New York Times Goes With Unsupported Opinion
- Thread starter Protectionist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- opinion times unsupported york
Don't pay it. Only way to teach money-grabbers a lesson is to cause them to LOSE money.
What propaganda? Every publication has a bias. Look at the actual content and we'll talk. Every magazine, etc. has some articles that are questionable. The NYTimes provides a lot of quality, thoughtful content that I would hardly call propaganda.
Well, I WAS a business for 12 years, and I did things right. It was all the businesses who did things wrong who the worst enemy of those of us who did things right.
Example: I paid my workers ($150/hr). Lots of companies paid theirs $3.25/hr. Many of my potential customers said "Sorry, I cant' afford you". You know why they couldn't ? Because they were working for those guys paying the $3.25/hour.
Quite egotistical to think you did things right while others do it wrong according to just your opinion, no? Just because someone can't afford you does not mean it is because they get underpaid. No one will ever be able to afford everything. In fact, overpaying people as you possibly did can create deadweight loss in a market.
I guess the best answer to your post # 26, is my post # 25, which you quoted.
And no, I didn't think it's egotistical, just calling it as I see it.
And yes, it's because they're underpaid, that they couldn't afford my services (and many other things). These low-paying employers hurt thousands of other businesses all over the area.
As for "deadweight loss in a market" I don't know what that means, but I sure know what disposable income means, and it is necessary for businesses to sell their stuff. Not much of it around when cheapskate business owners are paying minimum wage.
And herein is the microcosm of everything wrong with your "economic" "theories"... (economic being in quotations because it is more political than economics and theories because it is not an actual theory, but just your [factually unsupported] opinion)
You don't know what a deadweight loss in the market is and you made no effort to look it up despite it being a basic economic concept. You like to bash economic thinking, but you often don't even understand it, instead opting for what you think the politics say and responding with your own politics.
150/hr is $312,000 a year. It's obvious that salary forces you to pass your payroll costs onto the consumer. They're in fact savvy and intelligent not to buy from you, that's a nonsensical and ridiculous hourly wage you're obviously trying to rip the consumer off with to pay for.
Please. Not everyone is a clueless liberal.
150/hr is $312,000 a year. It's obvious that salary forces you to pass your payroll costs onto the consumer. They're in fact savvy and intelligent not to buy from you, that's a nonsensical and ridiculous hourly wage you're obviously trying to rip the consumer off with to pay for.
Please. Not everyone is a clueless liberal.
Reread the thread, he payed commission. His employees were just so good at selling and he was so generous with the percentage of the profits he let them keep that that's how it broke down in equivalent hourly pay.
150/hr is $312,000 a year. It's obvious that salary forces you to pass your payroll costs onto the consumer. They're in fact savvy and intelligent not to buy from you, that's a nonsensical and ridiculous hourly wage you're obviously trying to rip the consumer off with to pay for.
Please. Not everyone is a clueless liberal.
Could you get more things wrong in one little paragraph ? :giggle:
1. NO, $150/hr (in my business) was NOT $312,000 a year. It's $150/hour, which might have been one or two or three hours a week (whenever a customer was coming into one of the offices distant from me) Helps to know what you're talking about.
2. Nothing forces you to pass your payroll costs onto the consumer. There is no such thing as passing costs on to consumers. Here's a little microeconomics lesson for you. Businesses cannot pass on costs to consumers. Every product has a market price. That is the HIGHEST price that can be charged, without going so high that sales drop, to the point of making the business income be less (than at the market price).
We business owners don't control our prices. THE MARKET controls them. And one of the hardest things in life to do, is to change the public's perception of what something is supposed to cost. Simply put, as price goes up, sales (and therefore income) go down.
This can be graphically shown as a bell-shaped curve with business income in the Y axis, and price (going up) on the X axis. The left side of the liberty bell is price and business income going up. The right side of the bell is price continuing to go up, and business income dropping. The Market price is at the TOP of the bell.
As life usually is, this is not 100% pure (not much is), but it is pretty close to 100% with very few exceptions.
What the customers were paying had NOTHING to do with what the sales reps (contractors not "employees") were paid. You're injecting YOUR ideas about business into this. I ran my business MY way, not YOUR way.
Actually it probably did. Labor is an input cost. Obviously that is going to have an affect on the sales price. Let's put it this way: if you didn't have the labor cost, you could have reduced the cost for the consumer by what you paid your salesmen and still made the same profit.
FALSE! It had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. My price was the same as any price in the market it was in. It comes from the MARKET. It is a fixed price that cannot be changes. Any change higher or lower results in a reduction of business income. See post # 36.
The business owner has little or nothing to say about "his" price. My labor costs were negligible (hardly noticeable). The only thing really affecting my profits was the level of disposable income in the community (badly lessened by a much-too-low minimum wage), which caused my sales to be much less that they could/should/would have been, if the minimum wage had been at the level that I asked politicians to raise it to.
Similar threads
