Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 108 of 108

Thread: Walmart employees to get raises

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Your questions for everyone here are gotchya.





    You're the one who said you're on this forum to try to belittle people. You're crying when somebody points it out?
    No, I am not crying when you point out something I said, I admit I said I am here to belittle people.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Where?
    Taiwan, China and Hong Kong before it was returned.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Wrong. We want a higher standard of living. We want an hour of pay to buy more stuff. The best way to get that is thru capitalism (freedom).
    Nicely put

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How much did the people at the stores Walmart customers used to shop at lose? And the stores those people shopped at? But well paying jobs don't matter. (It is a trade-off- we don't get both. Cheap prices and fewer, low paying jobs or higher prices and more higher paying jobs).
    You seem to repeatedly keep forgetting some obvious, perceptible economic facts. That lower prices increase demand & consumption, which holds true for both products as well as labor, so people buy more stuff as well as more people are hired when prices/wages are lower; conversely, higher prices discourage consumption, again, that holds true for both products as well as labor, so less products are bought & less people are hired. Considering this, those that want more jobs & higher living-standards should be happier with lower prices/wages.

    The thing is that people get muddled in nomimal-prices/wages while ignoring real-prices/wages, which is what causes the suggested disparity in their view (that is, their desire for lower prices & higher wages); instead, as madison320 has mentioned, an hour's worth of pay over the years, is a better way (although not perfect because the demand for different types of work can fluctuate) way of judging the relative increase/decrease in people's living standards over the years & decades.

    This sort of a thing becomes very obvious when one looks back on historical periods in various countries where real-wages & living-standards of people rose very quickly, under deflationary metallic monetary standards, despite the fact that nominal-prices/wages of products/labor fell as economies grew over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinch View Post
    Exactly, it amazes me how few people understand how labor supply/demand affects wages.

    I was arguing with a liberal one day who pulled out graphs that showed mostly flat wages going back to the 1970's. Of course since that time period, we have seen a sharp rise in not only immigrant workers, but of course also female workers entering the job force. IIRC the population is also outpacing number of jobs too. That is in no way conducive to rising wages (though of course more speicalized and in-demand fields have most definitely seen higher wages, but on a macro level, these factors contribute to driving them down).

    That is not to blame employers, immigrants or women of course, but to realize that more competition for less available jobs means that you will get great applicants without having to pay more for them, and businesses must to do so to mitigate risk and survive.
    Your inherent assumption being that the workers, in the past, were able to get significantly more work done compared to present workers & therefore, present workers are being continuously (since the time that such a downward shift in workers' productivity occurred) & significantly overpaid, for whatever reason. I strongly doubt that this has been the case because markets are very efficient (isn't that why we prefer freer markets!), often even despite government controls (repeated failure of government price controls & wage controls can be seen throughout history) so why would markets start & continue to overpay workers? I strongly believe, it hasn't. So the assumption that an increase in the number of workers has caused a fall in living-standards is unsatisfactory because of course, an increase in the number of workers can affect real-wages as well as nominal-wages but it's impact on real-wages (which is what we should concern ourselves with) is TEMPORARY & is offset by the subsequent increased production.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    "If we let.....?" Of course they aren't making more money. We have a glut of workers. Rising wages isn't a function of profit. It is a function of labor demand. Every time we get to peak employment, the immigrants flood in and drive wages back down.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    And you can't really compare wages without also comparing prices. Back then it would take a month's salary (or more) to buy a color TV. Today you can literally pick a working set up off the curb for free.

    I am a big fan of import taxes. If we want jobs to come back, that is what would have to happen.
    I'm not sure what your exact position is. Because on one hand, you are saying that increasing immigration has suppressed wages while on the other hand, you are admitting that purchasing-power (& therefore, real-wages) have gone up. It can't be both!

    While the last couple of years may have been hard for many, I doubt there's been a drop in living standards of people over several decades; I think it's just people's (mostly erroneous) perception that "good ol' days were so much better". And while things have likely not gotten worse over the decades, despite people's perceptions, may be the growth in people's living standards has been slow, eaten away by inflation, compared to the growth that may have been witnessed during the "good ol' days" when the government did practice (even though, inefficiently) a gold-standard & increasing the money-supply wasn't as easy as it has been after its complete removal.

    On a different note, import taxes are simply a wealth-transfer program, primarily from those who have been & will be buying imported products to those who might be hired or receive higher pay because of such a tax, not to mention, everyone else also foots a little bit of the bill because an economy is an interconnected & interdependent web of prices, so everyone is worse off in the end.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    I'm not sure what your exact position is. Because on one hand, you are saying that increasing immigration has suppressed wages while on the other hand, you are admitting that purchasing-power (& therefore, real-wages) have gone up. It can't be both!
    If you leave out real wages, then yes it can be both true.

    Immigrants create supply for labor, making labor cheaper. A dollar can now buy more labor for less, this is increase in purchasing power. Labor costs go down nominally, I don't know about "real" but wages go down, and wages are cheaper, and dollar is stronger.

