China is the 2nd, you can take off for there too if you want.........**
OT: Should Mississippi follow California’s lead?
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
- Status
There's a reason everything's more expensive in California, but anyway.
The restaurant owners will respond by:
1. increasing prices
2. reducing staff/use automation to replace staff
3. say "17 it" and close shop
The restaurant owners will respond by:
1. increasing prices
2. reducing staff/use automation to replace staff
3. say "17 it" and close shop
It sounds like you ran a small business and had complete control over paying good employees what they are worth. In corporate America, it doesn't work that way. And corporate America runs a lot of shite these days.
Yep, they think all CEOs make $100MM a year and got there by cheating everyone in America. They get these ideas from Hollywood's portrayal of Evil corporate management. They don't know the real story of how workers spend years working their way up the ladder to become CEOs and most are not compensated enough for all they do for their companies. The average salary in America is $836,000 to run a company. It is a huge responsibility.
Sometime two of them. Increasing prices and reducing staff.
Yeah, but those military guys and ladies are spending the **** out of money while there. It's more than just the Government spending. I have been there, lived there and I didn't like being there.
Last edited:
Sure, if they can do so without losing profit. Basic econ says they cant, due to profit loss and competition.
Mostly BS pushed by Big Tech. Amazon is closing their "staff-less" groceries, which it turns out was really just Indians watching remote feeds, and even that couldn't do the job as well as a decently paid employee.
(I wanted Blade for this quote, but gif search is garbage.)
Take no profit over less profit?
Very interesting that the "pro-market" view is that business owners are idiots who either are already running inefficiently for no reason or will sacrifice profit out of spite or idiocy. Not that I disagree with that view of business, just interesting that others combine those two things.
Can I be both liberal AND know from experience that operating a small business is extremely difficult, and that figuring out how to fairly compensate employees not to mention finding employees who want to work is one of the most difficult things about it? And can that experience be one of the reasons I AM a bit liberal?
We lived in California for 4 years and enjoyed our time there. It is all about perspectives. I have family members that have said, "How could you stand living in California?" Of course, they never leave Mississippi and can't understand why anyone ever does. When I lived in Florida friends asked me if I was scared when I went to Mississippi to visit family. Their understanding of Mississippi came from watching In the Heat of the Night. They thought I might not make it back to Florida. These are educated people I'm talking about.
I was saying 1.6% seems like a pretty significant chunk when you are talking just defense spending. Not sure what it would be elsewhere, but that seems like a lot.
Ok, so you're saying the owners will just pay the increased salaries and make no other changes? What would you do?Sure, if they can do so without losing profit. Basic econ says they cant, due to profit loss and competition.
Mostly BS pushed by Big Tech. Amazon is closing their "staff-less" groceries, which it turns out was really just Indians watching remote feeds, and even that couldn't do the job as well as a decently paid employee.
(I wanted Blade for this quote, but gif search is garbage.)
Take no profit over less profit?
Very interesting that the "pro-market" view is that business owners are idiots who either are already running inefficiently for no reason or will sacrifice profit out of spite or idiocy. Not that I disagree with that view of business, just interesting that others combine those two things.
I just don't understand it. With low wages, a low minimum wage and more moral people and families, I simply don't understand why Americans aren't flocking to Mississippi.
my lowest paid unskilled labor employee makes $15 plus benefits. That's a "go get that ladder from the truck", "hold this wire and don't let it kink" guy. my skilled crew leaders make $28 plus benefits. not many besides your Dollar store employees (which generally are not very motivated to work) and fast food restaurant employees (which are generally high school kids) are making minimum wage anymore. I don't have any employees making minimum wage. This whole fallacy that all businesses are only paying minimum wage is BS. The other side of it is...I'm passing 100% of it right on to my clients in the form of higher service rates. And so are my competitors. So, the prices of my clients' goods and services get passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher prices. Who's really winning?
Up until about 20 years ago I had never traveled very far out of the Southeastern US. Since then have been able to do some travelling, both in the rest of the US and in many places outside it. One thing I have learned is that very few places are as bad, or as good, as they are made out to be. California is definitely one of those places.
I suspect we can have modest increases in the minimum wage without having earth shattering consequences.
It really is amazing to see people form perceptions of an entire state. I sort of get people thinking NY is basically just NYC. People in NYC think NY is basically just NYC. But you'd think people in states that were routinely subjected to that type of treatment they'd remember that what is portrayed by media isn't particularly accurate for most places.
