Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit

Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
I like the fact they fought for the trucking industry to allow fewer rest hours. Making it easier for the driver to make ends meet.
They do it without concern for the public, his family, or his health. But in reality, he really needs that $100.00 because collage is very expensive....the Industry will make Billions.
Members of Congress should ride down the shining example of outstanding progress known as I-5.
Next time you're stuck in traffic, ask yourself what has the trucking industry has done to maintain a steady flow of traffic. Weekends use to fun.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Look, I'm sorry if I embarrassed you by telling you what other people are saying about you. I don't really care but I thought you should know. The Kochs will never really love you, they are only using you. Its for the best that you move on. But it is up to you.

The Kochs are accumulating and consolidating. Its good for them and somewhat useful to the economy but its more like the benefit that ancient Egypt got when grave robbers broke into tombs and brought the gold buried there back into the economy. They are good businessmen but not so good that I'd hold them up as some sort of paragon of virtue. More like paragon of vulture.
Click to expand...
While I agree with the gist of your post, I don't even think that there actually is any net benefit to the economy from Koch vulturism. At least not in the long-term.
 
mollymcgrammar

mollymcgrammar

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no.

and no, you did not link to a legitimate news organization. the business you linked to only exists to collect money from advertisers and make their audience more stupid.

try citing an actual, legitimate news organization.
Click to expand...

Show me one news source that DOES NOT take money from advertisers? Is that not how the media makes profits?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mollymcgrammar said:
Show me one news source that DOES NOT take money from advertisers? Is that not how the media makes profits?
Click to expand...
It's not the only reason they exist. However I don't think it is the only reason Fox exists either, they also exist to make their audience stupider as Buck said, but he can stand on his own feet here.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
While I agree with the gist of your post, I don't even think that there actually is any net benefit to the economy from Koch vulturism. At least not in the long-term.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree, if there is a benefit its small. A number really close to zero might as well be called zero. I didn't want to get into that argument with the red fool so I conceded a small benefit beforehand to head it off. Slobbery fools that love the Kochs while they are being butt fucked and want to claim that they are god's gift to the economy.
 
mollymcgrammar

mollymcgrammar

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
It's not the only reason they exist. However I don't think it is the only reason Fox exists either, they also exist to make their audience stupider as Buck said, but he can stand on his own feet here.
Click to expand...
I dont like fox either, and there is definitely a huge bias on their part.

Any news outlet is a business. The sole reason for starting a business (telsa excluded) is to make money.

Also, minimum wage raises will only help if the 1% takes the diffrence from their profits. Otherwise it just means prices go up and a dollar is worth less than it was.

Also, what happens to the folks who already make 15$ an hour? Now the unskilled workers with no experience are equals to them.

Im all about raising min wage, just not that high. I also feel like if someone makes more than min wage now, and it goes up they should get a raise that reflects that.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
mollymcgrammar said:
Also, minimum wage raises will only help if the 1% takes the diffrence from their profits. Otherwise it just means prices go up and a dollar is worth less than it was.
Click to expand...
You need to make some serious, base assumptions in order for that outcome to materialize with a net negative effect.
This is a subject we've broached before on here, regarding the actual sticker shock versus wage rises.
The correlation isn't even close to 1:1.
Think about what sectors of the economy are most affected by the range of wages from min. to $15.
What do they produce? What are their margins like, and how are they composed in relation to capital, labour, etc.?
Would there be capital substitution effects? Definitely...
Would some businesses shutdown? Sure.
Is this necessarily bad? No.
What it may wind up doing is pushing the system to the edge of necessity, forcing out the more wasteful, frivolous elements. This in turn would further expose the technological weaknesses in the Capitalist Growth Theory, and perhaps provide impetus for the implementation of such radical ideas as the Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Annual Income.

Also, what happens to the folks who already make 15$ an hour? Now the unskilled workers with no experience are equals to them.
Click to expand...

They will also see wage bumps (perhaps under some protest in certain cases). Again, though, it won't be a 1:1 relation; it will be a graduated scale. If the system can't be capped from above, then it will be lifted from below.
Stasis in an economy is deadly...
 
PsicloneX

PsicloneX

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
no.

and no, you did not link to a legitimate news organization. the business you linked to only exists to collect money from advertisers and make their audience more stupid.

try citing an actual, legitimate news organization.
Click to expand...
Like Motherjones ?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
PsicloneX said:
The government and its dependents . Got it .
Click to expand...
How bout this email from 1981 inside Exxon confirming the effects of anthropogenic climate change on the environment?

"Full text of scientist’s email

Below is the text of an email from Lenny Bernstein to the director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), who had asked for ideas to stimulate students for an ethics day announced by the Carnegie Council.

"Alyssa’s right. Feel free to share this e-mail with her. Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.

Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.

The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.

Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the US Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end.

Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.

Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough.""

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
 
bearkat42

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How bout this email from 1981 inside Exxon confirming the effects of anthropogenic climate change on the environment?

"Full text of scientist’s email

Below is the text of an email from Lenny Bernstein to the director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), who had asked for ideas to stimulate students for an ethics day announced by the Carnegie Council.

"Alyssa’s right. Feel free to share this e-mail with her. Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.

Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.

The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.

Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the US Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end.

Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.

Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough.""

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
Click to expand...
And BOOM goes the dynamite.
 
mollymcgrammar

mollymcgrammar

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
You need to make some serious, base assumptions in order for that outcome to materialize with a net negative effect.
This is a subject we've broached before on here, regarding the actual sticker shock versus wage rises.
The correlation isn't even close to 1:1.
Think about what sectors of the economy are most affected by the range of wages from min. to $15.
What do they produce? What are their margins like, and how are they composed in relation to capital, labour, etc.?
Would there be capital substitution effects? Definitely...
Would some businesses shutdown? Sure.
Is this necessarily bad? No.
What it may wind up doing is pushing the system to the edge of necessity, forcing out the more wasteful, frivolous elements. This in turn would further expose the technological weaknesses in the Capitalist Growth Theory, and perhaps provide impetus for the implementation of such radical ideas as the Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Annual Income.


They will also see wage bumps (perhaps under some protest in certain cases). Again, though, it won't be a 1:1 relation; it will be a graduated scale. If the system can't be capped from above, then it will be lifted from below.
Stasis in an economy is deadly...
Click to expand...

Ummm dude.... The problem with this is that it wont be the massive corporations getting hurt, it will be small companies.

A 15 minimum wage will destroy small contractors, restaurants, mom and pop shops.... Basically only companies with massive profit margins will be able to maintain with out a drastic price increase in their services and products.

Yeah, people will have more money and be able to afford more for these products but then nothing really changed.

I do alot of contracting work, i pay all my guys 10-15$ an hour in cash. They average 13$ an hour. If i had to pay them more, the cost for me to do a job goes up.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
mollymcgrammar said:
Also, minimum wage raises will only help if the 1% takes the diffrence from their profits. Otherwise it just means prices go up and a dollar is worth less than it was.
Click to expand...
it has been demonstrated over and over and over again that your talking point is 100% false.

prices may go up, but nowhere near the amount that wages do. it is a positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top