Unemployment Rate

[Jacobtm]

On McDonald's and profitability:

In 2007, they had 400,000 employees, the great majority of whom we can assume make minimum wage. They made 2.3 billion in profit in 2007. So they could spend about $5,000 more per employee per year before they have $0 in profit. Of course, not all their employees make minimum wage, so maybe if you just distributed the profits among the minimum wage earners, it'd be an extra $6,000 or $7,000 a year. Not very much as far as an hourly raise goes.

At that point they'd have to start charging more for all their stuff, and if the price of McDonald's appreciated by any significant degree, who'd even keep buying the stuff? Already a Big Mac is like $4 on its own wheras a real burger can be had for like $6, so they're only surviving by being ultra convenient and ultra cheap.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

11 or 12% by next summer and then it will go down and we will be in full recovery by the 2 year anniversary of the meltdown of 08.

[War on Want]

Yeah, lets give them more money so they can waste it faster.

I believe the fancy term is boosting consumer spending.

Which has basically been the only thing holding up the economy for quite a long time.

[opebo]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

[Gustaf]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Anyway, Jacobtm, McDonald's is an extremely successful company. Companies go bankrupt every day, so there are plenty teetering on the edge. Some of those may keel over from an increase in the minimum wage, but I never meant that one of the world's largest most successful corporations would.

However, as I said, unprofitability is not the point. Stock-owners expect a decent return on their investment, otherwise they go somewhere else. Losing money by itself will lead to changes, regardless of at what level it is.

[dead0man]

On McDonald's and profitability:

In 2007, they had 400,000 employees, the great majority of whom we can assume make minimum wage.

I would be SHOCKED to find out more than half of McD's employees make minimum wage.  Hell, I'd be surprised if it was more than a quarter.  My guess would be around 8% and none of those would be making minimum wage at McDonalds a year from now unless they are dumber than the functionally retarded.  I would be interested in seeing some numbers on this.

[opebo]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Which is why I have always advocated a generous dole from which the privileged (employers) must tempt workers with high pay, Gustaf.  I believe that is a better method of moving towards privilege reduction than a simple minimum wage.

[Gustaf]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Which is why I have always advocated a generous dole from which the privileged (employers) must tempt workers with high pay, Gustaf.  I believe that is a better method of moving towards privilege reduction than a simple minimum wage.

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

[opebo]

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

What, you are saying that you were right in claiming that $7/hour is more than $5/hour?  Sure, but I think we all knew that, Gustaf.

[Gustaf]

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

What, you are saying that you were right in claiming that $7/hour is more than $5/hour?  Sure, but I think we all knew that, Gustaf.

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

Finally, you replied "that's why I don't think a minimum wage is such a good idea" to paraphrase slightly. Which seems like a pretty clear admission that I was right. I am wondering why you didn't accept, what I agree was, a fairly obvious statement immediately instead of claiming that companies don't lose money by paying higher wages. 

[opebo]

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

My apologies.  As I have stated repeatedly, I was referring to 'loss' as in 'going out of business'.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this, but I do apologize that we were referring to different things.

You see, I always look at economic arrangements as hierarchies, not as absolute 'amounts'.  Which is why I always think that the upper class seems a bit nit-picky when it disputes the difference between $5/hour for its serfs and $7/hour.  The way I look at it, they are still clearly on top, riding around on the fellow, and the amount is pretty irrelevant to the position in the hierarchy.

[Gustaf]

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

My apologies.  As I have stated repeatedly, I was referring to 'loss' as in 'going out of business'.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this, but I do apologize that we were referring to different things.

You see, I always look at economic arrangements as hierarchies, not as absolute 'amounts'.  Which is why I always think that the upper class seems a bit nit-picky when it disputes the difference between $5/hour for its serfs and $7/hour.  The way I look at it, they are still clearly on top, riding around on the fellow, and the amount is pretty irrelevant to the position in the hierarchy.

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook. I'm not really interested in that. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit. You seem to be unable to separate that factual observation of what is with your personal feelings as to how it should be.

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

[opebo]

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook.

There is nothing moralistic or subjective about the analysis that the owner is above the worker in a hierarchy.  This is fairly demonstrable in various ways - the direction in which commands pass, the relative power over this or that, punishments, rewards, etc.

I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit.

Yes, this is a political reality, Gustaf.  It is completely arbitrary that we arrange things in this way.  We all know that the owners have all the power.  I merely object to it as policy.  You seem to pretend that it is some sort of rational inevitability. 

