Naaa sorry Marx has been proven wrong.

Newsflash: red-baiting does not replace discussion and analysis.

So you're not quoting Marxist philosophy?

Asking for a citation on Hermit's figures? The part about labor wages being determined by supply of labor available is something pointed out by Marx, Hermit, and just about every capitalist economist.

So yes you are espousing a Marxist philosophy. Why is it considered "Red Baiting" when someone simply points it out?

So you think Hermit is a Marxist? Really, Danny. I think you would be hard pressed to find any economist of any stripe who doesn't believe that wages are affected by the supply of labor. But please if you know of one, feel free to quote him or her.

Why do you run so fast from what you believe? Why can't you be proud of it?

LOL. Danny, I have bad news for you. Marx, as far as I know, never touted the minimum wage as the way to deal with the ills of capitalism. He was quite clear that capitalism could not be reformed by such measures. On the contrary, the minimum wage is a capitalist way to try and save capitalism from devouring itself. So my support of the minimum wage has nothing to do with Marx.

Yea you were talking about labor bargaining power, not minimum wage. Nice.

I assumed your red-baiting was about my minimum wage position since I couldn't imagine that anyone as sophisticated as yourself would disagree that labor's wages were affected by the supply of labor available. Go figure. But again, if you can point to one mainstream economist who disagrees with that, I'd like to know. I see you've avoided doing that.

a vast majority of businesses in this country ore "small" and have no stockholders. Many owners work long hours at low wage and never see any "profit" on their investment.
Most fail because they lack employee hiring and management skills - of which compensation is a part, combined with undercapitalization of both money and skill.

Now, I have only dealt with 60,000-100,000 business owners directly in the last 50 years of consulting, so my opinion is limited.

PROFIT os NOT the major component of what is paid to an employee in a majority of businesses in the country -
and most employees are overpaid at $7.50/hr for what they intend to produce.

In hundreds of small business I have shown owners how to make a "profit" by changing their compensation structure to pay more for those few employees willing to work,
and getting rid of those thinking they deserving something for breathing. For example, the right 6 employees at $18/hr can outproduce the average 10 employees at $10/hr.
Raining the minimum wage for "the eager slackers" will not help productivity or profits. Holding self and employees accountable and paying for productivity does.

So your saying, profits are not the goal of any good business? It's no wonder they needed help, before almost going under.

That's certainly not what I was saying.

Are you ever going to provide evidence that most price increases have to do with more profits?

NO! And you know why. Because once again, you choose to focus on one word without, providing the entire context of the post. I'm not going to play that game. When you want to talk about the entirety of my post, I'll address your question.

Both times I've been talking about the entirety of your posts, and both time you've focused on a single word.

Your claim that deadweight loss is primarily about taxes is stupid, and the link you posted proves that.

Your claim that price increases are driven primarily by an attempt to increase profits is stupid, which, I suspect, is why you cannot provide any evidence to support it.

You're the one who keeps making stupid claims in this thread; all I'm doing is pointing out that they're stupid.

You don't seem to understand deadweight loss. At all.

You don't seem to understand price elasticity of demand. At all.

There: I covered the entirety of your post(s).

Your right about one thing? Given your completely myopic view and inability to conduct yourself reasonably, it would be STUPID to continue engagement, with you. Have a good day.

My myopic view?

Reread your Cervantes.

You're trying to make economic arguments when you clearly have a very poor understanding of economics, as the link you posted pointed out.

I agree on one thing: continuing this conversation is stupid.

I disagree on the reason, and on who's been reasonable and who hasn't.

not what I said, but ...

In a way you are correct - the fact that 90%+ of all business in this country fail - they need help and often look for it too late. Nothing to do with minimum wage, though.
but in doing so you defeat your own statement about profits being the main factor in the minimum wage discussion.

try "you're" not "your" -- and where did the judgment "good" come from?

Others have asked for proof to support your claims. That is no longer necessary.

You seem to only focus on large corporations in which predictable profit is a major consideration. I guess that's what you mean by "good."

But they employ less than 30% of our population. And they can stand a lot of turn over of low paid employees

I stand by my substantial experienced based claim that MOST businesses do not pay more than minimum wage
because the employees are not worth more than that - and readily pay a lot more when they find employees who do "earn their keep."

The entire point is that raising the minimum wage to any arbitrary amount is not going to solve the problem of people making enough to live on.
The answer is for the individual to make themselves worth more - not to expect more for doing less.

Nice.

Funsway, thank you for your cogent and informative based opinion. The flaw in your rational is that as higher educated, more qualified people enter into the work force, employers have a bigger pool to choose from. Supply and demand, dictates with more people and less jobs the employer can and do, pay less to those qualified individuals. Case in point, a major insurance company in the US, needed a manager for there customer service department,. The original qualifications for the job were MBA and at least 2 years experience in a management position. With a saturated work force, the company asked applicants for the same position not a year later, to have a PHD and at least 4 years of experience while not raising the annual wage of $60,000us.

As to minimum wage, the employer BEFORE creating a position would theoretically have a NEED for a worker. That need and the value added to the company theoretically would dictate the positions value to the company. If a minimum of a value wasn't added to the company, the position theoretically wouldn't be necessary and the employer/business would be wasting money. A smart business wouldn't do that. So to say that a persons value is not indicative of a minimum wage wouldn't be true.

Example, say my company needs a envelope licker. and the minimum wage is $15us an hour. I being a good business man and responsible company owner, would have to determine if the employee could lick enough envelopes to warrant the $15us wage? If they couldn't, they would be fired. It's that simply. If no employee could? I'd have to look for other options in terms of envelope licking.

That's the perspective from the employers view. From the employee perspective, without dignity and respect in the position, determinant by what the individuals needs, a decision would be made by said individual if, the job was worth the minimum wage to him. If not he doesn't apply. Again it's just that simple.

Last point if a business wants more work out of there EXISTING employees, incentives make sense. "A happier worker, makes for a happier employer." It's just that simple.