  6. #95
    despite the fact that nominal-prices/wages of products/labor fell as economies grew over time
    Can you offer examples of times when nominal prices and wages were falling as economies grew?
    Lower wages are not necessarily offset by lower prices. That is because not all productivity goes to wages. Some is retained as profits by the company. The labor share of prices has fallen quite a bit in the last 50 years or so. Wages have not kept up with productivity increases and prices have also not reflected changes in productivity. Bosses and companies have been retaining larger shares than they used to.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-14-2015 at 06:54 PM.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    I am here to belittle people.


    That's part of the evidence of your trolling. Evidence is not just your employer sending you money through Paypal.

    I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    That's part of the evidence of your trolling. Evidence is not just your employer sending you money through Paypal.

    I combine your belittling goal with your posts. It's clear to see that your posts are not libertarian, but you trying to mock people for their libertarianism.
    ok, that's better, now you actually have something. Not evidence I'm lying, not evidence I'm paid, but at least an answer that's better than "I already posted it!!!!!"

    What employer sending money through PayPal to who?

    When I said I belittle people, if I recall the context correctly, it's to mock people who are conspiracy theorist, hyperinflation alarmist or think life was always better in the past. None of that has to do with being libertarian, I don't mock people just for being libertarian.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    When I said I belittle people, if I recall the context correctly, it's to mock people who are conspiracy theorist, hyperinflation alarmist or think life was always better in the past. None of that has to do with being libertarian, I don't mock people just for being libertarian.

    All your posts mock everybody for everything. That's your context.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    ...now you actually have something. Not evidence I'm lying,

    You asked for evidence and I posted it. People can view the evidence and judge for themselves if you're lying.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    ok, that's better, now you actually have something. Not evidence I'm lying, not evidence I'm paid, but at least an answer that's better than "I already posted it!!!!!"

    What employer sending money through PayPal to who?

    When I said I belittle people, if I recall the context correctly, it's to mock people who are conspiracy theorist, hyperinflation alarmist or think life was always better in the past. None of that has to do with being libertarian, I don't mock people just for being libertarian.
    I don't mock people just for being libertarian.

    if you are here to "mock" people.
    follow HB's lead.
    and avoid technical subjects.
    stick with monetary policy (zippyjaun) and religion (HB)
    that way. nobody can clean your clock.
    have a nice day!
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    If you leave out real wages, then yes it can be both true.

    Immigrants create supply for labor, making labor cheaper. A dollar can now buy more labor for less, this is increase in purchasing power. Labor costs go down nominally, I don't know about "real" but wages go down, and wages are cheaper, and dollar is stronger.
    Yes, nominal-wages go down, that is, each worker receives fewer dollars than before but production would also go up & increasing supply of products would reduce prices as well. People think that there's a limited amount of pie & the more people are there, the less of the chunk they'll get but this isn't necessarily true if the new people are also being productive. If 100 people are producing 100 pies then 110 people would be producing 110 pies so the reduction in nominal wages would be compensated by lower prices in the economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Can you offer examples of times when nominal prices and wages were falling as economies grew?
    Lower wages are not necessarily offset by lower prices. That is because not all productivity goes to wages. Some is retained as profits by the company. The labor share of prices has fallen quite a bit in the last 50 years or so. Wages have not kept up with productivity increases and prices have also not reflected changes in productivity. Bosses and companies have been retaining larger shares than they used to.
    Since you follow Keynesian economics, you'd know enough about sticky wages/prices. It used to occur frequently under metallic monetary standards because if the economy grows at a faster pace than the pace at which monetary units are growing then that would cause a price-deflation, a fall in wages/prices caused by the growth of the economy. This is the very "problem" Keynes felt the need to solve by allowing the government to increase moneysupply in line with a growing economy.

    And, why would all productivity go to wages??? If it did, then what would be the incentive for the company to fund & run the operation in the first place????? You surprise me!
    Just like wages are the return earned on labor, profit is the return earned on capital ivested so it would be naive to think that all the productivity should go to wages. Such things only happen in the dreams of communists, not the real world!
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Yes, nominal-wages go down, that is, each worker receives fewer dollars than before but production would also go up & increasing supply of products would reduce prices as well.
    Sounds about right. This is why electronics are getting cheaper, less people have (blue collar) jobs.

    People think that there's a limited amount of pie & the more people are there, the less of the chunk they'll get but this isn't necessarily true if the new people are also being productive.
    Productive in doing what? People can only eat so many pies.

