OT: Should Mississippi follow California’s lead?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,465
3,379
113
LOL and right on cue .
Its just a bill that was proposed by a member of the state's legislature. If that is the bar we have to clear for us to associate crazy ideas with a state or its overall voting group, my state would be in a perpetual state of being pointed to and laughed at by Nelson.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
Well, as an out and proud Lawrencexual, I am a clear loser in the states policy decision to not pass the "2 chicks at the same time benefit for Johnson85" bill that I have presented to my local legislators every year since Office space came out in 1999. And even though that is devestating to me personally and I think my local representatives are bigoted *** holes, I can kind of sort of see the argument that letting people make their own decisions about who they do and how many chicks, if any, are involved or how much money they require to do a job is very different from making a decision to interfere with people's personal decisions.
Funny, but irrelevant. Not having a minimum wage is ever bit a policy decision as much as not having an army.
I don't think this is generally true. We could pass a policy where we euthanized the least healthy and most costly medicare patients, and there would be more winners than losers, but very few people would agree that's good policy. Certainly the harm from being told you aren't productive enough to work legally is not as extreme as being euthanized, but it's still pretty devestating.
Fair point, I meant that as overall value not individual people.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,465
3,379
113
BTW, a certain presidential candidate has proposed a 10% tariff on imports, 60% on imports from China and immigration restrictions. I suspect that will raise prices for more Americans than a minimum wage increase and certainly make food cost more.
Strong point.
 

thatsbaseball

Well-known member
May 29, 2007
16,605
4,080
113
Its just a bill that was proposed by a member of the state's legislature. If that is the bar we have to clear for us to associate crazy ideas with a state or its overall voting group, my state would be in a perpetual state of being pointed to and laughed at by Nelson.
But it still made me laugh....kinda like renaming the DC airport after Trump. The absurdity of politics in this country right now would make the Twilight Zone look factual.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,095
7,109
113
But it still made me laugh....kinda like renaming the DC airport after Trump. The absurdity of politics in this country right now would make the Twilight Zone look factual.
It's like labeling someone simply a Conservative or a Democrat just because they agree with a few ideas on the other side. Not all Conservatives blindly follow. everything a conservative believes, just like not all Democrats follow every one of the Democrat's ideas to the letter. I probably come from a different time when you could sit and have discussions with different political opinions without resorting to calling each other a socialist or Nazi if you don't agree with everything they say.

ETA - there are just some people who love nothing more than to argue.
 

thatsbaseball

Well-known member
May 29, 2007
16,605
4,080
113
BTW, a certain presidential candidate has proposed a 10% tariff on imports, 60% on imports from China and immigration restrictions. I suspect that will raise prices for more Americans than a minimum wage increase and certainly make food cost more.
But not as much as the current administration's war on fossil fuels.
 

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,320
2,589
113
The theory of free speech is as popular as it ever was. In practice, it is only disliked more among the far left as they have partially adopted a modern conservative view of being less favorable of speech they don't agree with. And even this is still weaker than the right has promoted for decades. The traditional liberal view has always been "I may disagree with what you day but I will fight to the death your right to say it". Conservatives have never agreed.

This is gobbledygook. You could plausibly say that in 2016, but not 2024. He has a record, and they like it. He didnt reduce corruption, he increased it, for him and his side, and they want more of that.

he is the epitome of the modern conservative.

well that says a lot about conservative beliefs

he does get credit from people who can't read a graph, or have no care for consistency. The people that think the economy completely turned around by Feb 2017 and completely turned back on Jan 7, 2021.

Always were

bias showing. Hillary was widely unliked, but only the far right thinks she was a horrible human. Biden is widely recognized as a good human being. I think Romeny isn't popular but most people saw him as a good person.

It's not if you understand modern conservatism.

