Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

So you want to compete with China, Vietnam etc... at the low end of wages just so you can manufacture pillows in the US? Let the race to the bottom begin.

Would you prefer to earn 0% of $15 an hour because there's no job or 100% of $12 because there is a job?  We are competing with everyone else.  If you want to eat, that's exactly what you have to do.  Who are you to tell someone they shouldn't eat if they're willing to work for $12 an hour.  In effect, if they do, you've turned them and their prospective employers into criminals.

[chez]

Would you prefer to earn 0% of $15 an hour because there's no job or 100% of $12 because there is a job?  We are competing with everyone else.  If you want to eat, that's exactly what you have to do.  Who are you to tell someone they shouldn't eat if they're willing to work for $12 an hour.  In effect, if they do, you've turned them and their prospective employers into criminals.

Why stop at $12...make it $6 and you'll get even more employed. Like I said...the race to the bottom competing with China and Vietnam for the pillow business.

Now can someone really feed their family, pay all the bills etc... on $12/hour?

[Robert Roaldi]

Why stop at $12...make it $6 and you'll get even more employed. Like I said...the race to the bottom competing with China and Vietnam for the pillow business.

Now can someone really feed their family, pay all the bills etc... on $12/hour?

Why the half-measures? Why not just work for food and shelter? Sharecropping was ok, wasn't it, better than starving, I'm sure.

But why are we AGAIN revisiting this manufacturing discussion again. The USA is still remains the 2nd largest manufacturing economy in the world. They just use robots and hire more technically trained people than they used to. We covered this many times, why is Alan bringing up the same arguments once more? Weren't you listening last time? What we have now is progress, this is what the USA wanted. The USA shipped low-tech jobs off-shore willingly, by design, they weren't stolen from you by evil foreigners.

This is the free market, Alan, what's the matter, don't you like it? You spend half the time preaching to the rest of us about it.

So far as minimum wage goes, for every economist with statistics to prove that raising it decreases jobs, there is another one who claims the opposite.

[PeterAit]

Pipelines are safer than running oil with train and road tankers.

The choice is not between a pipeline versus trucks/trains. The choice is between a pipeline versus no pipeline. We don't need the oil. We need more solar, more wind, the costs of which are rapidly coming down and in some places are better than coal/gas. And improvement in battery technology and smart power grids are rapidly removing the issue of dark/calm periods. So bugger the oil and the pipeline.

[faberryman]

Would you prefer to earn 0% of $15 an hour because there's no job or 100% of $12 because there is a job?  We are competing with everyone else.  If you want to eat, that's exactly what you have to do.  Who are you to tell someone they shouldn't eat if they're willing to work for $12 an hour.  In effect, if they do, you've turned them and their prospective employers into criminals.

Again, I have no idea how you determined that $12.00/hour is "economically practical", whatever that means, though I have a couple of guesses.

[JoeKitchen]

The choice is not between a pipeline versus trucks/trains. The choice is between a pipeline versus no pipeline. We don't need the oil. We need more solar, more wind, the costs of which are rapidly coming down and in some places are better than coal/gas. And improvement in battery technology and smart power grids are rapidly removing the issue of dark/calm periods. So bugger the oil and the pipeline.

This is, once again, simply not true. 

As I have explained before, when wind and solar is only supplying 1 or 2 percent of the grid, the inherent unreliability of that power source is not priced into the the market.  This is because on the 70+% of the days the plants produce no energy, the lack of energy can be made up for by the other base load power sources.  However, as soon as you reach around 8% dependence, an amount not easily made up for by the other base-load sources, overall electricity prices start increasing due to less energy being supplied then what is in demand because of the unreliable nature of wind/solar.  At this point, since wind/solar do not produce energy 70+% of the time, which can not be predicted, you have less energy then you need since other sources can not make up the loss, and overall prices increase.  Prices continue to increase more and more the further after this threshold you move. 