Minimum wage is a policy which can only be very useful or effective when combined with other measures.  To say 'well the owners can just utilize their powers and destroy workers in return' if we implement the minimum wage does not, to me, suggest that we should just give up and acquiesce, but that we must remove that power from the owners (after all our State gives it to them in the first place).

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

Hookers in Thailand make between $10 and $60 per hour (more or less than that range being a rarity), and certainly the majority closer to $15 than $60.  And of course they don't provide 40 hours of service per week, so much of their time is spent waiting.  But as for hours worked, $15/hour is a reasonable guess.

This is, as you can imagine, a very comfortable living in a country where meals are $1-2 and apartments $70-100/month.  The great majority of prostitutes have a very easy life compared to people who work at regular jobs - at least until they're 35 or so, when marketability becomes slightly impaired.  But its a great life up until that age.

Most of my service providers make nearly what I make, and some make more.

[Gustaf]

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook.

There is nothing moralistic or subjective about the analysis that the owner is above the worker in a hierarchy.  This is fairly demonstrable in various ways - the direction in which commands pass, the relative power over this or that, punishments, rewards, etc.

I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit.

Yes, this is a political reality, Gustaf.  It is completely arbitrary that we arrange things in this way.  We all know that the owners have all the power.  I merely object to it as policy.  You seem to pretend that it is some sort of rational inevitability. 

Minimum wage is a policy which can only be very useful or effective when combined with other measures.  To say 'well the owners can just utilize their powers and destroy workers in return' if we implement the minimum wage does not, to me, suggest that we should just give up and acquiesce, but that we must remove that power from the owners (after all our State gives it to them in the first place).

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

Hookers in Thailand make between $10 and $60 per hour (more or less than that range being a rarity), and certainly the majority closer to $15 than $60.  And of course they don't provide 40 hours of service per week, so much of their time is spent waiting.  But as for hours worked, $15/hour is a reasonable guess.

This is, as you can imagine, a very comfortable living in a country where meals are $1-2 and apartments $70-100/month.  The great majority of prostitutes have a very easy life compared to people who work at regular jobs - at least until they're 35 or so, when marketability becomes slightly impaired.  But its a great life up until that age.

Most of my service providers make nearly what I make, and some make more.

Your assessment that people are nit-picky and immoral when they want to make more money was a subjective political opinion. At least, you finally admitted that I was correct on all my factual statement. The next time I hope you can think your way into admitting this immediately instead of feeling the urge to disagree with my facts just because you don't like them.

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

[Tender Branson]

[opebo]

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

Thailand has an enormous middle class, Gustaf.  And anyway even working class Thais could afford a $15 hooker visit say once a month.

I suppose many people such as yourself are a bit out of date or confused about the standard of living in developing countries.  This one is not so poor at all.

[Gustaf]

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

Thailand has an enormous middle class, Gustaf.  And anyway even working class Thais could afford a $15 hooker visit say once a month.

I suppose many people such as yourself are a bit out of date or confused about the standard of living in developing countries.  This one is not so poor at all.

Since you have argued innumerable times that the American workers are poor, how do you reconcile that with the idea that Thai workers are well-off?

So, I'm going to be rude again  and include pesky little facts in my post: US GDP per capita, PPP, so as to include reference to the prices in the country is roughly 47 000 USD, which is about 6th to 8th in the world. Thailand is about 8 000. So America is about 6 times as rich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Now, THailand's gross natioal income in nominal terms is about 3 400 USD. Which means that the average Thai has about 300 USD a month to spend (or 10 USD a day). So, either the poorest, cheapest street-hookers are 10 times richer than the average Thai or you're talking nonsense. Or they work only 1 hour per day. All of them.

Finally, as regards the middle-class, the United States has a Gini coefficient of roughly 40-45, Thailand has 42. So they have equally equal income distribution. The richest 20% in Thailand has 7.7as much money as the poorest 20%, compared to 8.4 for the US. So income is spread evenly if you compare the two, it is merely that the US is much, much richer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

But, of course, being an owner in Thailand is nice, I can understand that. Exploiting the poor while telling yourself they acually have it pretty good sure feels nice, doesn't it?

[opebo]

Since you have argued innumerable times that the American workers are poor, how do you reconcile that with the idea that Thai workers are well-off?

I never said 'well off', I said that they could afford a $15 hooker visit once a month.

So, I'm going to be rude again  and include pesky little facts in my post: US GDP per capita, PPP, so as to include reference to the prices in the country is roughly 47 000 USD, which is about 6th to 8th in the world. Thailand is about 8 000. So America is about 6 times as rich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Sounds very familiar, considering I knew all that before.  And considering that a decent hooker back home, if you can find one, is probably 6 times as expensive as here, it all makes a good deal of sense, doesn't it? ($15 times 9 = $90; it would probably be more like 120-150)

Now, THailand's gross natioal income in nominal terms is about 3 400 USD. Which means that the average Thai has about 300 USD a month to spend (or 10 USD a day). So, either the poorest, cheapest street-hookers are 10 times richer than the average Thai or you're talking nonsense. Or they work only 1 hour per day. All of them.

The cheapest, realistically, that any Thai in Bangkok can get laid would be 500 baht, and upcountry 300 would be the cheapest.  But this is the absolute bottom.  Doubling those prices is closer to commonplace. 

However, you have to keep in mind that in most venues where the girl is not freelancing, she must split her fare 50/50 with the management.  So, say she does 3 customers per day, 400 baht per time, and keeps half, that leaves her with 600 baht per day, or about $18.  Now, this is extremely low end, but keep in mind that hookers almost always make more than run-of-the mill working people - its the main attraction of the job. 

Also keep in mind that the official figures probably drastically understate real GDP per capita for Thais, simply because government tracking of economic activity is not that great, and there is a large black or simply undocumented economy.  So figure +20-30% on top of that nominal per capita GDP figure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said 'the poor' have it pretty good, I made the observation that prostitution is a relatively lucrative field for poors compared to other fields available to them.  Basically I only deal with middle class people, purveyers of food (who are roughly middle class in income if not status), and prostitutes.  I tend to go for the middle-market type of working girl so she makes basically the same as a middle class bureaucrat.  I don't make any value judgements about this, just observation.

Come check them out in person Gustaf - they'll untwist your panties for you.

[Gustaf]

Ok, wait, wait, wait.

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner? Sounds like they are being used and exploited to me. (and I'm going to save you the embarassement of saying "why, Gustaf, you silly Swede, half is a lot more than the slaves under American capitalism can expect" and tell you right now that labour providers typically recieve about two-thirds of GDP in developed countries, with capital owners getting roughly a third). Besides, I did a little internet research and it seems as if half is the best they can hope for.

3. So, 18 dollars a day. That equals about $2 an hour then. Let's multiply that by 6 to account for price level differences compared to the US and then tell me again what people can be expected to live on, or however your tirade usually goes. And, of course, I'm letting the assumption of the number of customers here go. I suspect, from the research I did, that it is difficult for the higher-priced girls catering to foreigners to have more than one customer a night. And again, given my general experiences with tourist countries, prices are usually significantly lower for the domestic market. Most internet stories I come across seem to have 500 to 1000 baht as the price range. But that is for Swedish 50-year olds going to bars specifically catering to them. I'm pretty sure Thais buy their prostitutes much, much cheaper.

4. Oh, I'm sure you avoid the poor as much as you can. Why would you mingle with the poor and downtrodden? Your warm heart could get seriously hurt by that, after all, given how much it already bleeds for the American workers.

5. And you talk about the attraction of the job - do you mean to imply that these Thai prostitutes are free agents following their ultimate goal in life, as opposed to the rest of us deluded drones working in the West?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, wait, wait, wait.

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner?...

dude, what are doing?  the only serious conversation you can have with him is about car engines.  you should know that

[Gustaf]

Ok, wait, wait, wait.

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner?...

dude, what are doing?  the only serious conversation you can have with him is about car engines.  you should know that

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy, so sometimes I expose it a little bit. I suspect he will give up soon and make some kind of sweeping insult to end the discussion and escape with a little dignity, so it won't last much longer. I do most of this stuff while being bored at work, to be honest.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

Alex would consider this just another sign of my being bipolar

[Gustaf]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

No, at least I haven't seen him admit to it. If he does, I will let it go.

[War on Want]

I don't like intellectual dishonesty and general hypocrisy

huh?  he is dishonest and admits to being dishonest.  where's the hypocrisy?

you both should stop replying.

let's have peace

No, at least I haven't seen him admit to it. If he does, I will let it go.

Why do you care so much?