Abortion drove a lot of "soccer moms" that saw it only as killing babies and otherwise were not staunchly conservatives. Now that the truth is understood, that abortion rights protects healthcare for all women, you see a major effect. It's not hard to understand, you either cast a loose net so that urgent decisions can be made with minimal govt interference, or you cast a tight one to prevent the maximum number of elective abortions but sweep in some cases of just medical problems and force "normal" Americans to get MTGs approval of their urgent medical care. Soccer moms are recoilling at the latter. The GOP is in a pickle because their base believes in a total ban and are not the type that will get the political problems with that. Trump himself will have to walk this mine field. He already doesn't know how to square that circle.
"It's not if you understand modern conservatism." Is there such a thing? MAGA peeps like Trump and dislike Dems and are largely uninterested in policy or his flaws. It's us vs. them. They do like some of his ideas and have ditched the tradition Republican view that America should invade the world and invite the world to come here. I don't think MAGA peeps care all that much about abortion, an issue that's important to an ever dwindling religious right that's really a loser at the ballot box. Dems should be happy that Roe v. Wade was overturned. It's an electoral issue now.
 

Mobile Bay

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2020
3,838
1,527
113
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.
And corporate America will go along with the raise because it squeezes the little guy out. That raises the barrier to entry for compitition. Then they raise prices. Fast food sticker shock anybody?
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
12,228
2,451
113
Funny, but irrelevant. Not having a minimum wage is ever bit a policy decision as much as not having an army.

How to provide for the common defense, which is pretty much universally recognized as a public good, is pretty different than deciding whether to let people compete on price when offering their labor for pay. I would agree that a policy decision letting people compete on price is pretty different than deciding whether to mandate or at least subsidize two chicks at the same time for me. But the former two are about as far apart as the latter two.

Fair point, I meant that as overall value not individual people.

My position is basically the same for overall value also. You can get in extreme versions of the trolley problem where that position gets absurd, but it's right for most real life circumstances. I think most people would agree that implementing a minimum wage to protect white (mostly unionized) workers from having to compete on price with black workers is morally wrong and bad policy. I don't think they'd change their position if you could conclusively show them that the benefit outweighs the harm. If you take the same policy and say now it's not about race, it's just that preventing the lowest skilled, least productive workers from offering their labor at an economic price allows other workers to negotiate higher wages, and it only costs the lowest skilled, least productive workers the ability to have legal employment, my position doesn't change. Even if you can show a net positive somehow, that doesn't justify choosing to harm some individuals. And of course you can't really show a net positive, because it's just too complicated an issue.

ETA: fixed having benefit and harm reversed
 
Last edited:

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,320
2,589
113
But not as much as the current administration's war on fossil fuels.
There's no war on fossil fuels. I think the push for electric vehicles was dumb but we're producing lots of oil. Moving away from coal makes sense. And tariffs will likely raise prices across the board for most Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstateglfr

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
And corporate America will go along with the raise because it squeezes the little guy out. That raises the barrier to entry for compitition. Then they raise prices. Fast food sticker shock anybody?
Nah, corporate America fights raises tooth and nail. Compare inflation the last few years with average salaried worker raises.
 

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,320
2,589
113
And corporate America will go along with the raise because it squeezes the little guy out. That raises the barrier to entry for compitition. Then they raise prices. Fast food sticker shock anybody?
Republican voters are finally realizing that mega corporations aren't their friend. They aren't necessarily the enemy but Republican voters were often told to genuflect to big business. Dems are now pro-big business especially because so many have diversity policies and embrace some aspects of wokeness. Dems are raking in cash from Wall Street.
 

Mobile Bay

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2020
3,838
1,527
113
"We'd have to charge $20 for a burger combo". If a teenager can see it, why can't the rest of the world.

It doesn't work that way. In-N-Out just raised the price of their burgers about 40 cents in response to the minimum wage increase in Cali. $1.20 for a combo. The milkshake is just 5 cents more (the horror). Other businesses might have to raise prices more. Maybe $20 is too much, it would be for MS, but raising the minimum wage a bit hasn't led to these apocalyptic scenarios anywhere.
In and out burger is a very bad example. Privately owned and no franchise fees. Meanwhile have you priced Chick Fil A lately?
 

