321–330 of 582 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there should be an exception for people who are financially dependent on someone else. If you're a teen living at home you should be able to work for whatever someone will pay.
why?
Rising gas prices mean we can lower wages to keep employees? Outside of the moral implication, this doesn't even logically make sense. People are already facing higher costs, if you pay them lower, they will not work for you, because you know, commuting to work at your place will eat into the budget.
Maybe out of habit or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very tempting to draw a straight line between something you don't like and some other event that is negative and declare causation. Do you really think this is what is causing inflation? Perhaps there are other facts, such as trillions of dollars of almost zero interest money injected since 2008, massive tax cuts for highly profitable companies (eg AAPL) that result in great payouts to people who are already pa…
The 6 trillion in government spending, subsidizing labor non-participation with federal money, and canceling federal leases and pipelines and saking banks not to lend for fracking didnt help any of that. I'm not sure how I see how spending a ton more money (UBI) will help with inflation at this point. 100% debt-to-gdb is already a lot.
Currently private investors are refusing to invest in oil even without environmental factors in the picture - they think it's a temporary spike and are insisting the oil companies pay them back dividends instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>two people being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within a 1 hour drive without traffic. My immediate reaction to this statement was.. it's insane? In my opinion it should read 'a single person able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment within an hour of public transport commute.' Otherwise it sounds like you don't think anyone should be able to live anywhere reasonable without roommates?
living alone is a luxury all over the world. i don’t think it’s good to expect minimum wage will afford you a luxury style of living. we don’t have the infrastructure to support that for all. nor does any country
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, you'd think the people with 'traditional values' or whatever would be really excited if a single worker could support a couple.
The reason why single earner households can't afford a house on a single earner wage isn't because houses got 2x harder to build, or a single earner got half as productive. It's because there's only so many houses (land) available, and therefore the people with money (mostly 2 earner households) bid up the price until the people who can afford it equal the number of houses available. So yes, those people "with 'tradi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zoning. You link the "zones which employ people" and "zones which house people" to balance so you don't have significantly more jobs than homes. Next you zone for type of housing, where you only allow a certain percentage of the most profitable 1BR apartments to be built, and require those to be above certain size thresholds so that a variety of life situations can actually live in your city. You don't need to "incen…
That sounds all well and good but I live in a desirable central coast city and thanks to SB9 I can now build 4 extra res units on my property. You are mistaken if you think anyone is going to spend that effort and charge anything less than current market ... maybe more, new houses are expensive. What we need is subsidized housing close to mass transit, single payer medicine, progressive tax reform and subsidized chil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start off by charging them extra in taxes to cover any welfare their full-time employees qualify for. edit: with a 200% penalty for administrative fees.
>Start off by charging them extra in taxes to cover any welfare their full-time employees qualify for. Isn't this equivalent to raising the minimum wage? I'm not sure what's the point of policies like this other for the cathartic effect/grandstanding.
Ethics aside, this is bad analysis. Gas prices putting financial stress on Applebee's employees will also put financial stress on Applebee's customers, who may cut spending on things like going to Applebee's.
I agree they may need to cut their prices. How would this email have been received if it had said: We are facing headwinds and may need to cut prices To stay viable this means we need to cut costs One way to do this is offer lower starting wages. Though this wasn't viable in the recent past, it may be possible now. That's because our pool of workers are feeling pinched and may need to pick up extra jobs I understand…
Except executive compensation, I suppose.
It's also not an isolated event, just another moment in a trend of big corporate entities pushing wages in only one direction, down. No matter how you word it, it's starting to look a lot like: "We need to lower wages because no one can afford anything anymore because no one is paying high enough wages".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) UBI is not UBI unless everyone gets it. 2) Any income surplus generated by UBI is rapidly consumed by middle people and rent-seekers. That’s how we get inflation.
Does anyone have a good explanation (or resource) for why this wouldn’t happen?