|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 08 2014 10:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
Well the only way way I see this tip system actually work is if stuff actually is cheaper. Which is probably true to a degree but I guess a large part of the saved money just goes into the employers pockets. You've already mentioned the downsides of illegal employment. The restaurant industry is really competitive so I don't think the employer's pockets are a real worry. competitiveness does not necessarily justify much of what results from it by itself. cost cutting is being competitive, offering better products is another way of being competitive, so is having the mob beat up the competitors. if cost cutting is easy, at the expense of the workers, then it will be pushed to an extreme degree precisely because of the high level of competition. however, if there is restriction on how much they can compete on cutting certain costs, then yes, the food becomes a bit more expensive, but more people will be better off.
Competitive in an economics sense. The industry is competitive, so profits are close to a normal profit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 10:21 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2014 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
Well the only way way I see this tip system actually work is if stuff actually is cheaper. Which is probably true to a degree but I guess a large part of the saved money just goes into the employers pockets. You've already mentioned the downsides of illegal employment. The restaurant industry is really competitive so I don't think the employer's pockets are a real worry. competitiveness does not necessarily justify much of what results from it by itself. cost cutting is being competitive, offering better products is another way of being competitive, so is having the mob beat up the competitors. if cost cutting is easy, at the expense of the workers, then it will be pushed to an extreme degree precisely because of the high level of competition. however, if there is restriction on how much they can compete on cutting certain costs, then yes, the food becomes a bit more expensive, but more people will be better off. Competitive in an economics sense. The industry is competitive, so profits are close to a normal profit.
my point is there are multiple possible equilibrium states depending on the constraints of each factor input. so competition is really not the point, because the problem is not restaurant monopolists. the ability to reduce waiter wage to 2 dollars per hour is really only 'normal' under a rationalist construction of the market, and this is an assumption that ignores information.
but we don't even need to fill in the space for "why can people find waiters for 2 dollars per hour", merely noting that if we do restrict this wage to 7 or whatever, the business will still run, but with a bit higher prices. that's a better point to be than what we have currently.
|
On November 08 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Well it certainly is true that an independent restaurant or bar owner won't make a fortune with their business. But if large chains actually pay these ridiculous low wages then something is clearly wrong.
I don't think minimum wages are really great though, because I don't see how higher prices are not going to make the whole thing ineffective. If redistribution is the goal I think social transfers via taxation make more sense because they are not hitting small businesses that legitimately can't afford to pay the minimum wages.
Large businesses generally do pay more, so I'd assume that generally holds true for restaurants as well.
|
On November 08 2014 11:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 08 2014 10:21 oneofthem wrote:On November 08 2014 10:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 08 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:
Well the only way way I see this tip system actually work is if stuff actually is cheaper. Which is probably true to a degree but I guess a large part of the saved money just goes into the employers pockets. You've already mentioned the downsides of illegal employment. The restaurant industry is really competitive so I don't think the employer's pockets are a real worry. competitiveness does not necessarily justify much of what results from it by itself. cost cutting is being competitive, offering better products is another way of being competitive, so is having the mob beat up the competitors. if cost cutting is easy, at the expense of the workers, then it will be pushed to an extreme degree precisely because of the high level of competition. however, if there is restriction on how much they can compete on cutting certain costs, then yes, the food becomes a bit more expensive, but more people will be better off. Competitive in an economics sense. The industry is competitive, so profits are close to a normal profit. my point is there are multiple possible equilibrium states depending on the ease or constraints of each factor input.
And what does that point have to do with my point?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it means competitive is not informative.
|
On November 08 2014 11:14 oneofthem wrote:
it means competitive is not informative.
So your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Thanks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
my point is that you can guide the development of a competitive market in a number of ways. making labor cheap as dirt isn't always good. or rather, allowing it to be.
|
On November 08 2014 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
my point is that you can guide the development of a competitive market in a number of ways. making labor cheap as dirt isn't always good. or rather, allowing it to be.
