patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Profits are revenue minus expenses. Profits are at an all time high. So, there is actually lots of room to increase wages before companies have to raise prices or risk going out of business.

1. Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.

2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk. The low cost of capital promoted by the FED gives businesses, especially the bigger businesses, the incentive to replace labor input factor with capital investment. Raising minimum wage will further exacerbate the problem.

When you are at the grocery store, I'm sure you shop based on what you need/want and what's a good deal. You don't go in there with the goal of spending all the money you have on you. Likewise, businesses make hiring decisions based on profitability. Raising the price of beef may well lead to you buying chicken instead. It would be silly to argue that because you have more money in your pocket, you should just give that money to the beef counter. LOL. When was the last time you tipped the checkout girl $20 just because you have that money in your pocket? Why should you expect employers to do that?

Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.

tatupu70 says

Leave to you to completely miss the point again. My tax dollars are subsidizing large corporations. I thought you conservative folks were against corporate welfare, right?

I get it, the liberal "anti-corporation" thing is quite common these days. Everyone who hasn't passed puberty yet these days thinks that everyone who makes above minimum wage is an asshole who needs to pay more taxes. I've heard it all.

If you are anti subsidies as you say, ask Obama to raise interest rates so that savers actually get to earn something on their money, instead of money being pushed into non productive assets such as real estate.

FortWayne says

If you are anti subsidies as you say, ask Obama to raise interest rates so that savers actually get to earn something on their money, instead of money being pushed into non productive assets such as real estate.

Wow--so many things wrong with this statement.

1. Obama doesn't control the Federal Reserve which is who I expect you believe controls interest rates
2. Interest rates are set by the market, not the Federal Reserve
3. Savings rates are different than interest rates and are also set by supply and demand.

If you want interest rates to go up, do something about wealth disparity. That is the cause.

Reality says

Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.

And you have data to back up this assertion? Something? Anything?

Reality says

2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk.

Exactly my point. Businesses are run to make profits, period. They will do whatever they can to increase profits. If it is cheaper to kill a few people and pay off the families, they'll do it. Or pollute the environment. Or pay slave wages to their employees. Whatever maximizes profits.

That is why it is up to the government to fight for societies best interest--in this case a higher minimum wage. It will reduce profits, so companies will fight it tooth and nail. They will put out propaganda designed to fool the Ft. Waynes and CallitCrazys of the world. But, make no mistake. It IS needed.

Reality says

It would be silly to argue that because you have more money in your pocket, you should just give that money to the beef counter. LOL. When was the last time you tipped the checkout girl $20 just because you have that money in your pocket? Why should you expect employers to do that?

Obviously--which is why nobody is making that stupid argument. I know you like to build strawmen, but let's not waste our time with them.

Reality says

Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.

Nope--actually it doesn't. And it's easy to see why. Lower income folks spend a much higher percentage of their income than do the rich. So, paying higher minimum wage and the money will get spent back into the economy quickly creating more demand, and necessitating more hiring.

Remember--as you said, companies don't hire (or fire) based on profits. They do so to meet demand.

Call it Crazy says

I've counter with a ton so far. You think your FRED graph is indicative of the "real world" and what's happening on "main street" and the tens of thousands of small businesses...

You don't know what you don't know, so I'm not wasting any more electrons on your cluelessness... No more Troll dollars for you!!

OK, please point me to where you showed data from what is going on in the "real" world. And why the FRED graph showing corporate profitability is incorrect. I'm assuming you have something showing why their data is flawed?

tatupu70 says

Profits at larger corporations, especially S&P500, might be at all time high. However, they are not representative of the overall business profit picture when the government is tilting the playing field in favor of big corporations at the expense of smaller competitors. The latter are suffering, and they are the real job creators, whereas the big corporations are net job destroyers via consolidation.

And you have data to back up this assertion? Something? Anything?

You were the one conflating S&P500 profitability with overall business profitability. You can see the difficulties faced by small businesses from the high commercial vacancy rate for locations suitable for small businesses, usually result of small businesses that closed without new small businesses taking up the space.

tatupu70 says

2. Businesses are not run as charities: they are there to maximize return on capital not to maximize head count, especially nowadays head count brings litigation risk.

Exactly my point. Businesses are run to make profits, period. They will do whatever they can to increase profits. If it is cheaper to kill a few people and pay off the families, they'll do it. Or pollute the environment. Or pay slave wages to their employees. Whatever maximizes profits.

Utter nonsense. Getting away with paying only "slave wages" requires a government depriving the employees all other opportunities. Otherwise, the employees would simply find an employer who is willing to pay just a little more, then another still a little more. Its just like you as the consumer would like to pay as little as possible for your beef, and the store would like to charge as much as possible; not having government price control allows the market place to discover the price of beef based on supply and demand. If the government imposed a maximum price on beef, there would be empty shelves like in the soviet union; if the government imposed a minimum price on beef, you would not buy it if you don't find that attractive.

