New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Nobody sane would buy $5 peas, so the grocer can't do that.

What if the grocer sets the price of a can of peas to 30 cents, drastically undercutting the 50-70 cent grocers?

He'll sell more peas.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is this too patronizing?

Respectfully, you could get to the point.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by spexxvet

Here we go with the insults. So I'll respond that you sound like the 3 year old brat who won't share his toys with his sister, even though he's not using them. "They're mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine" ad infinitum.

this kind of thing is what frustrates people about arguing with people like you. you perceive that lookout is name-calling, and yet...cannot be outdone in that respect. you have to say nanny nanny boo boo back. I guess it seems somehow to lack ...integrity....to chide him about insults and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Like 'he started it, mom!'


in the same vein, instead of judging clodfobble and lookout about not giving up what they have cheerfully, you could let someone who needs it more live in your nice house that's in one of the top 10 places in the country to live. and then say ...this is what i do. lead us by example since you have the answers. they seem to come to you so easily, after all.

you speak to people like you're schooling them on how to be. and all the while, we all know you're a dork like the rest of us.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

this kind of thing is what frustrates people about arguing with people like you. you perceive that lookout is name-calling, and yet...cannot be outdone in that respect. you have to say nanny nanny boo boo back. I guess it seems somehow to lack ...integrity....to chide him about insults and then turn around and do the exact same thing. Like 'he started it, mom!'

I'd prefer to have a civil debate, but if Lookout insults me, what should I do? Take it like a pussy? Is that what you'd do? No, that's not me.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

in the same vein, instead of judging clodfobble and lookout about not giving up what they have cheerfully,

I have not judged them and I haven't said anything about giving up what they have, cheerfully or not.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

you could let someone who needs it more live in your nice house that's in one of the top 10 places in the country to live. and then say ...this is what i do. lead us by example since you have the answers. they seem to come to you so easily, after all.

When I have enough, I will.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

you speak to people like you're schooling them on how to be. and all the while, we all know you're a dork like the rest of us.

Why thank you. Whale cocks unite!

[lumberjim]

fire everyone, and close your businesses?

you lose

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

fire everyone, and close your businesses?

you lose

Turn your business over to your child? Sell it? Work for free, because you love the job and want to keep your people employed? Work and give the money to charity? Think outside the box, LJ.

[Undertoad]

Alright. The secret is, the people he hires are in the same marketplace that the peas are. As much as we hate to think this is true, it's simply fact.

These decisions are not really made by the CEO. As much as the CEO wants to charge $5 per can - because he'll make $4.55 per can - there is no grocer in the world charging that. As much as he wants to sell the cans for 30 cents - because he'll sell more - the decision is not up to him, because at that price point it actually costs the grocer 15 cents per can. He can run it as a special to show off a low price... but only for a while.

The owner has the ability to take a smaller chunk. But so does every single other owner, and so the owner faces the same problem in pricing himself as his faces in pricing the peas.

He especially faces it when pricing labor. In the grocery business, labor costs are the bulk of the costs, aside from the price of goods sold. So as much as he wants to, if he pays $20/hour for checkers, he will go out of business because he won't have any money left. If he chooses to give smaller salaries to management, he'll get worse managers because his competition will get the good managers. His managers will leave to work for the competition. If he chooses to bring in inferior goods to take a bigger chunk per item sold, he'll lose business to quality.

One grocer can't change this system. All 100 grocers in the area might be able to - until some other chain comes to the area and runs it back. All 10,000 grocers in the country may be able to - until an alternative to grocers comes around. If there is a big gap between prices and cost of goods sold, you can bet that it will. Because the business has a built-in profit margin in the single digits, smaller than the average businesses out there. The rules of the market are clearly defined.

You can say that the market for CEOs is confused, that the CEOs make too much because boards don't understand that more people can do that job than the 1000 people vying for Fortune 500 company CEO positions. The boards don't agree with you.

