Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
"Sorry, you're retarded. There is no shortage of people willing to work. "

I had to laugh out loud - literally, when I read that.  Besides the easy-to-find articles raucous posted, I meet with some friends of mine every Friday, three of whom are contractors in various fields.  Every one of them talks about how hard it is to find people willing to work.  Typical examples (paraphrased):

1.  "I've been working with my son's friend, who came on as a helper.  I'm paying him $12/hr to start and I wanted to teach him the business.  I told him I'd raise him to $15/hour just to start training in doing the work - then $18/hour after the first year.  He said don't bother.  "I would rather not have any responsibility"."

2.  "The last three guys I hired all left either after the first week, the first day, or didn't even show up - even after passing the mandatory drug test".

3.  "The last guy I hired quit before his first work day - as soon as he found out that the unemployment benefits had been extended".

I hear this all the time.

The truth?  It's about risk and incentive.  Whether it's wages, taxes, or unemployment benefits, you increase the number of something by adding incentives...

Probably should have been worded differently.

There is a shortage of people willing to do Job X for Compensation Y.     Obviously the lower paying jobs. 

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
"Sorry, you're retarded. There is no shortage of people willing to work. "

I had to laugh out loud - literally, when I read that.  Besides the easy-to-find articles raucous posted, I meet with some friends of mine every Friday, three of whom are contractors in various fields.  Every one of them talks about how hard it is to find people willing to work.  Typical examples (paraphrased):

1.  "I've been working with my son's friend, who came on as a helper.  I'm paying him $12/hr to start and I wanted to teach him the business.  I told him I'd raise him to $15/hour just to start training in doing the work - then $18/hour after the first year.  He said don't bother.  "I would rather not have any responsibility"."

2.  "The last three guys I hired all left either after the first week, the first day, or didn't even show up - even after passing the mandatory drug test".

3.  "The last guy I hired quit before his first work day - as soon as he found out that the unemployment benefits had been extended".

I hear this all the time.

The truth?  It's about risk and incentive.  Whether it's wages, taxes, or unemployment benefits, you increase the number of something by adding incentives...

Probably should have been worded differently.

There is a shortage of people willing to do Job X for Compensation Y.     Obviously the lower paying jobs. 

And then there's some percentage of the population who are perfectly happy sitting on their ***** all day, getting their government handouts, and spending it on smokes and cheap alcohol.  Let's not forget about them and how they skew the stats.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
"Sorry, you're retarded. There is no shortage of people willing to work. "

I had to laugh out loud - literally, when I read that.  Besides the easy-to-find articles raucous posted, I meet with some friends of mine every Friday, three of whom are contractors in various fields.  Every one of them talks about how hard it is to find people willing to work.  Typical examples (paraphrased):

1.  "I've been working with my son's friend, who came on as a helper.  I'm paying him $12/hr to start and I wanted to teach him the business.  I told him I'd raise him to $15/hour just to start training in doing the work - then $18/hour after the first year.  He said don't bother.  "I would rather not have any responsibility"."

2.  "The last three guys I hired all left either after the first week, the first day, or didn't even show up - even after passing the mandatory drug test".

3.  "The last guy I hired quit before his first work day - as soon as he found out that the unemployment benefits had been extended".

I hear this all the time.

The truth?  It's about risk and incentive.  Whether it's wages, taxes, or unemployment benefits, you increase the number of something by adding incentives...

Probably should have been worded differently.

There is a shortage of people willing to do Job X for Compensation Y.     Obviously the lower paying jobs. 

And then there's some percentage of the population who are perfectly happy sitting on their ***** all day, getting their government handouts, and spending it on smokes and cheap alcohol.  Let's not forget about them and how they skew the stats.

They sure are living the high life making $350 a week in unemployment.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
"Sorry, you're retarded. There is no shortage of people willing to work. "

I had to laugh out loud - literally, when I read that.  Besides the easy-to-find articles raucous posted, I meet with some friends of mine every Friday, three of whom are contractors in various fields.  Every one of them talks about how hard it is to find people willing to work.  Typical examples (paraphrased):

1.  "I've been working with my son's friend, who came on as a helper.  I'm paying him $12/hr to start and I wanted to teach him the business.  I told him I'd raise him to $15/hour just to start training in doing the work - then $18/hour after the first year.  He said don't bother.  "I would rather not have any responsibility"."

2.  "The last three guys I hired all left either after the first week, the first day, or didn't even show up - even after passing the mandatory drug test".