That is why it is up to the government to fight for societies best interest--in this case a higher minimum wage. It will reduce profits, so companies will fight it tooth and nail. They will put out propaganda designed to fool the Ft. Waynes and CallitCrazys of the world. But, make no mistake. It IS needed.

Utter nonsense. government bureaucrats and politicians fight for their own self-interest, which includes armies of unemployed on welfare in order to justify the government officials' own existence and privilege to leach on the society. You are regurgitating the propagandas put out by the communist revolutionaries a century ago.

Socialist paradises like North Korea and Cuba are where you find real slave wages, like $20/mo for professionals. It is the market place' competitive bidding that ensure each employee get what his/her labor and skills are worth.

When laissez-faire was running in 19th Century America, little kids were turned away from the mines, and every miner and textile worker made big bank as dozens of factories and mines competed for their labor.

It was only when Commie-Socialist child labor laws were passed that the mines and factories shut down, putting millions penniless on the streets and creating a wave of Child Idleness.

tatupu70 says

Higher minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and lack of employment skills/experience for the young and minority. It's a double-whammy.

Nope--actually it doesn't. And it's easy to see why. Lower income folks spend a much higher percentage of their income than do the rich. So, paying higher minimum wage and the money will get spent back into the economy quickly creating more demand, and necessitating more hiring.

What a load of nonsense! Can you grow by eating your own flesh and drinking your own blood?

Lower income folks spending higher percentage of their income on consumables and therefore save less is precisely the reason why in the long run transferring wealth from savers/reinvestment class to the net consumers will lead to lower productivity and lower wages: it takes capital investment to improve worker productivity, which is the ultimate source of higher standards of living. It takes capital accumulation to make capital investment.

Remember--as you said, companies don't hire (or fire) based on profits. They do so to meet demand.

What are you talking about? Please don't put words in my mouth. Companies hire and fire based on profit potential. Demand is meaningless if the higher minimum wage makes it unprofitable to produce and meet the demand. Minimum wage simply makes certain types of labor intensive hiring impossible. That drives down the total wage earned by the working class. Even from the Keynesian aggregate view, minimum wage reduces aggregate demand, not increasing it.

Reality says

You were the one conflating S&P500 profitability with overall business profitability. You can see the difficulties faced by small businesses from the high commercial vacancy rate for locations suitable for small businesses, usually result of small businesses that closed without new small businesses taking up the space.

I wasn't conflating anything. I posted a graph of corporate profitability to show that corporations were making lots of profits. I thought it was self explanatory.

You, on the other hand, have posted no data. If you believe that data is misleading, by all means, post some data showing it. But don't pretend that your hand waving is more convincing that actual data.

Reality says

Otherwise, the employees would simply find an employer who is willing to pay just a little more, then another still a little more.

No, actually that's not at all how it works. The employer paying a little more would be driven out of business by the employer paying slave wages.

Reality says

more. Its just like you as the consumer would like to pay as little as possible for your beef, and the store would like to charge as much as possible; not having government price control allows the market place to discover the price of beef based on supply and demand

Except that the employment marketplace is not the same as the market for roast beef.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. government bureaucrats and politicians fight for their own self-interest, which includes armies of unemployed on welfare in order to justify the government officials' own existence and privilege to leach on the society. You are regurgitating the propagandas put out by the communist revolutionaries a century ago.

Your cynicism aside, are you seriously arguing that corporations aren't fighting increased minimum wage laws because it will reduce profits?

thunderlips11 says

When laissez-faire was running in 19th Century America, little kids were turned away from the mines, and every miner and textile worker made big bank as dozens of factories and mines competed for their labor.

It was only when Commie-Socialist child labor laws were passed that the mines and factories shut down, putting millions penniless on the streets and creating a wave of Child Idleness.

Child labor was used in pre-industrial societies for thousands of years, as field hands. Child labor was still used in 20th century communist countries, some even to this day. It was only in the relatively free market capitalistic societies that improved living standards to such a high degree that child labor became largely unnecessary in the early 20th century. Then politicians decided to take credit for those changes.

"That's going to happen eventually anyway. All we're doing now is subsidizing corporate profits with our tax dollars"

"When we allow corporations to pay less than living wages, we all subsidize their profits with our tax dollars. Do you think that's a good use of your tax dollars?"

------------------

Wrt living wages, you seem to be just as confused as the next democrat, as to how the world works.

Your tax dollars don't go to subsidize corporate profits, because corporations pay too little in wages.

Your tax dollars go to prop up unaffordable housing prices. Higher wages are always absorbed by equally higher housing costs/prices.

