in scams. I feel I deserve some OTC ratings for that |
|
|
|
Sheet is updated: http://goo.gl/Mk3hpHonored Pledges: 72.29289276 of 155.64130300000002 There was also a 10BTC donation that was done anonymously on 2012-09-28 15:37:54, which I'm not sure if it was supposed to be anonymous (if yes, the entire 10BTC will be donated, if not, I'll need to know whether to split it up among charities). Tx #: bc3a4826916f9dde622ce42764b4a149cf2b288361a0135a64e6ac073e6c87f2 I really need to redo this sheet or move it to some sort of database, though. It's almost impossible to search for transactions with it. In the mean time, Phinn, since you're in charge, it's up to you what you want me to do |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