There are other factors at play as  well, namely that wind and solar produce electricity at non-peak times when electricity is in general cheaper anyway.  (Think of non-peak rail tickets.)  Then, since wind and solar can not be turned off at this time, you often end up producing more then what you need at non-peak times, dropping prices even more.  Keeping with the rail example, this would be like adding 50% more seats on non-peak trains only, lowering those non-peak tickets, and then bragging about how you lowered overall train ticket prices.  So the idea that wind/solar are cheap is really only true during times when you don't need a lot of electricity anyway.  However, during peak times, wind and solar often can not even compete with base load sources. 

This has been shown by the fact that everywhere that relies on a sizable portion of wind and solar has electricity prices higher then the overall average.  Germany pays roughly 60% more then France and has a much higher carbon footprint.  California pays 30% more for electricity then the national average, and, now it seems, is returning to the era of rolling blackouts.  How fun!

Solar and wind is a pipe dream.  If you disagree please provide me with an place that has cheaper prices with wind/solar supplying at least 8% of the energy. 

Furthermore, battery power will never be a viable option.  This is because when you use a battery, you are adding two additional power conversions into the grid.  Namely, you will need to covert kinetic energy into static energy when storing the power in the battery, and then convert they stored static energy back into kinetic energy.  In both cases, you are loosing energy, decreasing your supply and thus increasing cost.  It is much more efficient to have a powered grid supplying the exact amount of power needed at anyone time so as to avoid any power conversions. 

Here is a more detail explination of the issue with wind and solar. 

On the economics of wind and solar power

Now, yes, it is true Hirth paints a rosier picture then his 2013 paper on wind and solar, but it is still not nearly as rosy as many would like it to be.  Fact is, wind and solar will only ever produce a fraction of energy, and the more we rely on it, the higher the cost will be. 

[LesPalenik]

Why the half-measures? Why not just work for food and shelter? Sharecropping was ok, wasn't it, better than starving, I'm sure.

But why are we AGAIN revisiting this manufacturing discussion again. The USA is still remains the 2nd largest manufacturing economy in the world. They just use robots and hire more technically trained people than they used to. We covered this many times, why is Alan bringing up the same arguments once more? Weren't you listening last time? What we have now is progress, this is what the USA wanted. The USA shipped low-tech jobs off-shore willingly, by design, they weren't stolen from you by evil foreigners.

This is the free market, Alan, what's the matter, don't you like it? You spend half the time preaching to the rest of us about it.

So far as minimum wage goes, for every economist with statistics to prove that raising it decreases jobs, there is another one who claims the opposite.

Easy to say by academics and other bleeding hearts (I don't mean you Robert) who are fortunate to draw a comfortable salary or pension.

It is a indeed free market, so the government shouldn't impose unrealistic minimum wages which can make it better for some and worse for others. Imposing the same rigid minimum wages in all regions of a country can make manufacturing in some places not feasible and it kills job opportunities for many people. Once the low paying jobs which often included also other benefits are gone, the poor souls who lost those jobs are forced on the welfare rolls and taking gigs like licking envelopes or become eBay "entrepreneurs" earning just a fraction of what a steady $12/hr job would pay. Or even worse, betting whatever they have left on a lottery, horse races or stock market.

Personally, I think a much greater malaise in North America is paying many CEO's or even directors of hospitals exorbitant salaries which are well in excess what they deserve.   

[faberryman]

It is a indeed free market, so the government shouldn't impose unrealistic minimum wages which can make it better for some and worse for others. Imposing the same rigid minimum wages in all regions of a country can make manufacturing in some places not feasible and it kills job opportunities for many people. Once the low paying jobs which often included also other benefits are gone, the poor souls who lost those jobs are forced on the welfare rolls and taking gigs like licking envelopes or become eBay "entrepreneurs" earning just a fraction of what a steady $12/hr job would pay. Or even worse, betting whatever they have left on a lottery, horse races or stock market.

I am not sure what an "unrealistic" minimum wage is. How would you determine that?

