[micsager]

I call bs. Labor is between 1 and 3% according to studies I've seen. Closer to 1 at retail and closer to 3 at wholesale. Sure it will suck at first, but they will adjust. When the minimum wage does go up (I say when because it is inevitable), it will not go up in one go.

I'd love to see those studies.  In my company (not a brewery) labor is 55% of our total costs. 

[klickitat jim]

I think the best way to increase your income is to increase the value and or the amount of your labor. When you increase cost without increasing value it's just inflation

[blair.streit]

I think the best way to increase your income is to increase the value and or the amount of your labor. When you increase cost without increasing value it's just inflation

I completely agree. Reasonable people will always pay for value. Agreeing on what's valuable and to what extent is another matter entirely.

Have you ever worked with someone and thought, "until meeting this person I never considered that annual pay decreases might make sense for some people"?

Most people have worked with someone who doesn't pull their weight but manages to stick around. Over time, this drag on productivity needs to be accounted for.

Other than getting fired, most people expect that wages only go up over time. So, to compensate for wage inflation (e.g. wages increasing without a commensurate increase in value provided), we have price inflation (same thing).

As with most economics concepts, there's a chicken and egg problem here. However, in my mind it doesn't really matter which came first. The concept just helps describe the forces that drive the cycle.

[pete b]

I think the best way to increase your income is to increase the value and or the amount of your labor. When you increase cost without increasing value it's just inflation

I completely agree. Reasonable people will always pay for value. Agreeing on what's valuable and to what extent is another matter entirely.

Have you ever worked with someone and thought, "until meeting this person I never considered that annual pay decreases might make sense for some people"?

Most people have worked with someone who doesn't pull their weight but manages to stick around. Over time, this drag on productivity needs to be accounted for.

Other than getting fired, most people expect that wages only go up over time. So, to compensate for wage inflation (e.g. wages increasing without a commensurate increase in value provided), we have price inflation (same thing).

As with most economics concepts, there's a chicken and egg problem here. However, in my mind it doesn't really matter which came first. The concept just helps describe the forces that drive the cycle.

I can't tell if you are talking about individuals you know or the economy as a whole. Overall in the past 30 years,give or take, the productivity of workers has skyrocketed, along with it corporate profits, while wages have stagnated. While we can all think of anecdotes about annoying coworkers, as a whole people are getting more education and training (mostly out of their own pocket) and working more hours- so doing exactly what Jim prescribed (increasing the value and amount of their labor)- while wages have been stagnant and benefits slashed. I don't think there is a chicken and egg problem here, those who benefit from this arrangement simply gained power and dismantled capitalism.

[a10t2]

Have you ever worked with someone and thought, "until meeting this person I never considered that annual pay decreases might make sense for some people"?

Since I'm not allowed to counter the political statements, can we just end on a high note and call that the thread?

[pete b]

Have you ever worked with someone and thought, "until meeting this person I never considered that annual pay decreases might make sense for some people"?

Since I'm not allowed to counter the political statements, can we just end on a high note and call that the thread?

I thought of it more as an economic discussion about the larger forces behind the original question, but its a fine line. I can agree that that what you quoted from Blair is a good zinger.

[blair.streit]

Have you ever worked with someone and thought, "until meeting this person I never considered that annual pay decreases might make sense for some people"?

Since I'm not allowed to counter the political statements, can we just end on a high note and call that the thread?

I thought of it more as an economic discussion about the larger forces behind the original question, but its a fine line. I can agree that that what you quoted from Blair is a good zinger.

Yeah, sorry this topic does straddle the line between politics and economics. And yes, I used that anecdotal thought completely for shock value (the best ones have some truth, right?).

I agree Pete -- I was enjoying the economics discussion from a more theoretical perspective, but I guess we have strayed a bit beyond the original scope.

Pete -- if you want to keep discussing grab the earlier bits and start a thread in the pub. We might be playing with fire but I think we can control it

[klickitat jim]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

[Stevie]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Woah, calm down Commie

[majorvices]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Woah, calm down Commie

Bwahahahaha!

It is all a little close to politics and really straddling the line and maybe falling over a little bit but I have not considered locking it yet. and yes I am watching. 

[klickitat jim]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Woah, calm down Commie

I will try

[klickitat jim]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Woah, calm down Commie

I will try

[blair.streit]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Woah, calm down Commie

Bwahahahaha!

It is all a little close to politics and really straddling the line and maybe falling over a little bit but I have not considered locking it yet. and yes I am watching. 

I was self-censoring as I felt like all my bloviating was headed in a political direction. I think your comment was pretty tame. Of course then Stevie had to go all Rambo and stuff. Or was that more Red Dawn?

[pete b]

Hopefully, my comments on working more and harder are not considered politics.

Not really Jim, if anyone went over that line it was me. I think mainly I was adding some factual content to the economic part of this but my last sentence was editorializing in a political direction although to my mind we should be able to go there if we keep it fairly general and historical as I was trying to do.
All I really wanted to do is point out that the whole "people are not doing well because they are lazy/uneducated etc", which it seems every generation says about the present situation, is especially and objectively false if you look at the big picture today. I don't think it's political to just point out that, as a whole, people are working longer hours, have more training/education, and are getting less compensation when you  account for inflation and especially if you include benefits. What should be done about it? That's politics. What caused it? ARGUABLY, that's politics, and that's kinda where I went.

[HoosierBrew]

I'm gonna refrain from any political comments but I get a kick out of watching the tangents some of these threads take. Of course since I'm a serial 'derailer', I'm part of the problem.