You can say that the market for business owners is confused because too many owners take too much out of their businesses. But starting most businesses, especially those with employees, requires a buy-in of six figures and a rather complete understanding of the market and the profession. You can say, well people should be better owners, and on that we agree. But that problem doesn't lie in the rather forced economic revisionism you seem to espouse. Force labor and wage changes and you will just find the same owners making stupider decisions.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

....He especially faces it when pricing labor. In the grocery business, labor costs are the bulk of the costs, aside from the price of goods sold. So as much as he wants to, if he pays $20/hour for checkers, he will go out of business because he won't have any money left. If he chooses to give smaller salaries to management, he'll get worse managers because his competition will get the good managers. His managers will leave to work for the competition. If he chooses to bring in inferior goods to take a bigger chunk per item sold, he'll lose business to quality.
...
You can say that the market for CEOs is confused, that the CEOs make too much because boards don't understand that more people can do that job than the 1000 people vying for Fortune 500 company CEO positions. The boards don't agree with you.

You can say that the market for business owners is confused because too many owners take too much out of their businesses. But starting most businesses, especially those with employees, requires a buy-in of six figures and a rather complete understanding of the market and the profession. You can say, well people should be better owners, and on that we agree. But that problem doesn't lie in the rather forced economic revisionism you seem to espouse. Force labor and wage changes and you will just find the same owners making stupider decisions.

What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What I'm saying is that when, or if you prefer "if" the CEO, the managers, even the cashiers have enough, they should stop accumulating wealth. My guess is that nobody in your explanation feels that they have enough. There will be planty of people who never have enough.

That's what you're saying NOW, not what you were arguing in #181, which is what my posts lead back to and what I'm talking about.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's what you're saying NOW, not what you were arguing in #181, which is what my posts lead back to and what I'm talking about.

In #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?

[Flint]

This is worse than the time I got stuck defending my Plane on a Treadmill position; which I think finally settled on:

Originally Posted by paraphrase

...there is no correct answer because the question is worded wrong...

Boy, that was embarrassing!. . . ha ha ha

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

In #181, I gave an illustration to justify my point that if a CEO or owner accepts less, poverty and welfare can be reduced. How is that substantially different than what I just said?

#181 talked about the CEO changing the wage structure. Now you're talking about everyone accepting less. I guess we went off track when the peas were too patronizing...

...that "intellectually dishonest" label applies here as well.

[lumberjim]

spex, you are intellectually dishonest. arguing with you is pointless. you are slipperier than a greased politician.

the concept of someone 'stopping the accumulation of their wealth' is asinine. you might as well ask Lions to eat grass.

Communism doesnt work. Eventually the entitled's needs overwhelm the ability of the enabled to provide for it, and it crashes.

Survival of the fittest works...in nature and in business.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

spex, you are intellectually dishonest. arguing with you is pointless. you are slipperier than a greased politician.

I'm not intellectually dishonest. I'm not going to roll over when I know that I am right. You may see that as pointless, I see it as overcoming objections. Nobody has yet given a good reason to continue to accumulate wealthy when you have enough. You say it'll never happen, but not why it's not a great idea.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

the concept of someone 'stopping the accumulation of their wealth' is asinine. you might as well ask Lions to eat grass.

Or humans to stop following the herds, picking nuts and berries, and to settle down and plant some crops, maybe domesticate a few animals....

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Communism doesnt work. Eventually the entitled's needs overwhelm the ability of the enabled to provide for it, and it crashes.

I'm not talking about communism.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Survival of the fittest works...in nature and in business.

Who said anything about survival of the fittest? I prefer Darwin's philosophy - survival of the species.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I'm not intellectually dishonest.

yes...you are. you argue to win an argument, slipping this way and that, disregarding points that crush your argument just so you can continue to argue until you finally wear the adversary down in frustration and find some way to claim that 'you won'

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I'm not going to roll over when I know that I am right. You may see that as pointless, I see it as overcoming objections. Nobody has yet given a good reason to continue to accumulate wealthy when you have enough.

you just ignored rage then? go back. check. see my previous comment in this reply.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You say it'll never happen, but not why it's not a great idea.

it's not a great idea because it will never happen...Logistically, the person is either 1.continuing in business and giving his money away, or 2. closing up shop, or 3.selling it to someone else and 1. communism 2. causing the loss of employment and income for all those below him/her 3. accumuating more wealth thru the profit of the sale.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I'm not talking about communism.

i think you are.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Who said anything about survival of the fittest? I prefer Darwin's philosophy - survival of the species.

i did. just a few minutes ago. and....you're a communist.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And one of the more visible economic phenomena of communism is poorer and stupider business decisions anyway. Just about every good or service in the Soviet Union is on record as having had that happen.