What is a PROPER wage? Based on your output being worth 100$ per hour.

In some places you can setup on the grass on the side of the road with a wok, propane portable heat, a beach umbrella, and a few folding chairs. No restaurant license, no inspections, no taxes. Those small proprietors have total control and low expenses, and deliver good food fast, make money the first day. A barber can do the same thing.

afaik they won't let you do that anywhere in the USA. Kids can't even sell lemonade. First you have to research the law and make sure you have the required number of blue line parking spaces in a new world of paper dung with eyes glazed over, all while hemorrhaging money, and the first dollar of revenue months away.

Franchise? You better have deep pockets, top notch credit, and the ability to withstand adversity. And understand that the franchiser has control of you.

 

Here's how I look at it. If a company's wealth is determined by output, then a fully automatic company generates wealth that can contribute to the average human's life quality. If work generates wealth, then a fully automatic society would allow for a universal basic income. Money becomes a product of
machine labor and humans benefit from this free money.

 

Not possible for most businesses. It isn't cheap to run a business. Rent astronomical in most cities. Utilities, workers comp, insurance, supplies, taxes. If you are a small business, the owner likely doesn't even earn 250.00 profit per hour. You know nothing.

 

Your circular 'reasoning' is a blast! You brought up segmentation theory. You brought up the primary and secondary sector. We know its irrelevant to my argument. It cannot be used to dispute job search frictions and therefore cannot be used to reject wage making behaviour. I've since worked out the source of your error. You referred to segmentation theory, thinking that it would look credible. You don't actually understand its purpose. You're really just referring to traditional monopsony.

Round and round you go with your irrelevance. You can't deny that job search impacts on all industries. You therefore have to accept that wage making power is relevant to all industries. All firms face an upward sloping labour supply. No firms are forced to follow a market wage.

I see you've run out of ideas. Given the quote, you should have tried two things. First, you should have cited something. Second, you should have provided an in-depth analysis into the primary sector and how economists model firm behaviour. Of course the whole point of using segmentation is to remark how primary sector firms behave differently to the secondary sector (which follow standard supply/demand criteria) so you're going to really struggle!

Still oozes dissonance!

Its not a building block. Most labour economics doesn't refer to it. It is an analysis designed to deliver very specific insight. I've already demonstrated that, via analysis into discrimination and introduction of internal labour market analysis (which, by definition, refers to a specific wage making process). None of it questions what I've said. You've admitted that by admitting it cannot be used to reject job search frictions. You've merely confused yourself as you think the primary sector is just about market concentration (and therefore you can simply have a distribution of monopsony power which eventually delivers the traditional monopsony result). It shows that you don't understand either segmentation or monopsonistic power.

Please do not fib. You have provided no cite. Please give a reference now. I'd happier read it to help you recognise the error in your effort.

Your dodge is rather unsophisticated. It isn't difficult. I've stated that employers are wage makers. You've inaccurately said that it isn't 'necessarily accurate' because of segmentation. I've laughed. There is nothing in segmentation theory to reject wage making behaviour. The primary sector firms adopt it, by definition (as the whole point of the approach is to reject standard supply and demand criteria). And the secondary sector firms also have that power because job search frictions still hold.

I don't care that you can't respond to my questions. However, at least dodge them with a level of sophistication. You've underplayed the consequences of economic rent. That's a standard outcome, mind you, within neoliberal comment.

Still laughing! You have introduced a theoretical approach without knowing its nature. That has sent you up a blind alley, ensuring that you can't deliver any relevant comment. A friendly suggestion; it isn't going to improve.

 

Which is an outside force on the labor market. It has repercussions and impacts.

How about we look at cost of living and income gap?

 

I'm open to suggestions.

Housing, food and healthcare are major contributors to cost of living. Rent control has issues and Seattle is already encouraging increases in housing inventory. And, Dems are working on figuiing our healthcare.

We also have to work on education - the only avenue toward good careers.

 

So....

Government injects itself into the labor market, creates unaffordability in cost of living.. and government is working on a fix?

Wth?

Government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure.

 

So, you're an anarchist?

 

No. I just think the government, especially the federal one which is essentially a monopoly should be as small as absolutley possible. Defense, international treaties and policies, supreme court, and that's about it.

See, we do have a competitive environment in government, they are called States. When one state, like Illinois or California makes policies that people dont like they have the freedom to move to another state that better fits their ideals. The states compete for residence and business, and people are free to choose the best state.

No choice exists when the policies imposed are put forward by the feds. There is no competition left, no where to go, no alternative ideals to pursue. The federal government in and of itself is monopolistic and removes freedom.

I believe in very limited federal government and fiscally conservative States with moderate social policies.

 

Trying to measure governemtn based on its size doesn't make any sense to me.

If you find legislation you don't ilke, then you need to tell your representatives.

Plus, I don't know of a field where legislation ends competition - other than the military.

 

I live in illinois. A democrat state. My state representative is elected by Democrats. Do you really think he gives a rat's ass, or do you really think I have the opportunity to "find" a representative that will align with my views? My recourse is to move to a different state with a representative that does align with my values.

With the feds... that option doesnt exist.

If you cant see that the federal government is a monopoly that takes away choice, liberty, freedom, then there is no hope.

The constitution is a limiting document for a reason. I'm sorry you cant comprehend the reason why.

 

Every legislator from any party has plenty of reason to consider cuts to legislation.

Yes, the federal government has significant power - more power than merely being a monopoly, which is an economic term that doesn't apply.

Your assumptions about me make me wonder how you form arguments.

 

Did this debate not start with conversation that the federal government has the ability to impact the labor market? That is an economic concept. Among many others, the government is engrained in economic policy, and thus their decisions and legislation can be percieved as monopolistic. Which is precisely the point.

 

Makes no sense. Monopoly refers to one seller. We don't have that. Monopolistic typically refers to branding. We don't have that.

Referring to authoritarianism is fine, but don't mix up terms!

 

Working minimum wage jobs while also working to gain valuable skills and create opportunities for yourself, is much harder work

 

True. And, minimum wage jobs certaily don't promise the opportunity to gain valuable skills, especially when multiple minimum wage jobs are necessary just to feed the family.

 

I didn't knock her up.
Work harder

 

considering the fact that you put currency sign at the end of the number instead of in front of it I can assume one of two things: your education is extremely low or you are a foreigner who pretends to be an American.
So, which one is it?

 

If you get responses they are wrong. That isn't nearly enough information to answer your question. Other factors like the gross profit of the products sold, other company expenses etc, etc, are part of the equation. Sorry, your question is meaningless.

 

A good reason to not take a minimum wage job.

 

"Services are best performed when their reward comes in consequence of them being performed
and is proportioned to the diligence employed in performing them."
John Locke

 

That's not the hard question. Everybody pretty much agrees with this.

 

A thing or service is worth whatever someone will pay for it, and that thing or service costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

I am quite often asked by my prospective customers to justify the price included in my proposals.
I explain to them that I have absolutely no control over what we cost or what we're worth.
We cost whatever someone else will pay us. All we can do is to be honest about that with them, and let them decide if it's worth it to them.

There's a lot of information in a price ( a wage is just another price) including, but not limited to, the costs of materials, processing, manufacturing, transportation, taxation, regulation and what other people think stuff is worth.

 

$100/Hr.? I couldn't take the cut. A stone mason's going to cost you, at least, $125/Hr.

 

Again, that's not the hard question.

Everybody agrees with capitalism when it comes to delivering discretionarry products in a marketplace that includes competition.