The unaffordably high housing costs are what makes wage slaves appear to be making too low of a wage

Reality says

What a load of nonsense! Can you grow by eating your own flesh and drinking your own blood?

Your analogies are getting worse and worse. Why don't you give it up.

Reality says

Lower income folks spending higher percentage of their income on consumables and therefore save less is precisely the reason why in the long run transferring wealth from savers/reinvestment class to the net consumers will lead to lower productivity and lower wages: it takes capital investment to improve worker productivity, which is the ultimate source of higher standards of living. It takes capital accumulation to make capital investment.

lol---we are currently in a demand driven recession. Interest rates are near all time lows because the US is awash with money. It's not productive capital because there is no demand and no reason to invest.

Reality says

Companies hire and fire based on profit potential. Demand is meaningless if the higher minimum wage makes it unprofitable to produce and meet the demand. Minimum wage simply makes certain types of labor intensive hiring impossible. That drives down the total wage earned by the working class. Even from the Keynesian aggregate view, minimum wage reduces aggregate demand, not increasing it.

Lucky that wages are so low and profits so high, that the demand will be meaningful and companies will have no problem meeting it profitably. Minimum wage makes the worse investments unprofitable, but creates other investments that are profitable. In balance, everyone is ahead. Minimum wage most certainly increases aggregate demand up to a point. And we're below that point right now.

tatupu70 says

lol---we are currently in a demand driven recession. Interest rates are near all time lows because the US is awash with money. It's not productive capital because there is no demand and no reason to invest.

YUP. Who would buy government bonds paying pitiful interest if there was all this demand for capital out there?

errc says

Wrt living wages, you seem to be just as confused as the next democrat, as to how the world works.

Your tax dollars don't go to subsidize corporate profits, because corporations pay too little in wages.

Your tax dollars go to prop up unaffordable housing prices. Higher wages are always absorbed by equally higher housing costs/prices.

The unaffordably high housing costs are what makes wage slaves appear to be making too low of a wage

Much less confused that the average Republican. If you want to rail against housing prices, vote for politicians that support increasing housing supply. The problem isn't demand for god's sake. Unless you are saying you think a certain portion of the population shouldn't have the ability to live in a house.

We need to build more. That's the only solution short of Georgism.

tatupu70 says

I wasn't conflating anything. I posted a graph of corporate profitability to show that corporations were making lots of profits. I thought it was self explanatory.

You, on the other hand, have posted no data. If you believe that data is misleading, by all means, post some data showing it. But don't pretend that your hand waving is more convincing that actual data.

No, it was not self-explanatory, but misleading. The graph was for large corporations, but not including the millions of small businesses that in many cases are not even incorporated. I'm not doing hand waving. You are trying to hand-wave with your much discredited misleading data. You can look up your own local commercial space lease rates. Commercial lease rates have nose dived since circa 2007-2008, and have not recovered. I'm sure even in your own neighborhoods, you should be able to see empty store fronts left behind by businesses gone out of business. You prefer hand-waving data cooked up by who-knows-what, I prefer real situational awareness on the main street.

tatupu70 says

Otherwise, the employees would simply find an employer who is willing to pay just a little more, then another still a little more.

No, actually that's not at all how it works. The employer paying a little more would be driven out of business by the employer paying slave wages.

Really? Was Henry Ford driven out of business in 1917 when he paid workers multiple times that of his competitors? Are high tech companies going out of business because they pay workers more than their previous employers? What planet do you live on? No wonder you advocate government setting of wages. You know what, if government were allowed to set wages, you will inevitably end up with slave wages like North Korea and Cuba! Why? Because it takes entrepreneurs like Henry Ford and the high tech companies of today to bid up wages and "steal" employees from other employers.

tatupu70 says

more. Its just like you as the consumer would like to pay as little as possible for your beef, and the store would like to charge as much as possible; not having government price control allows the market place to discover the price of beef based on supply and demand

Except that the employment marketplace is not the same as the market for roast beef.

Why? Just because of your hand waiving? You are simply wrong: both Henry Ford nearly a century ago, and high tech companies more recently prove you wrong: by offering higher wages, they are able to attract more productive workers to work on their more productive ways of doing business.

tatupu70 says

Utter nonsense. government bureaucrats and politicians fight for their own self-interest, which includes armies of unemployed on welfare in order to justify the government officials' own existence and privilege to leach on the society. You are regurgitating the propagandas put out by the communist revolutionaries a century ago.

Your cynicism aside, are you seriously arguing that corporations aren't fighting increased minimum wage laws because it will reduce profits?