But I really don't get what people see in California that would make them think they wouldn't like living there, unless they are just saying I wouldn't want to live there with the money I have now or anywhere close to it (which is basically true for me also). I understand saying I wouldn't want to live in San Francisco or Oakland or where ever, but California is generally portrayed as heaven on earth climate wise and not just picturesque, but picturesque for pretty much whatever you want (ocean views, mountains, valleys, forests, lakes, rivers, farm land, and I guess pretty much everything but prairies and tundra?).
I guess the same thing applies to people from Florida. I guess Florida is pretty homogenous topography wise, but pretty massive difference between the coastal areas and the interior for most of the state.
NYC has a lower murder rate than MS. But who wants to live there other than something like 8 million people.
Currently, they think the crime or homelessness or gas price of the worst inner-city block is how it is across the whole state. Media.
-city
Mississippi is a very red state (+16.54% for Trump in 2020) but not exactly a bastion of limited government.
Mississippi's freedom ranks according to the Cato Institute:
- Overall: 40th
- Economic: 36th
- Fiscal: 42nd
- Regulatory: 15th
- Personal: 45th
- Economic: 36th
Northern California is nice. Expensive as hell but nice. Cali does have way too many progressive politicians who embrace the dumbest of "progressive" ideas that make the 90% of decent people have to put up with the 10% of the population that make life less enjoyable..
No they aren't. Show me the figures. The ones leaving are primarily going to others states
Maybe look closer. Seeing a few people from Cali in MS doesn't mean people from Cali are flocking here. It's a trickle and statistically insignificant. MS isn't even in the Top 15. More went to Arkansas. Linky
I understand that if you say the word freedom and call yourself a patriot those rankings automatically change and you become the most free state.
It's a bit more defined than that.
I'm not even arguing that anyone should agree with their conclusions. The point is that according to those who advocate for limited government, Mississippi is not a limited government state.
The wrong conclusion is "Mississippi is a red state. Just about every state is outcompeting Mississippi. Limited government must not be the answer."
We haven't tried limited government in Mississippi in quite some time.
White and black Southerners are poorer than their co-ethnics in elsewhere in America, more violent, less educated and die younger than people elsewhere. I like the South, it's where I live and will retire, but the notion that other parts of America are hellholes in comparison doesn't hold up.
Yea, there was a reason Mississippi was democrat for basically forever, and it wasn't solely loyalty to slavery and then to Jim Crow. Mississippians generally like big government. We generally like farm subsidies, we generally like law enforcement and law and order (even at the expense of the rule of law), we like pork, we like medicare and social security, our business owners generally like protection from competition and we give it to them when we can, etc. We do like low taxes, but at the end of the day, not enough to actually much in the way of government spending. Lots of legislators flipped red not because they had a change in philosophy, but because the national democratic brand moved too far left too quickly. We still have a lot of more or less traditional moderate democrats running and getting elected as republicans because that's what is required politically to be competitive. We have had some strong politicians that actually are on the right that have probably ensured a lot of legislators vote more to the right than their personal beliefs.
People don't really like limited government other than using it as a slogan ("Big gubment bad"). Americans like socialism, well they hate the word, but they like a lot of government programs that socialists were the first to champion.
No. Do i think most business owners would make the optimal/logical decision, or a less optimal/less logical/more emotional decision? The latter. The former is difficult enough to do when trying to not be emotional, and most arent trying. Which informs my views on economics, the economy, etc. I don't believe in the efficient market hypothesis, I don't believe the free market always makes good decisions. Blasphemy to many, I know. And no, that does not mean I believe in communism. The free market is the best there is at what it does, but it ain't magical.
Generally, econ says the "triangle" shows that you maximize profit by increasing price a little, and losing profit a little. If an input cost to a process goes up, and you change sales so that you don't lose profit....then you didn't have sales set right to begin with.
And what did they "move left on too quickly", if it wasn't taxing and spending?
Slavery and Jim Crow segregation worked against the development of capitalism in MS and the Deep South and led to elite capture of the state and a form of conservatism less favorable to the cultural modernizing version elsewhere (the free market doesn't give a damn about preserving tradition). The South needs a lot of capital and investment from wealthy people and corporations elsewhere. Look at how long that rebel flag remained on the state flag and how many people got emotionally triggered when it was removed. That symbol wasn't something that inspired the rest of the country to respect the magnolia state.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.