3.  "The last guy I hired quit before his first work day - as soon as he found out that the unemployment benefits had been extended".

I hear this all the time.

The truth?  It's about risk and incentive.  Whether it's wages, taxes, or unemployment benefits, you increase the number of something by adding incentives...

Probably should have been worded differently.

There is a shortage of people willing to do Job X for Compensation Y.     Obviously the lower paying jobs. 

And then there's some percentage of the population who are perfectly happy sitting on their ***** all day, getting their government handouts, and spending it on smokes and cheap alcohol.  Let's not forget about them and how they skew the stats.

They sure are living the high life making $350 a week in unemployment.

...in perpetuity too.  No politician in their power-hungry mind can get away with not extending it because it's now a political nightmare that perpetuates itself.

BTW, no one is claiming those guys are living the high life.  They're just disincentivized from taking jobs "beneath" them.  That way they can wait it out on your dime knowing they don't really have to take anything to keep afloat.

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

I wouldn't take a job cleaning toilets for $25 an hour. I have a better option than that. Don't you?

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

And you can only buy if you have sellers.

Workers sell their labor to buyers. Good public policy prevents the labor market from completely going to **** in times of economic distress. It may be bad to have a lot of people collecting unemployment, but it's worse to allow wages to be driven down to the point that people take jobs that don't allow them to afford rent in order to avoid starvation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

Also, are you going to quit with the blocked charade? Participating in my thread and replying to my posts when someone else quotes them sort of defeats the point of a block, don't you think?

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

I wouldn't take a job cleaning toilets for $25 an hour. I have a better option than that. Don't you?

If your "better options" all fell through, and cleaning toilets for $25 an hour was the only option available, would you take it then?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

I wouldn't take a job cleaning toilets for $25 an hour. I have a better option than that. Don't you?

If your "better options" all fell through, and cleaning toilets for $25 an hour was the only option available, would you take it then?

Of course. It's somewhat irrelevant to the conversation, though. No one is offering $25 an hour ($52,000 a year) jobs to clean toilets and unemployment benefits don't pay $52,000 a year.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

And you can only buy if you have sellers.

Workers sell their labor to buyers. Good public policy prevents the labor market from completely going to **** in times of economic distress. It may be bad to have a lot of people collecting unemployment, but it's worse to allow wages to be driven down to the point that people take jobs that don't allow them to afford rent in order to avoid starvation.

One way to help prevent the labor market from doing that is to get government out of artificially deciding market value.  That would be good public policy.  You don't sell in the first place if your return on investment is not high enough.  People work like businesses do.  Price settles at value without interference.  When the government pushes, there is reaction in other areas.  There has to be.  You can try all you want to take the profit motive out of it by "forcing" business to pay a "living wage", but there is no way for government to do that without unlimited power.  Nor should they.  You may not have said as much explicitly, but that's where these policies, like artificially hiking minimum wage and perpetual unemployment "benefits", would lead.  (BTW, I am all for tying minimum wage to the CPI or other index.   That would help prevent the use of it as a political football to make the uninformed feel better about it, but as long as they can continue to play the game, they will).

The bottom line is, if a business can sell goods and services at a required rate of return, they will do whatever they can to do it, including paying the labor cost necessary for workers that possess skills they value.  If I go to market with a product (of which I take the financial risk to produce it), I have to price it so that people will buy it.  If there is enough demand for the product, the equilibrium price establishes where supply and demand meet.  At that point, I better be producing in such a manner that my price is above my cost enough to provide a return on the investment that is greater than my opportunity cost to invest in something else.  My cost is going to be determined by how much my materials cost and how much my labor costs to build.  If I need people with valuable skills they will cost more.  If I need people with no skills, they will cost less.  If government interferes too much with labor cost (or taxes or regulations with costs to comply), they can artificially price me above the market price, hence my opportunity to invest in something else.

The labor cost (or wages) will follow what we value.  If government values "high taxes on corporations", then they also, by extension, value less skilled workers working for those corporations, since those same corporations will have less incentive to invest in things with higher risk. 

Regulations (not saying all are bad), high taxes, wage and price controls; all of those things affect business' opportunity costs.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2014 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2014 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

So, just to be clear, if I'm offered $25 an hour to clean toilets but refuse because I want $40 per hour, I'm probably a lazy *******, correct?

I wouldn't take a job cleaning toilets for $25 an hour. I have a better option than that. Don't you?