Your question is irrelevant: different corporations have different preferences. GM wanted to jack up autoworkers wages and benefits sky high in the 1950's in order to prevent the entry of new competitors. The corporation called UAW and other union corporate entities all want to jack up minimum wage in order to prevent new workers, low income workers and minorities from competing against the high income white union members.

tatupu70 says

1. Obama doesn't control the Federal Reserve which is who I expect you believe controls interest rates

Yes the President does. Federal Reserve Chairman can be fired by President, and such has happened in the past. During elections they always keep rates low because of pressure from Executive.

tatupu70 says

What a load of nonsense! Can you grow by eating your own flesh and drinking your own blood?

Your analogies are getting worse and worse. Why don't you give it up.

It's a very precise analogy of what you were saying. You literally were repeating the Ford propaganda nonsense about paying workers more so they could buy cars. It made no sense and makes no sense even today: the total number of cars that the workers could possibly buy could not amount to more than even 1% of the 20million or so Model T produced. The real reason why he raised wages was for worker retention.

tatupu70 says

Lower income folks spending higher percentage of their income on consumables and therefore save less is precisely the reason why in the long run transferring wealth from savers/reinvestment class to the net consumers will lead to lower productivity and lower wages: it takes capital investment to improve worker productivity, which is the ultimate source of higher standards of living. It takes capital accumulation to make capital investment.

lol---we are currently in a demand driven recession. Interest rates are near all time lows because the US is awash with money. It's not productive capital because there is no demand and no reason to invest.

Interest being so low is what's causing the lack of profitability among businesses and lack of investment opportunity: all the ponzi borrowers are kept in business to compete against the real productive firms. The inefficient businesses are kept in business to siphon real industry revenue to banks via interest payment. The banks producing very high profitability is the reason why you can cite high profitability among large corporations. Of course, it doesn't take extra employees to shuffle more money around in the banking system. That's why you see real industries face plight while banks live on high hogs without having to hire more people!

tatupu70 says

Lucky that wages are so low and profits so high, that the demand will be meaningful and companies will have no problem meeting it profitably. Minimum wage makes the worse investments unprofitable, but creates other investments that are profitable. In balance, everyone is ahead. Minimum wage most certainly increases aggregate demand up to a point. And we're below that point right now.

Your hand waiving is utter nonsense. Minimum wage laws work by banning certain types of transaction from taking place. It does not require anyone to do more business or do any business at all. How can that possibly increase total transaction volume in the economy after inflation effect is fed through and adjusted?

Reality says

The graph was for large corporations, but including the millions of small businesses that in many cases are not even incorporated. I'm not doing hand waving. You are trying to hand-wave with your much discredited misleading data. You can look up your own local commercial space lease rates. Commercial lease rates have nose dived since circa 2007-2008, and have not recovered. I'm sure even in your own neighborhoods, you should be able to see empty store fronts left behind by businesses gone out of business. You prefer hand-waving data cooked up by who-knows-what, I prefer real situational awareness on the main street.

The graph was corporate profits. Period. Please post the data for small businesses then. Surely you've seen data to make you so certain. Of course there are some vacant spaces--we're still recovering for a recession and were overbuilt in 2008. The businesses that are left have less competition and are probably making higher profits now.

Reality says

Was Henry Ford driven out of business in 1917 when he paid workers multiple times that of his competitors?

You're comparing apples and oranges again. There was no other company making Ford cars at the time. A company doing the same thing but paying higher wages will be driven out of business as the more profitable company cuts prices.

Reality says

Why? Just because of your hand waiving? You are simply wrong: both Henry Ford nearly a century ago, and high tech companies more recently prove you wrong: by offering higher wages, they are able to attract more productive workers to work on their more productive ways of doing business.

Of course, if they hire more productive workers. Your original premise was that they hired the same workers but paid them higher wages. If you change the rules, then it's an entirely different discussion.

Reality says

It's a very precise analogy of what you were saying. You literally were repeating the Ford propaganda nonsense about paying workers more so they could buy cars. It made no sense and makes no sense even today: the total number of cars that the workers could possibly buy could not amount to more than even 1% of the 20million or so Model T produced. The real reason why he raised wages was for worker retention.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying higher minimum wage will reduce corporate profits that go primarily to the rich, thereby decreasing inequality, and increasing demand. And since we're in a demand driven recession, it will benefit the overall economy (and society).

Reality says

Interest being so low is what's causing the lack of profitability among businesses and lack of investment opportunity: all the ponzi borrowers are kept in business to compete against the real productive firms. The inefficient businesses are kept in business to siphon real industry revenue to banks via interest payment. The banks producing very high profitability is the reason why you can cite high profitability among large corporations. Of course, it doesn't take extra employees to shuffle more money around in the banking system. That's why you see real industries face plight while banks live on high hogs without having to hire more people!

That is ridiculous. If businesses are inefficient, why aren't new companies sprouting up to compete with them? Low interest rates make the barrier to entry lower--should encourage new entrants.

So, please produce a graph showing the % of corporate profits from the banking industry now vs. 30 years ago. Let's see if you're right?

