lo_Pine's forum posts

Avatar image for lo_Pine
#1 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

If the government stopped interfering with the market for education, the Law of Demand would ensure that tuition costs would drop, since the demand for education is so high. Ironically, by flooding money into the educarion market, the government is causing the cost of education to increase, because educational institutions have an incentive to increase their prices, because they know the government will simply give more money to students to pay the increased prices.

SpartanMSU

You seem to have a flawed view of how supply and demand works. When there is high demand an increase in supply lowers the price of the good.

You seem to not know what artificial demand is.

No one is forcing the people to have demand.
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#2 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -
None of this makes sense to me. -Fromage-
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#3 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... They destroy competitors by either buying them out or running them out of business.. So no to suggest they create jobs isn't always the case.. Walmart is known for their employee horror stories and for the people who probably work for less.. THOSE are the people who are desperate.. The minimum wage in most places already isn't livable, especially if you have a dependent.. Meaning if your going to work for less, it pretty much signifies your desperate and that is your only option.

sSubZerOo

The lives of the low skilled whose only option is a minimum wage job or worse is not one that should glamorous or comfortable. This is where economics leaves the discussion and ideology enters.

:| Ah yes because talking about having a "livable" wage means one of being glamorous and comfortable..

Minimum wage is certainly livable for a single person.
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#4 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I honestly think it would be better for government to step on the throats of corporations that have been sucking the system dry.. Wallmart is a top offender of this in pretty much ensuring workers get paid less by either cutting hours or rarely ever giving raises.. TO trying to show the workers in how to become eligible for government aid just so they don't have to pay for services like health care.. People like to say that the welfare squatter is the main leech.. I would disagree.. I think it is places like Walmart because of the fact they cost the system so much more while, soaring in sales.. sSubZerOo

Walmart is not really sucking the system dry. They are hiring more people by opening more stores. And the people they hire are usually low skilled workers who benefit from the minimum wage as those people would probably work for less if there was no minimum wage.

... They destroy competitors by either buying them out or running them out of business.. So no to suggest they create jobs isn't always the case.. Walmart is known for their employee horror stories and for the people who probably work for less.. THOSE are the people who are desperate.. The minimum wage in most places already isn't livable, especially if you have a dependent.. Meaning if your going to work for less, it pretty much signifies your desperate and that is your only option.

The lives of the low skilled whose only option is a minimum wage job or worse is not one that should glamorous or comfortable. This is where economics leaves the discussion and ideology enters.
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#5 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -
[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] LOL...goth. Shows what you know.:lol:LJS9502_basic

Goth rock is the first term on The Cure's wikipedia page, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cure

 

Under genre of music. Just to be clear.

For a brief time...yes. But if you think The Cure is just a goth band....you're wrong. They don't even consider themselves goth. But hey wiki....amirite?

Poo pooing the wikipedia page of The Cure, you don't think The Cure has any authority over what appears on their wikipedia page?
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#6 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -
I honestly think it would be better for government to step on the throats of corporations that have been sucking the system dry.. Wallmart is a top offender of this in pretty much ensuring workers get paid less by either cutting hours or rarely ever giving raises.. TO trying to show the workers in how to become eligible for government aid just so they don't have to pay for services like health care.. People like to say that the welfare squatter is the main leech.. I would disagree.. I think it is places like Walmart because of the fact they cost the system so much more while, soaring in sales.. sSubZerOo
Walmart is not really sucking the system dry. They are hiring more people by opening more stores. And the people they hire are usually low skilled workers who benefit from the minimum wage as those people would probably work for less if there was no minimum wage.
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#7 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

The answer to this question really depends on what the corporation in question does with their profits.

Ace6301

Idealistic people would say the savings would be given to consumers. In reality the profits go to the CEO. This would be why profits overall are at an all time high, CEOs make record pay and the cost of living continues to increase while wages stagnate. Now obviously any increase to the minimum wage would cost the consumers (Because there's no way in f*ck anyone near the top is going to let their paycheck get cut) and potentially cause an increase in the price of goods beyond what it theoretically should as the price increase could then be blamed on the government to secure further profit while also gathering support for your own cause. The real answer is the model is pretty broken. You could maybe reward companies that follow the classic economics textbook model with rewards and punish those that don't somehow. I think that's hilariously ironic enough to at least be amusing.

It's hard to tell how much of the profits the CEO pockets without having access to their accounting books. Obviously though, a lot of the profits are being used to open new stores and most importantly hiring new people as we see companies like Starbucks and Subway expanding at rapid paces. The $10M or $50M the CEO pockets is immaterial when compared to the billions of profits companies like these makes.

 But CEOs do not even make their money from the profits of their business. They make all their money through the stock options they get which has no direct connection to the profits their business makes. As long as businesses are expanding then we can't say that profits aren't being used wisely. Sure, they could expand a little more if CEOs did not pocket some money but not by much.

Also, the owners of the business and the business they operate are treated as separate entities. The salary CEOs make are separate from the profits the business generates as the CEOs salary is included in the bottom line. Not saying shady things don't happen but even if they do, the money they pocket is immaterial.

Avatar image for lo_Pine
#8 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -

The answer to this question really depends on what the corporation in question does with their profits.

Avatar image for lo_Pine
#9 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="thegerg"] OK. That doesn't mean that students who take loans have no other option.

I don't know if you have ever attended a college or university but they demand all the money up front. That means, in the case of a state school, you must absolutely have thousands of dollars in order to attend.

Yes, I have attended a university. My parents are not rich, yet I took no student loans. WTF are you on about?

Not talking to a troll about economics anymore is what I'm on about.
Avatar image for lo_Pine
#10 Posted by lo_Pine (4978 posts) -
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="thegerg"] The fact that I find it hard to believe students that take loans have no other options. Now, please try to answer the question.

Not every student has rich parents.

OK. That doesn't mean that students who take loans have no other option.

I don't know if you have ever attended a college or university but they demand all the money up front. That means, in the case of a state school, you must absolutely have thousands of dollars in order to attend.