Minimum wages in the US are not uniform. There is a federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour which sets the threshold, but many states have higher minimum wages.

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/minimum-wage-by-state

[LesPalenik]

I am not sure what an "unrealistic" minimum rage is. How would you determine that?

Minimum wages in the US are not uniform. There is a federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour which sets the threshold, but many states have higher minimum wages.

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/minimum-wage-by-state

I know a lady who stuffs at home envelopes with advertising flyers for equivalent of $5CAD/hr. It is actually a piece work. $7.25US would be twice as much, not including the vacation pay and medical benefits.

And to hit closer home, I know several stock photographers who had their commissions "adjusted" by their agencies to 10 cents per image. They would make much more working at McDonalds at the current minimum wages ($8 in USA and $12 in Canada).

[Alan Klein]

Why stop at $12...make it $6 and you'll get even more employed. Like I said...the race to the bottom competing with China and Vietnam for the pillow business.

Now can someone really feed their family, pay all the bills etc... on $12/hour?

They can't pay bills without a job.  The point is when the government imposes minimum wages, they're reducing the number of jobs available to the most vulnerable - the poor and people who can;t produce too much.  That hurts those people and society.  Potential employees who cannot produce $15 per hour of value, won't get hired.  No employers is going to pay someone $15 an hour if they only produce $12 of work.  So they donl;t open the factory, and those jobs are not available.  You're condemning these to unemployment.  You're making them a criminal if they were to ask for a job that pays less.  Nice going.

[Alan Klein]

The choice is not between a pipeline versus trucks/trains. The choice is between a pipeline versus no pipeline. We don't need the oil. We need more solar, more wind, the costs of which are rapidly coming down and in some places are better than coal/gas. And improvement in battery technology and smart power grids are rapidly removing the issue of dark/calm periods. So bugger the oil and the pipeline.

You conflating different things.  The oil's going to get shipped regardless.  All Biden's done was shut down the pipeline.  The Canadian producer will ship with oil tankers on the road or rail where accidents occur more often than leaking pipelines.  There are less pollution and fewer damages to people and property should there be a leak in a pipeline than when ten railway tankers derail and burn down the countryside.  What's smart about that?  You can still have green energy.  But the oil's going through regardless.  So you might as well make it as safe to transport as possible.

Additionally, you have to burn fossil fuels when ship by tanker.  More pollution.  Not so with pipelines except for the electricity that runs the pumps. Pipelines are cheaper, more efficient, safer, with less pollution.

[Alan Klein]

Easy to say by academics and other bleeding hearts (I don't mean you Robert) who are fortunate to draw a comfortable salary or pension.

It is a indeed free market, so the government shouldn't impose unrealistic minimum wages which can make it better for some and worse for others. Imposing the same rigid minimum wages in all regions of a country can make manufacturing in some places not feasible and it kills job opportunities for many people. Once the low paying jobs which often included also other benefits are gone, the poor souls who lost those jobs are forced on the welfare rolls and taking gigs like licking envelopes or become eBay "entrepreneurs" earning just a fraction of what a steady $12/hr job would pay. Or even worse, betting whatever they have left on a lottery, horse races or stock market.

Personally, I think a much greater malaise in North America is paying many CEO's or even directors of hospitals exorbitant salaries which are well in excess what they deserve.   

What are the alternatives?  Do you want the government to figure out what a CEO is worth?  Is Elon Musk worth whatever he gets?  After all he's made his stockholders very rich.  He's created a line of electric cars sold throughout the world.  He sends rocket ships up into space and rettrieves them like no one else does.  If the stockholders aren't happy, let them reduce his pay.  What business is it of some bureaucrats in government?  What are they jealous?