Reality says

. Minimum wage laws work by banning certain types of transaction from taking place. It does not require anyone to do more business or do any business at all. How can that possibly increase total transaction volume in the economy after inflation effect is fed through and adjusted?

It's simple really. Some transactions don't take place, but the ones that do are much, more beneficial to the economy. The overall sum is positive to the economy.

+1

FortWayne says

You don't want to subsidize, tell government to cut off welfare and all other hand outs. Property taxes are a tax write off, lets cut that off? But if you love welfare, than love to pay for it.

tatupu70 says

The graph was corporate profits. Period. Please post the data for small businesses then. Surely you've seen data to make you so certain. Of course there are some vacant spaces--we're still recovering for a recession and were overbuilt in 2008. The businesses that are left have less competition and are probably making higher profits now.

I already explained to you previously, on multiple occasions, the problem with the so called "corporate profits" you cite: because the financial industry account for about half of all corporate profit and financial industry is much more volatile than the average of all other industries, your "corporate profit" graph is in reality a reflection of financial industry profitability. We are more than half a decade into recovery! The high vacancy rate among small commercial real estate is reflective of the Main Street, especially small businesses, under a lot of stress.

tatupu70 says

Was Henry Ford driven out of business in 1917 when he paid workers multiple times that of his competitors?

You're comparing apples and oranges again. There was no other company making Ford cars at the time. A company doing the same thing but paying higher wages will be driven out of business as the more profitable company cuts prices.

What are you? Some former soviet statistician? No two businesses are supposed to be doing exactly the same thing the same way! Each business is supposed to be doing things just a little differently; the more efficient firm is supposed to be able to pay just a little more for input factors (material and human labor) than its competitors while charging the consumers a little less than the latters; that's precisely how the more efficient firm drives the less efficient ones out of business!

tatupu70 says

Why? Just because of your hand waiving? You are simply wrong: both Henry Ford nearly a century ago, and high tech companies more recently prove you wrong: by offering higher wages, they are able to attract more productive workers to work on their more productive ways of doing business.

Of course, if they hire more productive workers. Your original premise was that they hired the same workers but paid them higher wages. If you change the rules, then it's an entirely different discussion.

What are you talking about? No two workers are the same. It pay more for the same worker than its competitors can, therefore it is able to attract workers; because it is able to attract workers (thanks to higher pay), it is also able to choose the better workers. Just like in any competitive hiring environment. Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

tatupu70 says

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying higher minimum wage will reduce corporate profits that go primarily to the rich, thereby decreasing inequality, and increasing demand. And since we're in a demand driven recession, it will benefit the overall economy (and society).

And you are wrong. Higher minimum wage means bigger firms with easier capital access under the FED regime can replace workers with automated machines financed at favorable interest rates, whereas smaller firms without such privilege are driven out of business. The result is greater inequality, not less inequality: more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer large corporate shareholders and big banks, whereas the would be worker would have less employers to choose from in addition to losing the job at the smaller firm to begin with. Double Whammy!

tatupu70 says

That is ridiculous. If businesses are inefficient, why aren't new companies sprouting up to compete with them? Low interest rates make the barrier to entry lower--should encourage new entrants.

Because access to easy credit can keep inefficient firms in business, and their continued output drives down price and profitability of other firms.

So, please produce a graph showing the % of corporate profits from the banking industry now vs. 30 years ago. Let's see if you're right?

Are you serious? You are not aware that the financial industry has been taking up a rapidly growing share of total corporate profit in the past 30 years?

tatupu70 says

. Minimum wage laws work by banning certain types of transaction from taking place. It does not require anyone to do more business or do any business at all. How can that possibly increase total transaction volume in the economy after inflation effect is fed through and adjusted?

It's simple really. Some transactions don't take place, but the ones that do are much, more beneficial to the economy. The overall sum is positive to the economy.

Giving young people, especially underprivileged minority, their first job is one of the most socially beneficial transactions. Yet, that's precisely what raising minimum wage prevents.

Reality says

already explained to you previously, on multiple occasions, the problem with the so called "corporate profits" you cite: because the financial industry account for about half of all corporate profit and financial industry is much more volatile than the average of all other industries, your "corporate profit" graph is in reality a reflection of financial industry profitability. We are more than half a decade into recovery! The high vacancy rate among small commercial real estate is reflective of the Main Street, especially small businesses, under a lot of stress.

Yes, you've claimed that on numerous occasions. I'm asking you to support that assertion. Otherwise, I'll give that claim the same weight as all your other hand waving nonsense that was proven to be BS.

Reality says

No two businesses are supposed to be doing exactly the same thing the same way! Each business is supposed to be doing things just a little differently; the more efficient firm is supposed to be able to pay just a little more for input factors (material and human labor) than its competitors while charging the consumers a little less than the latters; that's precisely how the more efficient firm drives the less efficient ones out of business!