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,320
2,589
113
In and out burger is a very bad example. Privately owned and no franchise fees. Meanwhile have you priced Chick Fil A lately?
Nope. We have inflation so I'm assuming prices have gone up. I don't eat much fast food. The nearby taco truck has good tacos for $2.50.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
How to provide for the common defense, which is pretty much universally recognized as a public good, is pretty different than deciding whether to let people compete on price when offering their labor for pay. I would agree that a policy decision letting people compete on price is pretty different than deciding whether to mandate or at least subsidize two chicks at the same time for me. But the former two are about as far apart as the latter two.
No, it's really not that different. Think of all the past draftees!
My position is basically the same for overall value also. You can get in extreme versions of the trolley problem where that position gets absurd, but it's right for most real life circumstances. I think most people would agree that implementing a minimum wage to protect white (mostly unionized) workers from having to compete on price with black workers is morally wrong and bad policy.
we would if that were actually happening.
I don't think they'd change their position if you could conclusively show them that the harm outweighs the benefit.
i would think some people WOULD change their position if they thought a policy was a net good but were shown it is actually a net negatibe. Democrat voters, mostly. We see how Trump voters are.
If you take the same policy and say now it's not about race, it's just that preventing the lowest skilled, least productive workers from offering their labor at an economic price allows other workers to negotiate higher wages, and it only costs the lowest skilled, least productive workers the ability to have legal employment, my position doesn't change.
except thats not what it is. Who are these so unskilled workers that they can't even get a MW job, or even an unofficial job for less? And don't they get unemployment if they exist?
Even if you can show a net positive somehow, that doesn't justify choosing to harm some individuals. And of course you can't really show a net positive, because it's just too complicated an issue.
Of course it justifies policy, it's the only thing that does! Otherwise, let's just have anarchy and call that a net positive, somehow. We have to balance policy with rights of course, that's how govt works.

For example, should all abortion be legal because one woman one time was denied medical treatment and died?
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
Republican voters are finally realizing that mega corporations aren't their friend. They aren't necessarily the enemy but Republican voters were often told to genuflect to big business. Dems are now pro-big business especially because so many have diversity policies and embrace some aspects of wokeness. Dems are raking in cash from Wall Street.
The centrist Dems have been pro Big Business for a looooong time. Dems getting cash from WS is nothing new.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
In and out burger is a very bad example. Privately owned and no franchise fees. Meanwhile have you priced Chick Fil A lately?
The fast food franchise model is such an atypical outlier model that using it as a basis to assess MW changes belies pushing am agenda.

A fast food franchisee/manager cannot pick the menu, the decor, the ingredients, the price, the ads, etc. Just about the only thing they have control over that determines their profit, is labor. So they obsess over it.

The real story is all the automated food cookers, carefully crafted drive thrus, meticulous menus down to the gram of ingredient, etc, all of these PRODUCTIVITY improvements in fast food still require SOMEBODY on-site to push a button or whatever. To clean up the bathroom on beef macaroni night. Whatever. So the value of labor has gone up.

We're also missing that while the $/hr pay has gone up, the overall staffing has probably gone down. Productivity gains, baby.
 

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,320
2,589
113
The centrist Dems have been pro Big Business for a looooong time. Dems getting cash from WS is nothing new.
Clinton started the trend in the 90s. Obama was good for bankers. And wokeness is now an elite set of ideas and policies imposed on everyone else, or elites attempt to impose them. I suspect it's a way for some rich people and wealthy corporations to avoid others noticing how wealthy they are. You can be woke, issue a land acknowledgement or some other secular prayer and not lose anything while gaining social status among your peers. It's easy to pick on the white poors. Unless you go as far as Bud Light.
 
Last edited:

Seinfeld

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
9,526
3,561
113
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.

I don't know how this could possibly be any more false. Corporate America, in many cases, has complete control over paying good employees what they're worth. The difference is that it's based on supply/demand of the profession and talent pool, so it's based much moreso on the company's determination of value, not something mandated by the local government or the employee themself. Does that sometimes result in an employee feeling undervalued to the point that they seek another job elsewhere, sure, but this idea that big business doesn't value its employees or pay it's employees according to that value is simply untrue for a lot of companies.
 

Seinfeld

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
9,526
3,561
113
Sure, if they can do so without losing profit. Basic econ says they cant, due to profit loss and competition.