How would you select pay for privately own corporations?  What you're really doing is redistributing wealth via socialism.  You're saying people can't keep what they earned. So you're going to let the government take it from them and give it to others.  So you force the corporation to pay him less.  But the stockholders want to pay him that much. They feel he or she is worth it.  Bonuses and stock giveaways are great incentives for them to work harder and make the stockholders richer and employees higher salaries as well.  If he doesn't work as hard, then he loses no money, but the shareholders and employers make less and the customers get a worse product.  Then the corporation fails and everyone loses everything including the country as jobs are lost as well.  Didn't they do that in Russia and Cuba and Venezuela?

[Alan Klein]

I know a lady who stuffs at home envelopes with advertising flyers for equivalent of $5CAD/hr. It is actually a piece work. $7.25US would be twice as much, not including the vacation pay and medical benefits.

And to hit closer home, I know several stock photographers who had their commissions "adjusted" by their agencies to 10 cents per image. They would make much more working at McDonalds at the current minimum wages ($8 in USA and $12 in Canada).

You got to know when to change jobs:

A plumber fixes a damaged pipe in a doctor's house and asks for 200 dollars for 30 minutes of work.  Doctor says to him: "Even I don't make so much money in such a short period and I'm a doctor".

And the plumber says: "Neither did I when worked as a doctor."

[Robert Roaldi]

Personally, I think a much greater malaise in North America is paying many CEO's or even directors of hospitals exorbitant salaries which are well in excess what they deserve.   

I can't argue with that. When a corporation hires a $6000 per day CEO and gives him an egregiously large exit parachute, I wonder if they ever interview any $1000 per day CEOs first. All the studies I've heard of point to there being little correlation between CEO salary and corporate performance.

One thing that always makes me laugh is when the word "entrepreneur" is used to describe one of those $6000 per day guys in the business press. Too funny.

I think it's odd how selective supply and demand is. Just never seems to apply to some people, it's just a mystery.  It works for CEOs and such, we're told. But the retirement residence where my mother lives cannot keep staff and for some reason it doesn't occur to them to raise the wages from minimum to attract and keep better staff. But I bet the guy who runs the place is convinced he's working so hard he needs a raise. There's way too much bs to keep track of, I find.

[Robert Roaldi]

What are the alternatives?  Do you want the government to figure out what a CEO is worth?  Is Elon Musk worth whatever he gets?  After all he's made his stockholders very rich.  He's created a line of electric cars sold throughout the world.  He sends rocket ships up into space and rettrieves them like no one else does.  If the stockholders aren't happy, let them reduce his pay.  What business is it of some bureaucrats in government?  What are they jealous?

How would you select pay for privately own corporations?  What you're really doing is redistributing wealth via socialism.  You're saying people can't keep what they earned. So you're going to let the government take it from them and give it to others.  So you force the corporation to pay him less.  But the stockholders want to pay him that much. They feel he or she is worth it.  Bonuses and stock giveaways are great incentives for them to work harder and make the stockholders richer and employees higher salaries as well.  If he doesn't work as hard, then he loses no money, but the shareholders and employers make less and the customers get a worse product.  Then the corporation fails and everyone loses everything including the country as jobs are lost as well.  Didn't they do that in Russia and Cuba and Venezuela?

The notion that shareholders are in charge is very quaint. Does Elon happen to own majority controlling interest the way that Zuck does?

[Alan Klein]

What about these people?  I wonder what's going to happen to them with minimum wages?

Yahoo Finance
Jobless claims: Another 900,000 Americans filed new unemployment claims last week
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/initial-jobless-claims-week-ended-jan-16-2021-coronavirus-pandemic-192903441.html

[LesPalenik]

What are the alternatives?  Do you want the government to figure out what a CEO is worth?  Is Elon Musk worth whatever he gets?  After all he's made his stockholders very rich.  He's created a line of electric cars sold throughout the world.  He sends rocket ships up into space and rettrieves them like no one else does.  If the stockholders aren't happy, let them reduce his pay.  What business is it of some bureaucrats in government?  What are they jealous?