Obviously. I assumed this was a thought experiment otherwise it was completely meaningless. I should have expected meaningless out of you, I guess.

Reality says

What are you talking about? No two workers are the same. It pay more for the same worker than its competitors can, therefore it is able to attract workers; because it is able to attract workers (thanks to higher pay), it is also able to choose the better workers. Just like in any competitive hiring environment. Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

No kidding. I assumed that the company paying higher wages was stealing the workers from the company paying lower wages. Again I figured it was a thought experiment and had some value. Clearly it was just another dumb statement.

tatupu70 says

already explained to you previously, on multiple occasions, the problem with the so called "corporate profits" you cite: because the financial industry account for about half of all corporate profit and financial industry is much more volatile than the average of all other industries, your "corporate profit" graph is in reality a reflection of financial industry profitability. We are more than half a decade into recovery! The high vacancy rate among small commercial real estate is reflective of the Main Street, especially small businesses, under a lot of stress.

Yes, you've claimed that on numerous occasions. I'm asking you to support that assertion. Otherwise, I'll give that claim the same weight as all your other hand waving nonsense that was proven to be BS.

Do you dispute the following two facts:

1. Financial industry account for nearly half of total corporate profit at recent cycle peaks;

2. Financial industry profitability is much more volatile than most other industries during economic cycles?

Seems to me both facts are very obvious, and from these two facts alone one can easily deduce that the overall corporate profitability graph in an economic cycle is really a reflection of the dominant and most volatile industry, the financial industry. What is it that you want to dispute?

tatupu70 says

No two businesses are supposed to be doing exactly the same thing the same way! Each business is supposed to be doing things just a little differently; the more efficient firm is supposed to be able to pay just a little more for input factors (material and human labor) than its competitors while charging the consumers a little less than the latters; that's precisely how the more efficient firm drives the less efficient ones out of business!

Obviously. I assumed this was a thought experiment otherwise it was completely meaningless. I should have expected meaningless out of you, I guess.

Your artificially constructed thought experiment is designed so that it's utterly pointless for either business to put the other out of business because they are equally efficient and doing exactly the same thing the exact same way. What is the point of competition among two firms like that? No wonder you socialist can only think in terms of bureaucrats controlling all production: you think all businesses do exactly the same thing! LOL

tatupu70 says

What are you talking about? No two workers are the same. It pay more for the same worker than its competitors can, therefore it is able to attract workers; because it is able to attract workers (thanks to higher pay), it is also able to choose the better workers. Just like in any competitive hiring environment. Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

No kidding. I assumed that the company paying higher wages was stealing the workers from the company paying lower wages. Again I figured it was a thought experiment and had some value. Clearly it was just another dumb statement.

Nope, you are the one tossing out dumb statements. You obviously missed the part where the more efficient firm is able to pay more for the same worker, and is willing to pay more for the same worker because it can generate more profit from hiring the worker than the worker's previous employer can.

Reality says

And you are wrong. Higher minimum wage means bigger firms with easier capital access under the FED regime can replace workers with automated machines financed at favorable interest rates, whereas smaller firms without such privilege are driven out of business. The result is greater inequality, not less inequality: more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer large corporate shareholders and big banks, whereas the would be worker would have less employers to choose from in addition to losing the job at the smaller firm to begin with. Double Whammy!

lol---you are ridiculous. Higher minimum wage might lead to more automation, yes. But that's going to happen anyway eventually. The sum will still be beneficial.

You bring up a good point though that automation tends to concentrate wealth. The US needs to develop a plan to deal with that inevitability and quickly. Higher unearned income tax seems to make the most sense.

Reality says

Because access to easy credit can keep inefficient firms in business, and their continued output drives down price and profitability of other firms.

If their price is so low that it drives out new competitors--they're not really inefficient. There is no easy credit for companies that continue to lose money.

Reality says

Are you serious? You are not aware that the financial industry has been taking up a rapidly growing share of total corporate profit in the past 30 years?

I said prove it. Post some data for god's sake. You look like an idiot when all you do is wave your hands all day.

Reality says

Giving young people, especially underprivileged minority, their first job is one of the most socially beneficial transactions. Yet, that's precisely what raising minimum wage prevents.

lol--I'm sure they said the same thing when 6 year olds were no longer able to work the coal mines.

tatupu70 says

And you are wrong. Higher minimum wage means bigger firms with easier capital access under the FED regime can replace workers with automated machines financed at favorable interest rates, whereas smaller firms without such privilege are driven out of business. The result is greater inequality, not less inequality: more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer large corporate shareholders and big banks, whereas the would be worker would have less employers to choose from in addition to losing the job at the smaller firm to begin with. Double Whammy!

lol---you are ridiculous. Higher minimum wage might lead to more automation, yes. But that's going to happen anyway eventually. The sum will still be beneficial.

