|
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 July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite? Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad.
Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?
|
On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited. They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause.
OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.
|
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.
Link
What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.
|
On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited. They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause. OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.
If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software.
It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.
|
On July 11 2013 04:01 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. Your post is riddled with bad assumptions and I really don't care to spend too much time engaging it but I will correct a few: The auction is for companies already in the industry. There's no "barrier to entry" here because the majority of the companies participating the auction would already be in said industry. I suppose if one wanted to enter the industry they could participate, but they'd be factoring startup costs into that decision. And why is it fallacious to assume a big company is good at what it does? If Microsoft made shitty processors, their processor division would go out of business. I suppose they could be just REALLY good at marketing and convincing people to buy shitty processors, but this is the information age, marketing has its limits. And constantly buying up your competitors is a lousy way to control an industry. It's a great villainous plot for cartoons, but it doesn't work in the real world. The same goes for predatory pricing (an accusation often leveled at WalMart). It simply doesn't happen. Unless the government was propping them up, Microsoft would only be able to stay in the processor business if they made good processors. Also, competition for competition sake is kinda silly. What we care about is economic efficiency that produces both happy suppliers and happy consumers. Competition might provide that, but that's not a guarantee. And just demanding competition because you think it's good without any evidence as to the end result is rather short sighted. Also it's long been demonstrated that there's no such thing as a natural monopoly. The only monopolies that exist or can exist do so because of government favors...which is exactly what I'm arguing against. You're really straw manning my free market argument here.
I'll go ahead and apologize, since I'm mainly talking about that line of "rich and powerful businesses are so because they're better." I'm not really talking about privatization of government services, just the failing of free market principles many people hold so very dear to their hearts.
|
On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite? Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad. Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?
It would help to cite or give a reason, because your question on its own means the person in question does not understand English, which, I'm sure is not true.
|
On July 11 2013 04:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited. They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause. OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter. If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software. It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.
Apple designs their OS for intel chipsets...and even when they were designing their OS for their own hardware it didn't matter because there were alternatives to both. If Microsoft started building Windows to only work on Microsoft processors AND Microsoft processors were shitty, people would switch to other OS's and hardware configs.
|
On July 11 2013 04:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:01 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. Your post is riddled with bad assumptions and I really don't care to spend too much time engaging it but I will correct a few: The auction is for companies already in the industry. There's no "barrier to entry" here because the majority of the companies participating the auction would already be in said industry. I suppose if one wanted to enter the industry they could participate, but they'd be factoring startup costs into that decision. And why is it fallacious to assume a big company is good at what it does? If Microsoft made shitty processors, their processor division would go out of business. I suppose they could be just REALLY good at marketing and convincing people to buy shitty processors, but this is the information age, marketing has its limits. And constantly buying up your competitors is a lousy way to control an industry. It's a great villainous plot for cartoons, but it doesn't work in the real world. The same goes for predatory pricing (an accusation often leveled at WalMart). It simply doesn't happen. Unless the government was propping them up, Microsoft would only be able to stay in the processor business if they made good processors. Also, competition for competition sake is kinda silly. What we care about is economic efficiency that produces both happy suppliers and happy consumers. Competition might provide that, but that's not a guarantee. And just demanding competition because you think it's good without any evidence as to the end result is rather short sighted. Also it's long been demonstrated that there's no such thing as a natural monopoly. The only monopolies that exist or can exist do so because of government favors...which is exactly what I'm arguing against. You're really straw manning my free market argument here. I'll go ahead and apologize, since I'm mainly talking about that line of "rich and powerful businesses are so because they're better." I'm not really talking about privatization of government services, just the failing of free market principles many people hold so very dear to their hearts.
Well I was very specifically talking about privatization so your post was rather a non-sequitur.
|
On July 11 2013 04:26 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.
also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power. Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism. While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though. When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking. If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway. There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway? This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well. That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited. They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause. OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter. If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software. It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.
I won't say that's impossible. Implausible, but not impossible.
|
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?
That actually has a rich history.
In the 1936 election, FDR had a field day with so-called "me too" Republicans. Addressing a Democratic audience in New York that September, the president was at the top of his form. "Let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion which says, 'of course we believe all these things, we believe in social-security, we believe in work for the unemployed, we believe in saving homes -- cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the president's administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better, and best of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.' " qtd here
RINOs have been eternally useful in Democratic pandering to the cult of bipartisanship. "We believe the same things!" ~Rinos through the ages. It took a rejection of that ideology to get the sweep in 1994 of the House.
Health care bill was that rare exception, the united opposition of Republicans indicative of the Democratic mindset of making it as they wished. It was not a deliberate incorporation of republican ideas for a different type of mandate, those were in the context of Hillarycare and looked far different. As much as the left-wing New Republic would have Wikipedia readers believe (thrice quoted to give credence to the bipartisan paragraph), they're scrambling to find times the moderates talked to senators in the context of the health care bill. It's politically expedient for the Democrats to cast the ACA (or PPACA) as a bipartisan bill that was rejected by Republicans for ideological reasons, instead of the Democrat's massive overhaul of the health care system. Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it" has now become "We gotta stall the bill so we can find out how to implement it."
|
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.
I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
|
On July 11 2013 04:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite? Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad. Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit? It would help to cite or give a reason, because your question on its own means the person in question does not understand English, which, I'm sure is not true.
Refuting unsupported assertions with unsupported assertions is the entire point of politics no?
But really, how is trying to derail a trainwreck of a bill considered non-pragmatic and at the expense of the people?
|
On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs.
All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.
|
On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs. All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.
There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up.
|
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.
???
The claim that minimum wage increases unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me.
Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general.
|
On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite? Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad. Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?
Uhh. No I mean at their expense. Republicans win politically if the implementation of Obamacare screws up. They care more about that than the people it would affect.
Are you being snarky? Because I don't get it.
|
On July 11 2013 04:48 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs. All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall. There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up.
The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.
It's just political rent seeking form small retailers and unions combined with anti-intellectualism from the left.
On July 11 2013 04:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. ??? The claim that minimum wage increase unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me. Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general.
That's absurd!
|
The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.
Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases?
Because that's absurd.
Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit.
|
On July 11 2013 04:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:48 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs. All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall. There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up. The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. It's just political rent seeking form small retailers and unions combined with anti-intellectualism from the left. Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 04:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’
The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.
A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...
The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25. LinkWhat a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous. ??? The claim that minimum wage increase unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me. Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general. That's absurd!
The idea that changes in minimum wage have any impact is rather unsupported. Such a small segment of the economy is making minimum wage that changes to it don't really affect unemployment either way. I guess WalMart is an outlier in the larger economy in that regard.
Lawmakers love to ramble about minimum wage because it's an easy to identify number that makes a nice soundbyte. Raise it. Lower it. In the grand scheme of things it's not going to change wages much.
|
On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much. Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases? Because that's absurd. Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit.
I am afraid I have to side with Jonny on this, Walmart's profit margin is sub 4% last I checked which is very slim so its not like they have a ton of room to increase expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