How would you select pay for privately own corporations?  What you're really doing is redistributing wealth via socialism.  You're saying people can't keep what they earned. So you're going to let the government take it from them and give it to others.  So you force the corporation to pay him less.  But the stockholders want to pay him that much. They feel he or she is worth it.  Bonuses and stock giveaways are great incentives for them to work harder and make the stockholders richer and employees higher salaries as well.  If he doesn't work as hard, then he loses no money, but the shareholders and employers make less and the customers get a worse product.  Then the corporation fails and everyone loses everything including the country as jobs are lost as well.  Didn't they do that in Russia and Cuba and Venezuela?

Elon Musk is my hero, and he should be paid 10 times more than what he is drawing now. Actually, with all the equity in his companies he doesn't have to worry about his next check. He is producing singlehandedly more than several countries combined. Also showing to NASA, GM and other transportation conglomerates how to solve problems and how to create new products and technologies at a lower cost. But that's very different from a director of a hospital, electrical plant or a senator who are often incompetent and overpaid.

By the way, how do you feel about Rudy Giuliani charging Trump $20,000 a day? One crook exploiting another.
No wonder Trump balked at paying Giuliani's bills, especially considering what he delivered.

[chez]

They can't pay bills without a job.  The point is when the government imposes minimum wages, they're reducing the number of jobs available to the most vulnerable - the poor and people who can;t produce too much.  That hurts those people and society.  Potential employees who cannot produce $15 per hour of value, won't get hired.  No employers is going to pay someone $15 an hour if they only produce $12 of work.  So they donl;t open the factory, and those jobs are not available.  You're condemning these to unemployment.  You're making them a criminal if they were to ask for a job that pays less.  Nice going.

And what exactly is so magical about $12/hour. Why not $11 or $10.50 or $13? How many more people would be working if minimum wage was $10/hour? How many less would be working if minimum wage was $15/hour.

Seattle raised their minimum wage to $15/hour without hardly any affect on the employment of younger people. They saw a decrease of 1.6%...but could not tie this decrease to the wage adjustments. Now at $15/hour, how many more people have some money they can go out and spend on things like dinners...thus increasing demand which increases hiring people.

[Alan Klein]

Elon Musk is my hero, and he should be paid 10 times more than what he is drawing now. Actually, with all the equity in his companies he doesn't have to worry about his next check. He is producing singlehandedly more than several countries combined. Also showing to NASA, GM and other transportation conglomerates how to solve problems and how to create new products and technologies at a lower cost. But that's very different from a director of a hospital, electrical plant or a senator who are often incompetent and overpaid.

By the way, how do you feel about Rudy Giuliani charging Trump $20,000 a day? One crook exploiting another.
No wonder Trump balked at paying Giuliani's bills, especially considering what he delivered.

Well a senator works for the taxpayers.  So he's paid whatever we give him plus all he can steal.  Directors get paid by the owners of the electrical plant.  How are they overpaid?  Directors of hospital likewise.  Also, many hospitals get huge private contributions.  You'd think the contributors could put some balance to overpayments salaries if that's the case.  But we really don't want government bureaucrats deciding on these things.   They'll only screw it up and make things worse. 

Here's an example of how stupid government happens.  Government hands on whatever you want for college tuition.  With so much money available, tuition goes up 4 times the inflation rate for everything else.  Colleges and universities increase their salaries hugely.  Administrators and professors have never made so much money.  Do you think that's why they're in favor of the government doing this and in fact eliminating student's debt on these loans?  I live about thirty minutes from Princeton University.  You should see the multi-million dollar homes around there.  Who do you think owns them? 

[Robert Roaldi]

Elon Musk is my hero, and he should be paid 10 times more than what he is drawing now.

Musk and Zuck started their companies from scratch, I view them to be in a different category from the run of the mill overpaid CEO. We could use a few more like them, to be sure. There are others whose impacts on humanity may be as great but happen not to be the kind that are monetized by this culture, all to say that wealth is not the only measure of value.