You bring up a good point though that automation tends to concentrate wealth. The US needs to develop a plan to deal with that inevitability and quickly. Higher unearned income tax seems to make the most sense.

LOL! You do realize, you are creating the problem to begin with by using minimum wage law to put the smaller competitors out of business! How is that sum still beneficial? Who is doing the summation? Are you only counting campaign donations from big corporations?

High "unearned income" tax would lead to capital flight. Talk about socialists cooking up more taxes and regulations to correct their previous errors while making the situation worse!

tatupu70 says

Because access to easy credit can keep inefficient firms in business, and their continued output drives down price and profitability of other firms.

If their price is so low that it drives out new competitors--they're not really inefficient. There is no easy credit for companies that continue to lose money.

FED window interest rate is lower than inflation rate. Therefore a ponzi borrower can buy assets and sit on it and make profit just by arbitrating the difference between FED window rate vs. inflation. Continued presence of inefficient producers in an industry can not only depress price and profitability in an industry but also prevent economy of scale. Compared to such low return prospects in a real industry, investors may well choose to borrow from the FED window and sit on assets instead of investing in any productive industry. That's more or less what they have been doing; e.g. buying up single family houses and sitting on them at low interest rate.

tatupu70 says

Are you serious? You are not aware that the financial industry has been taking up a rapidly growing share of total corporate profit in the past 30 years?

I said prove it. Post some data for god's sake. You look like an idiot when all you do is wave your hands all day.

LOL. You sound like an idiot asking people to prove the sun rises from the east, a piece of common knowledge. You should really do some google search before asking such silly questions. Here is the first link came up on my search:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novemberdecember_2014/features/frenzied_financialization052714.php?page=all

"The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial sector accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector’s yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to a peak of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown disproportionately more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of overall U.S. profits—meaning all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country. By the 2000s, they ranged between 20 and 40 percent. This isn’t just the decline of profits in other industries, either. Between 1980 and 2006, while GDP increased five times, financial-sector profits increased sixteen times over. While financial and nonfinancial profits grew at roughly the same rate before 1980, between 1980 and 2006 nonfinancial profits grew seven times while financial profits grew sixteen times."

Do you see that 40% number? That was around 2007, around the peak of the economic cycle. Of course, the next year it was negative. That's why the overall corporate profit graph you cite is really a reflection of financial industry profitability. Please remember this time. I'm sick of having to explain that same thing to you over and over again.

tatupu70 says

Giving young people, especially underprivileged minority, their first job is one of the most socially beneficial transactions. Yet, that's precisely what raising minimum wage prevents.

lol--I'm sure they said the same thing when 6 year olds were no longer able to work the coal mines.

Are you saying young black male aged 18+ should not be allowed to work at all?

Reality says

LOL! You do realize, you are creating the problem to begin with by using minimum wage law to put the smaller competitors out of business

Nope--I realize that you are incorrect. Smaller competitors are often more efficient. And profitable small companies have access to capital.

Reality says

FED window interest rate is lower than inflation rate. Therefore a ponzi borrower can buy assets and sit on it and make profit just by arbitrating the difference between FED window rate vs. inflation.

Not this nonsense again. Fed window is overnight borrowing and is almost never used. It is irrelevant.

Reality says

investors may well choose to borrow from the FED window and sit on assets instead of investing in any productive industry. That's more or less what they have been doing; e.g. buying up single family houses and sitting on them at low interest rate.

More BS. Please list any "investor" that has been borrowing from the Fed window.

Reality says

You sound like an idiot asking people to prove the sun rises from the east, a piece of common knowledge. You should really do some google search before asking such silly questions. Here is the first link came up on my search:

There--was that so hard for you? I never said you were wrong, I only said you need to support your assertions once in a while. But, regardless, you were wrong. You said 50%. Your source said 20-40%. Middle would be 30% which is about what the sources I found said. Not nearly 50%. So you were wrong, as usual.

Reality says

Are you saying young black male aged 18+ should not be allowed to work at all?

Of course not. I'm saying they should all be working making at least $15/hour

Call it Crazy says

Do you think your chart is a true indicator of all corporations across the country?

I'm think it's a summation of profits at US corporations graphed vs. year.

Of interest:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/finance-has-always-been-more-profitable.html

Notice the jump in share in the 1980s. Consider also that the years 1947-1980 saw the greatest increase in the Standard of Living in the US, the explosion of suburbs, car ownership, and other things typically financed. However, since around 1980, wages have stagnated while credit skyrocketed.

tatupu70 says

That's going to happen eventually anyway. All we're doing now is subsidizing corporate profits with our tax dollars.

