Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-25-2013, 04:21 PM
 
1,922 posts, read 1,745,961 times
Reputation: 798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I am all for it, that is about where minimum wage should be set at these days in the US.
You are free to hire people at $15/hr....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2013, 04:24 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Labors a small component of it, so is the ability to pollute the nearby areas slaughtering locals like cheap replaceable widgets, and the ability to get government financed loans, free land, etc etc etc.

But sure lets use steel. Currently it takes approx 1,000 people employed year round to create 1 million tons of steel. IE 1 person (average us wage is 78K) to create 1,000 TONS of steel. Lately automation has been changing this figure to 1 person per 2,800 tons at Pesco for example. $770 per ton for HR plate, or 770,000 dollars a year in steel per person employed. Employees make up less then 10% of the price. Unless we used automation like PESCO...then its 3%. Now in china it represents somewhere between 2-7% of the price. So we lose there....unless of course we are shipping it back here. THEN...then we should crush them right?

Hmm....the cost of power maybe (highly subsidized)? Or is it the materials? (we could buy from austrailia just as they do, but then the shipping....

So why do they undercut us by 25-35%? Turns out the answer is usually government subsidies.

They're crushing our economy with them at every level they can, then undercutting us leading to a trade deficit, that they then turn around and use to lower the cost of their goods, and round and round. Its been fueling rising labor costs lately though for them, and they've been losing ground to some of their neighboring countries.

Recently China has had HUGE expansions in their steel production-and they use a large majority of it, the exports of that subsidized industry are whats hurting us, not our wages so much.

Free trade disputes both in the US and in the EU have been having some tariffs due to those subsidies, but as the chinese know...by the time the court cases get resolved and they stop subsidizing, the damage to our industry is done.

Very little to do with wages.
Which material has intrinsic cost that is not derived from labor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 05:37 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,375,883 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Which material has intrinsic cost that is not derived from labor?
Austrailian ore costs the same no matter who buys it. Oh and their minimum wage? $16.18

Basic components of steel-ore and electric. Or do you want to move the goalposts here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 2,310,206 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post

So we, the taxpayers pay for what McDonalds refuses to pay their employees. I don't know about you, but I kind of resent that under the circumstances.

AGAIN, we get back to the minimum wage job supporting a family, the people working these jobs should be retirees, students, second (or more) job for extra family income, none of which should require additional government assistance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,253 posts, read 23,742,275 times
Reputation: 38639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambados View Post
Here we go again Tea Party /// Taliban

Now against people leaving poverty?
Strawman.

And, I've noticed that you are more extreme, out of control, shrieking leftist than many of the lefties on here. You aren't even worthy of a discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:34 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Austrailian ore costs the same no matter who buys it. Oh and their minimum wage? $16.18

Basic components of steel-ore and electric. Or do you want to move the goalposts here?
While you are buying Australian ore, what about American miners?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,253 posts, read 23,742,275 times
Reputation: 38639
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I don't know you so I don't know when you left Seattle. A lot has changed since then and you can no longer claim Seattle is the most expensive.
I wrote it in my post. I said, 2003. I said that when I was leaving Seattle, Forbes magazine had ranked it #1 for overpriced. It was ranked that for a few years. Last I heard was 2005, then I stopped paying attention. I was in Miami at that time. The POINT was, you stated that Miami was expensive and you couldn't believe what I was saying, I was providing not just anecdotal evidence, but it was ranked by a magazine that does this every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:39 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Austrailian ore costs the same no matter who buys it. Oh and their minimum wage? $16.18

Basic components of steel-ore and electric. Or do you want to move the goalposts here?
Steel ore and electricity etc. all have labor cost associated. Australian ore may be cheaper but it doesn't mean there's no labor cost. It's cheaper simply because it costs less labor per ton to mine the ore.

For example, again hypothetically, American can only mine their ore at a rate of 1 ton per hour for each person while the Australians are doing 2 tons/hour, and assuming there's no material cost.

With the American minimum wage of $15, they can sell the ore for $15 labor + $15 profit = $30/ton.

With the Australian minimum wage of $16.18, they can sell the ore for $16.18/2 labor + $15 profit = $23.09/ton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 06:45 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Austrailian ore costs the same no matter who buys it. Oh and their minimum wage? $16.18

Basic components of steel-ore and electric. Or do you want to move the goalposts here?
Take gold for example. It's a metal that has little to no value except for jewelry. Now, pretty much the only reason it costs so much is because the amount of labor we must put in to mine this metal.

Everything you buy has labor cost. Steel ore doesn't come to your door for free. It takes a significant amount of effort or labor mining the ore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2013, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,187,290 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
1. Allow increased housing densities especially in transit corridors where residents will not be driving so many cars.

2. Reduce, waive, or eliminate housing development fees which have become popular in recent years.

3. Reduce existing housing standards which are not necessary - the numerous regulations which in order to price out the poor, e.g. suspend NIMBY practices.

4. Implement inclusionary zoning practices which allow developers a 'density bonus' for providing affordable housiing.
The first one I agree with, though that one tends to be met with backlash from people who currently live in an area that is zoned to get more dense yet not add any new parking for all the people that have a tendency to own a car even if they primarily commute by alternative forms.

The second one I have seen done when it comes to waiving fees for developers that are including a percentage of affordable housing.

The third one would depend on the specific housing standards that you are referring to.

And the fourth one could be tied for the second one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top