I know that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it does supercede your point, but maybe not contradict it directly.
|
Jonnies point was:
Restaurant market is competetive ---> owners don't make a lot of money.
Oneofthem's point is: Increasing cost of labor doesn't destroy businesses in such a competetive market because it effects every business the same, thus the competetiveness of that market is irrelevant for this.
Thus, you are talking about different things and getting angry for no reason.
|
Just saw somewhere else that people are complaining about not being able to vote because of work, is mail voting not a thing in the US?
|
On November 08 2014 06:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 05:55 IgnE wrote:On November 08 2014 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:
3) Minimum wage increases are ultimately meaningless (economic research is pretty clear on this: it'll only affects high schoolers and the very young with no impact on the people who most need it) No it's not. If you raise the minimum wage you effectively raise the wages of everyone near minimum wage. The veterans in retail aren't going to accept suddenly being on equal footing with the high schoolers getting the new minimum wage. http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.
Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high-school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 88 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase are age 20 or older, and 55 percent are women.
Fair enough, though I'm interested to see how they derived those numbers. Nonetheless, an increase of the minimum wage has only a negligible effect on the incomes of the poor. It's an increase, but a paltry one at best. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995Additionally, a minimum wage increase will probably be followed by a corresponding increase in the cost of living. Which is a problem which makes a minimum wage increase, while attractive politically, a relatively weak solution to the problem of wealth inequality and poverty. I would argue that a dramatic expansion of social services, including universal healthcare and college education, and a refocus on urban public transit systems is necessary. Also ending tax loopholes and probably raising the tax rates on the upper income brackets. The entire point of a democratic government is wealth redistribution after all. Going to recommend the book Hand to Mouth for a more personal view of what poverty is like in America.Increasing the minimum wage is not enough, by a long shot.
The lady who wrote that book was on Real Time. Definitely gonna give it a try around christmas.
|
On November 08 2014 23:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Just saw somewhere else that people are complaining about not being able to vote because of work, is mail voting not a thing in the US?
You can't be fired for voting 1 so no but 2 mail voting or absentee voting is a thing and becoming more popular.
|
On November 09 2014 00:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2014 23:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Just saw somewhere else that people are complaining about not being able to vote because of work, is mail voting not a thing in the US? You can't be fired for voting 1 so no but 2 mail voting or absentee voting is a thing and becoming more popular.
You can get fired for just about anything. One just has to use another reason if it's not legal, or in 'at-will' states no reason works just fine.
Republicans have been on a rampage trying to make it harder to vote. Whether it's cutting days, locations, or registration opportunities, it's clear that it has been too easy to vote in republican eyes.
|
On November 08 2014 23:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Just saw somewhere else that people are complaining about not being able to vote because of work, is mail voting not a thing in the US?
Absentee voting rules
Most states have absentee voting without requiring cause. Of the ones that do require cause the majority of those have exceptions for work interfering with voting. In a handful it appears that having to work on election day is not enough to receive an absentee ballot, but there are also usually early voting periods.
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/eypqbuus6uyuo0csloloeq.png) Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority.
Gallup
|
On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. Gallup
As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns.
|
On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns.
And they got them. More guns sold while Obama was president than any other president ever.
|
It was trending up and already a plurality before the Obama election though. Also, regardless of what Americans say it's objectively false that a house is safer with a gun present. And I say that as a gun owner.
|
On November 09 2014 11:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2014 11:40 Introvert wrote:WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place. Gallup originally asked Americans about their views on the implications of having a gun in the home in 1993, and then updated the measure in 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, less than half of Americans believed having a gun at home makes it safer -- but since then, this percentage has significantly increased to a majority. As soon as a black guy gets into the white house, Americans want more guns.
That kept happening after pushes for gun controls, nada to do with skin color. The % was on its way up anyway, but for some reason Gallup didn't take the poll for 8 years.
Also, in 1993 the number of "safer" answers was 42% vs 52%.
So I would normally think you were being silly, but you are Sub40 after all, you never know.
Crap, I forgot the golden rule of ignoring posts less than one sentence. Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