If your "better options" all fell through, and cleaning toilets for $25 an hour was the only option available, would you take it then?

Of course. It's somewhat irrelevant to the conversation, though. No one is offering $25 an hour ($52,000 a year) jobs to clean toilets and unemployment benefits don't pay $52,000 a year.

Of course it's relevant.  The concept is the same.  Extended unemployment benefits interfere with market values of jobs and prevent efficiency.  Perpetual "long-term" unemployment is a disincentive for people to work.  Your hypothetical example above shows it clearly.  The same things happen with artificial wage hikes for those on the bottom tier.  If MW is hiked to $15 (like it "supposedly" is in Seattle), all that means is that the value of workers previously earning under $15/hour, but more than the MW suddenly appears the same.  Only that can't last, meaning that there is now artificial price pressure on labor rippling up the chain.  Then employers are faced with the same pressure as they are when any of their costs rise:  control their costs and/or raise their prices.  Markets, as they always will, will try to find an equilibrium, probably resulting in some combination of higher prices for consumers, less jobs for low-end workers, and of course, less buying power for those on the bottom who are earning more.

The skilled worker who is making $15/hour now will be worth more than that after MW goes up. 

Options and opportunities are what markets are built on.  The only that is proven to work is one that allows the most freedom possible.  Does it work for 100% of the people all of the time?  No.  But name a system (with humans in it) that can.

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2014 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 5/5/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
You should do what you think the market will do.  That's how markets work.  If the government told you you had to sell it for $100 and it's only worth $20, would you be able to sell it?

So, just to be clear, if I'm offering a product/commodity/service at a price and someone offers me less than my stated price and I refuse, I'm not a lazy *******, correct?

You might be.  That may or may not be relevant.  There's not enough information to make that conclusion in this case.  In other words, you can try to set the price if you want to,but you can only sell if you have buyers.

And you can only buy if you have sellers.

Workers sell their labor to buyers. Good public policy prevents the labor market from completely going to **** in times of economic distress. It may be bad to have a lot of people collecting unemployment, but it's worse to allow wages to be driven down to the point that people take jobs that don't allow them to afford rent in order to avoid starvation.

One way to help prevent the labor market from doing that is to get government out of artificially deciding market value.  That would be good public policy.  You don't sell in the first place if your return on investment is not high enough.  People work like businesses do.  Price settles at value without interference.  When the government pushes, there is reaction in other areas.  There has to be.  You can try all you want to take the profit motive out of it by "forcing" business to pay a "living wage", but there is no way for government to do that without unlimited power.  Nor should they.  You may not have said as much explicitly, but that's where these policies, like artificially hiking minimum wage and perpetual unemployment "benefits", would lead.  (BTW, I am all for tying minimum wage to the CPI or other index.   That would help prevent the use of it as a political football to make the uninformed feel better about it, but as long as they can continue to play the game, they will).

The bottom line is, if a business can sell goods and services at a required rate of return, they will do whatever they can to do it, including paying the labor cost necessary for workers that possess skills they value.  If I go to market with a product (of which I take the financial risk to produce it), I have to price it so that people will buy it.  If there is enough demand for the product, the equilibrium price establishes where supply and demand meet.  At that point, I better be producing in such a manner that my price is above my cost enough to provide a return on the investment that is greater than my opportunity cost to invest in something else.  My cost is going to be determined by how much my materials cost and how much my labor costs to build.  If I need people with valuable skills they will cost more.  If I need people with no skills, they will cost less.  If government interferes too much with labor cost (or taxes or regulations with costs to comply), they can artificially price me above the market price, hence my opportunity to invest in something else.

The labor cost (or wages) will follow what we value.  If government values "high taxes on corporations", then they also, by extension, value less skilled workers working for those corporations, since those same corporations will have less incentive to invest in things with higher risk. 

Regulations (not saying all are bad), high taxes, wage and price controls; all of those things affect business' opportunity costs.

Thanks for the econ class, professor.

"People work like businesses do."

They don't and they aren't. Without things like unemployment and minimum wage, people would choose to do things like take jobs that pay $2 an hour. We know this. We can look at the past, we can look at developing countries, we can look at other circumstances with a similar power dynamic, like when companies hire "independent contractors" when those people are employees in every regard other than the label on the tax form. Oh, and the reduced employment costs.

You can stand in the center of the Ayn Rand bukakke-fest if you want. Lap it up. But it isn't good public policy.