    If 100 people are producing 100 pies then 110 people would be producing 110 pies so the reduction in nominal wages would be compensated by lower prices in the economy.
    This assumes there's demand to eat the extra 10 pies, or else the 10 pies are wasted, and while it'll initially make pies cheaper, it'll lead to reduction in production if demand is not constant.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Yes, nominal-wages go down, that is, each worker receives fewer dollars than before but production would also go up & increasing supply of products would reduce prices as well. People think that there's a limited amount of pie & the more people are there, the less of the chunk they'll get but this isn't necessarily true if the new people are also being productive. If 100 people are producing 100 pies then 110 people would be producing 110 pies so the reduction in nominal wages would be compensated by lower prices in the economy.



    Since you follow Keynesian economics, you'd know enough about sticky wages/prices. It used to occur frequently under metallic monetary standards because if the economy grows at a faster pace than the pace at which monetary units are growing then that would cause a price-deflation, a fall in wages/prices caused by the growth of the economy. This is the very "problem" Keynes felt the need to solve by allowing the government to increase moneysupply in line with a growing economy.

    And, why would all productivity go to wages??? If it did, then what would be the incentive for the company to fund & run the operation in the first place????? You surprise me!
    Just like wages are the return earned on labor, profit is the return earned on capital ivested so it would be naive to think that all the productivity should go to wages. Such things only happen in the dreams of communists, not the real world!
    So nominal wages will go down but wages are sticky. Seems to conflict. I agree on the sticky part- since employers have a hard time reducing pay for existing staff, they react instead by cutting the hours of the workers they have.

    It used to occur frequently under metallic monetary standards because if the economy grows at a faster pace than the pace at which monetary units are growing then that would cause a price-deflation, a fall in wages/prices caused by the growth of the economy.
    Were you able to find examples of a growing economy with falling prices and wages yet? If it happened frequently, there should be many examples. More often, decreases in wages and prices are associated with recessions- not growing economies. Even under metal standards. Again, the sticky wages problem. Employers can't cut wages so they cut staff. People have less money to spend on things so they buy less. Employer sees demand fall so he cuts more workers. It may work in theory but doesn't happen in reality.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-15-2015 at 04:50 PM.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Were you able to find examples of a growing economy with falling prices and wages yet? If it happened frequently, there should be many examples.
    Well, if this were NorthCarolinaLiberty answering, I can predict his response "I already posted examples and evidence a bunch of times! You keep denying it in hopes people won't see your game!"



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    I did find a chart for the US which includes inflation/ deflation and recessions. The US has been on a metal standard of various forms until it was fully ended by Nixon in 1972. If it "occurs often" we should see deflation during growth periods. This chart runs from 1914 to 2011. Almost a hundred years.



    http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._Recession.asp

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Well, if this were NorthCarolinaLiberty answering, I can predict his response "I already posted examples and evidence a bunch of times! You keep denying it in hopes people won't see your game!"
    You play your game so often that it should just be a sticky thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Sounds about right. This is why electronics are getting cheaper, less people have (blue collar) jobs.



    Productive in doing what? People can only eat so many pies.



    This assumes there's demand to eat the extra 10 pies, or else the 10 pies are wasted, and while it'll initially make pies cheaper, it'll lead to reduction in production if demand is not constant.
    Since there's an increase in the number of people consuming, demand will obviously have increased; & if there isn't then those additional workers would be utilized in producing something else that does have demand as markets are fairly efficient in resource-allocation.......Anyway, the point about pie example was an that increase in labor supply does NOT necessarily mean that "more people are going to have to share the same pie with each person getting smaller piece".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So nominal wages will go down but wages are sticky. Seems to conflict. I agree on the sticky part- since employers have a hard time reducing pay for existing staff, they react instead by cutting the hours of the workers they have.



    Were you able to find examples of a growing economy with falling prices and wages yet? If it happened frequently, there should be many examples. More often, decreases in wages and prices are associated with recessions- not growing economies. Even under metal standards. Again, the sticky wages problem. Employers can't cut wages so they cut staff. People have less money to spend on things so they buy less. Employer sees demand fall so he cuts more workers. It may work in theory but doesn't happen in reality.
    So, now you're going to dispute something, which is agreed upon by various schools of economic thought (including Keynesian) - that, price-deflation occurred under metallic standards because of the growth of the economy!

    It doesn't take much imagination to understand the concept. If there are 100 units of money, be they dollars, gold, seashells, or whatever, & an economy is producing 100 products, & subsequently, as the economy grows to produce 105 products, & the money doesn't grow in line with the growth of the economy, then the prices of products can only fall.

    I know you like to go around in circles with your arguments but if you're going to dispute something that is so widely accepted (& it's not at all a hard concept to grasp!) then I don't see a point in arguing with you on this........because that would be like arguing with someone who claims that the Earth is flat......
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Wait, you mean they did this without a law telling them to?!! That doesn't seem right.
    Well, there is no rule that prohibits the company from raising the salary.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 12-24-2013, 01:36 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 06:14 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 01:19 AM
  4. Future Bad Cops? Walmart security guard and employees kill shoplifter
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-26-2012, 03:52 PM
  5. Google to Pay Homosexual Employees More than Heterosexual Employees
    By Stop Making Cents in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •