Quote from: Supposn on July 07, 2014, 02:50:36 PM
Taxed, because the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is a variable.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote"pegging" the FMW rate to the variable purchasing power of the U.S. dollar."

So you're fine with lowering the MW when the dollar tanks, correct?

Quote from: Solar on July 07, 2014, 06:14:58 PM
So you're fine with lowering the MW when the dollar tanks, correct?

Let me predict his response: "How can it go down when evil companies keep raising prices??"

Quote from: taxed on July 07, 2014, 06:30:16 PM
Let me predict his response: "How can it go down when evil companies keep raising prices??"

The real answer is, because fuckin idiots keep interfering with private entities.
But you're right, he's clueless.

Quote from: Solar on July 07, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
The real answer is, because fuckin idiots keep interfering with private entities.
But you're right, he's clueless.

He has breathing instructions stickied to his monitor.  Unfortunately, it covers the sticky telling him to think.

Quote from: taxed on July 07, 2014, 07:30:39 PM
He has breathing instructions stickied to his monitor.  Unfortunately, it covers the sticky telling him to think.

I doubt thinking ever really entered the equation.

Quote from: Solar on July 07, 2014, 06:14:58 PM
So you're fine with lowering the MW when the dollar tanks, correct?

Solar, you have the correct idea, but your wording's backward.
Due to currency inflation, the U.S. dollar "tanks"; (i.e. its purchasing power is reduced) and the FMW rate should be increased.
Due to a USA economic depression our dollar's purchasing power would increase and our FMW rate should be reduced.

The short answer to your question is yes, the FMW rate should be annually adjusted for changes in both directions.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 13, 2014, 05:54:11 AM
Solar, you have the correct idea, but your wording's backward.
Due to currency inflation, the U.S. dollar "tanks"; (i.e. its purchasing power is reduced) and the FMW rate should be increased.
Due to a USA economic depression our dollar's purchasing power would increase and our FMW rate should be reduced.

The short answer to your question is yes, the FMW rate should be annually adjusted for changes in both directions.

Respectfully, Supposn

And shockingly, it never has been.

But still you avoid my earlier post about the bottom line effect by MW, why is that?

Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2014, 06:16:27 AM...But still you avoid my earlier post about the bottom line effect by MW, why is that?

 
Solar, I reviewed your recent posts to learn what you're referring to; I suppose you're referring to your post #100?

My children object to my discussing our families business affairs in other than the most general fashions; but among our family's enterprises is one with a payroll almost entirely composed of lower income earners.

Proportional to numbers of employees or of median employee incomes, small enterprises are not more vulnerable (than large enterprises), to any detrimental effect due to the FMW rate.  The FMW wage has never and should never be suddenly modified without reasonable warning.  Hindrances to long term planning that you refer to are not due to the FMW rate.

Since January 2000, (other than the Affordable Care Act) our congress agreed upon little of substance. The Tea Party continues to advocate law that cannot pass through the U.S. Senate.  If it could pass through the senate, Obama would not sign off on it.

The "do nothing U.S. Congress" that Truman successfully ran against in 1948, (rather than those during the Obama administration thus far), was not more economically detrimental and did not contributed to greater uncertainty within our business communities.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2014, 06:16:27 AM
And shockingly, it never has been. ...

Solar, the short answer to your question is yes, the FMW rate should be annually adjusted for changes in both directions.

Since the depression prior to the Second World War, what year has the U.S. dollar's purchasing power ever increased?  Your comment's not applicable.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on July 13, 2014, 09:41:20 AM
Solar, the short answer to your question is yes, the FMW rate should be annually adjusted for changes in both directions.

Since the depression prior to the Second World War, what year has the U.S. dollar's purchasing power ever increased?  Your comment's not applicable.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm done with you.  You have avoided any actual debate.

Quote from: taxed on July 13, 2014, 06:23:52 PM
I'm done with you.  You have avoided any actual debate.

Did you really think he came in for that.

Quote from: Supposn on July 13, 2014, 09:26:24 AM
 
Solar, I reviewed your recent posts to learn what you're referring to; I suppose you're referring to your post #100?

My children object to my discussing our families business affairs in other than the most general fashions; but among our family's enterprises is one with a payroll almost entirely composed of lower income earners.

Proportional to numbers of employees or of median employee incomes, small enterprises are not more vulnerable (than large enterprises), to any detrimental effect due to the FMW rate.  The FMW wage has never and should never be suddenly modified without reasonable warning.  Hindrances to long term planning that you refer to are not due to the FMW rate.

Since January 2000, (other than the Affordable Care Act) our congress agreed upon little of substance. The Tea Party continues to advocate law that cannot pass through the U.S. Senate.  If it could pass through the senate, Obama would not sign off on it.

The "do nothing U.S. Congress" that Truman successfully ran against in 1948, (rather than those during the Obama administration thus far), was not more economically detrimental and did not contributed to greater uncertainty within our business communities.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm not talking about a business that's been up and running for a decade or so," hence the "3, 5, 7, rule", meaning these are struggling businesses, they can't afford anymore burden than they already suffer.
Then add a forced wage increase, and you kill off jobs by killing business, or the simple fact they have to lay people off.

Why is that so hard for you to get through your thick skull?
I have been in business all of my life, yes, 5 decades worth, and any forced increase is always met with cuts, and the employee always suffers.
In the case of larger corps, they simply pass the cost along to the consumer.

Now stop for a second and think about that, all costs are passed along to the consumer, completely negating any wage increase these people were given.

To anyone with half a brain, it's blatantly obvious that it's purely political.

Quote from: taxed on July 13, 2014, 06:23:52 PM
I'm done with you.  You have avoided any actual debate.

Aw crap, I typed that for nothing?