Basic econ says the opposite. Revenue - expenses = profit. If a company's expenses go up in the form of increased payroll, revenue must increase as well to maintain the same level of profit. This happened all over the world just a few years ago when logistics and general supply chain costs increased during Covid, and it got passed on the consumer in many areas of global manufacturing. No matter whether it's corporate America or a small family-run restaurant, very rarely are you going to find someone just willing make less profit. CEOs have Wall Street to answer to, and small business owners have families to look after too.

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.
Staffing cuts and automation are just BS? Having spent 20 years now in the corporate manufacturing arena, I can assure you this is not BS. Will it entirely replace warehouse workers, analysts, etc? Not anytime soon, but I promise you.... there are things from paint lines to stock picking robots to all over the place that were humans 5 years ago.

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.
No, take no profit over losing homes, savings, or taking out loans that they'll never be able to pay back to simply cover costs. Food and Bev is a tough business with typically thin margins, and there are plenty that have decided that have decided to ditch it for car dealerships or selling houses over the years.
 

thatsbaseball

Well-known member
May 29, 2007
16,605
4,080
113
"Staffing cuts and automation are just BS? Having spent 20 years now in the corporate manufacturing arena, I can assure you this is not BS. Will it entirely replace warehouse workers, analysts, etc? Not anytime soon, but I promise you.... there are things from paint lines to stock picking robots to all over the place that were humans 5 years ago."

LOL I became a believer when they started making machines that could clean, skin and filet a catfish.....that ain't easy.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
I don't know how this could possibly be any more false. Corporate America, in many cases, has complete control over paying good employees what they're worth. The difference is that it's based on supply/demand of the profession and talent pool, so it's based much moreso on the company's determination of value, not something mandated by the local government or the employee themself. Does that sometimes result in an employee feeling undervalued to the point that they seek another job elsewhere, sure, but this idea that big business doesn't value its employees or pay it's employees according to that value is simply untrue for a lot of companies.
It's not. Corporate has complete control yes, and they use it over their managers. So if a manager knows an employee is worth it and wants to pay more to keep them, they usually can't. Ask anyone who's worked for a large corporation. It's Corp 101 these days.

It's not based on value, it's based on keeping payroll as low as possible. Because low payroll drives short term stock price. Driving up payroll by keeping good employees drives up long term stock price. Guess which one they pick. They dare employees to leave because they know most won't, and those that do can be replaced (in their minds).
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,942
1,091
113
Basic econ says the opposite. Revenue - expenses = profit. If a company's expenses go up in the form of increased payroll, revenue must increase as well to maintain the same level of profit.
Oh, so business just choose revenue? Sounds nice!
This happened all over the world just a few years ago when logistics and general supply chain costs increased during Covid, and it got passed on the consumer in many areas of global manufacturing.
thats not what happened. To a degree, yes, but that was a small part. As i said, prices go up a little, profit goes down a little. Its all a tradeoff, and there's no such thing as an entitled profit to a business. If an expense goes up, profit goes down. Assuming any sort of efficient market.
No matter whether it's corporate America or a small family-run restaurant, very rarely are you going to find someone just willing make less profit. CEOs have Wall Street to answer to, and small business owners have families to look after
Just wave a magic wand then?

ETA: i do think theres a point here that CEOs have chosen to maintain short term profits, at the expense of long term profits, because it is in their interest to do so due to compensation practices. Again, a market inefficiency. How much smaller businesses do this, I don't know. Probably an emotional decision, loss aversion, etc, but could also be a wise move to take short profits then sell.
Staffing cuts and automation are just BS? Having spent 20 years now in the corporate manufacturing arena, I can assure you this is not BS. Will it entirely replace warehouse workers, analysts, etc? Not anytime soon, but I promise you.... there are things from paint lines to stock picking robots to all over the place that were humans 5 years ago.
Definitely true. And it will continue. Just saying the current "AI will replace your job!" Line is BS. The trend is the same as it has been for years. AI is just hype at this point.
No, take no profit over losing homes, savings, or taking out loans that they'll never be able to pay back to simply cover costs. Food and Bev is a tough business with typically thin margins, and there are plenty that have decided that have decided to ditch it for car dealerships or selling houses over the years.
Agreed, if the choice is take a loss or go out of business, it's usually the latter. There are marginal businesses that can't absorb higher expenses. They can try to raise prices, but often tha just extends the pain. Competition works, when it's there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login