That makes a solution even easier, just cut welfare benefits.

tatupu70 says

LOL! You do realize, you are creating the problem to begin with by using minimum wage law to put the smaller competitors out of business

Nope--I realize that you are incorrect. Smaller competitors are often more efficient. And profitable small companies have access to capital.

Some of that efficiency comes from lower nominal wages in exchange for better and more personable working conditions. For example, Walmart endorses the raising of minimum wage because WMT itself pays higher than minimum wage, whereas many of its competitors in the grocery and supermarket business pay only minimum wage while offering workers a more personable working environment.

Small businesses have less capital access than big businesses do, in general. On top of that, replacing workers with automation involves economy of scale; that fundamentally benefit bigger businesses at the expense of smaller businesses.

tatupu70 says

Not this nonsense again. Fed window is overnight borrowing and is almost never used. It is irrelevant.

More BS. Please list any "investor" that has been borrowing from the Fed window.

You are the one spouting BS. You can see FED discount window borrowing data here (with 2yr delay in release):

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_discount_window.htm

The FED window is of course relevant. It is the fundamental function of the FED: lender of last resort. And that is what fundamentally sets the cap on saver's interest.

tatupu70 says

There--was that so hard for you? I never said you were wrong, I only said you need to support your assertions once in a while. But, regardless, you were wrong. You said 50%. Your source said 20-40%. Middle would be 30% which is about what the sources I found said. Not nearly 50%. So you were wrong, as usual.

You are such a habitual liar. Of course you were suggesting I was wrong; you are trying to claim I was wrong even now! I said about half near the peak of economic cycle, not necessarily exactly 50%; the exactitude of those numbers is dependent on reporting methods of numerous companies, so never exact: the result of any statistical study can never be more exact than its inputs. Also, the number in the article was percentage of total business profit, not just corporate profit. In any case, the scale of the number should be common knowledge for anyone knowledgeable about the subject, just like the sun rises on the east. Your gratuitous lies and ignorance only prove that you are an idiotic propagandist with little understanding of economics or current economic affairs. . . and intellectually dishonest on top of your ignorance.

tatupu70 says

Are you saying young black male aged 18+ should not be allowed to work at all?

Of course not. I'm saying they should all be working making at least $15/hour

In other words, you are saying they should not be allowed to work if nobody is willing to pay $15/hr or more. That's exactly what the minimum wage law says. You ignoramus.

FortWayne says

If you are anti subsidies as you say, ask Obama to raise interest rates

This should tell you all you need to know about arguing with this guy.

Reality says

You are such a habitual liar. Of course you were suggesting I was wrong; you are trying to claim I was wrong even now!

Well, you were/are wrong. Despite your lame attempt to distract, there's a big difference between 30% and 50%.

Reality says

In any case, the scale of the number should be common knowledge for anyone knowledgeable about the subject, just like the sun rises on the east. Your gratuitous lies and ignorance only prove that you are an idiotic propagandist with little understanding of economics or current economic affairs. . . and intellectually dishonest on top of your ignorance.

Are you under the impression that the scale of that number was unknown to me? Let me dispel you of that notion.

Reality says

In other words, you are saying they should not be allowed to work if nobody is willing to pay $15/hr or more. That's exactly what the minimum wage law says. You ignoramus.

Actually I'm saying any company that wants to hire a worker must pay $15/hour to that worker. That's not the same thing.

tatupu70 says

My tax dollars are subsidizing large corporations.

No, they are subsidizing lazy losers who think McDonald's is a career.

So then the key is don't hire anybody to work for a company. Hire everybody as independent contractors.
Then the little shits will get the 8.75/hr that they deserve...

tatupu70 says

Reality says

In other words, you are saying they should not be allowed to work if nobody is willing to pay $15/hr or more. That's exactly what the minimum wage law says. You ignoramus.

Actually I'm saying any company that wants to hire a worker must pay $15/hour to that worker. That's not the same thing

zzyzzx says

No, they are subsidizing lazy losers who think McDonald's is a career.

All those high-tech jobs of the future exporting to the 1 Billion!!!11!! customers in China are going unfilled. Lazy STEM people don't want jobs, prefer to get 20 hours at Starbucks.

zzyzzx says

No, they are subsidizing lazy losers who think McDonald's is a career

OH, so now $15/hr is a good career wage ? Maybe when you were 16 it was. But newsflash, using a CPI based inflation calculator (which is conservative), $15 now is like
$2.63 in 1972. And the $15/hr min wage doesn't kick in most places that are doing it until 2017, so make that $2.50.

Minimum wage jobs were never intended to be career jobs.
why are you conflating the two?

marcus says

zzyzzx says

No, they are subsidizing lazy losers who think McDonald's is a career

OH, so now $15/hr is a good career wage ?