Chicago requires big-box stores to pay 'living wage'

[Swift]

as for the rest, why don't you guys ever get bored with that stupid stereotyping? i'm fed up with it. as soon as you start with that typical "every liberal is a commie, wants the highest taxes, welfare so much that nobody will work anymore and no more punishment for rapists and murderers than shoplifters" attitude you are disqualifying yourself.

Nope we don't get bored with it because it almost invariably proves to be true.

Child labor is a totally seperate topic. We're talking about adults here.

We are?...I mean, yeah, that's right!

 

[vladimir]

It's not a slippery slope. This is how things are started. It's happening here in Maryland already with that stupid(just declared unconstitutional) Wal-mart bill.

if thats ben declared unconstitutional then i can't really see it happen ing, sorry.

It's going on in Massachusetts now. The governments of many states are trying to force business to literally make sure that their employees are healthy and financially secure. Now, there's nothing wrong with that thought, the challenge is that people want to be healthy and financially secure working one job at a retail outlet for 40-50 hours a week while supporting a family of 4. That's just not right. If you agree to take the job for 9$, then that's what the wage is.

so what would you suggest? work even more than 50 hours per week? stop working altogether and starve?

has it ever struck you that these people might not be entirely free in their decisions?

Why does the government have to come in and tell the company to pay more to it's employees, causing a raise in the cost of their goods for most companies. Granted, businesses shouldn't be completely unchecked. But at the same time this is tearing at one of the most fundamental elements of a free market society.

so even you admit that you have to keep businesses in check, but that you can't keep the market absolutely free at the same time.
so what makes minimum wages different from other measures to restrain businesses?

Famine hit this point pretty well. But if the employers have to pay the employees more it 1) Causes a reduction in staff making the staff overworked in most cases. 2) Raises the prices of goods to consumers, the very people that this legislation is supposed to help. 3) Both 1 and 2

no he did not. he simplified things way too much.
and instead of disproving my argument, you merely repeated what he said.

so please reread my post and try to disprove it.

Here's what I want to know. WHY do liberals always punish the successful in America by taking the money they earned legally? It's like a penalty for success. "Don't make too much money giving people(the ones we represent) what they want or we'll punish you by taking some of that money!" And that's exactly what's happening here. Your and many liberals justification for this law is that Wal-Mart is making umpteen billion a year, so they should help their employees out more. That's the most ludicrous justification I've ever heard.

again its clear that you have not read my post very carefully.
all i did was opposing the stark simplification that was visible in this thread.
i didn't even support minimum wage laws because i don't feel qualified to find an ultimate conclusion.

you're showing a dangerous "he's not with us he must be against us" attitude here...

Child labor is a totally seperate topic. We're talking about adults here.

did i ask you?

Nope we don't get bored with it because it almost invariably proves to be true.

thats not very surprising if i go by my experience in this thread since you hardly read what i actually write. instead you have mostly guessed what i could have written according to the prejudices you have...

 

[Danoff]

has it ever struck you that these people might not be entirely free in their decisions?

...without basic rights you'd be correct.

so even you admit that you have to keep businesses in check, but that you can't keep the market absolutely free at the same time.

...basic human rights.

so what makes minimum wages different from other measures to restrain businesses?

It's not a right. (hint: it violates the rights of others)

did i ask you?

Are you posting on the opinions board?

 

[Swift]

if thats ben declared unconstitutional then i can't really see it happen ing, sorry.

You missed the point. The point is that it was a law that was passed by the legislature and it took a federal judge to declare it unconstitutional. This state government wants the companies to "take care" of their employees. And is a prime reason we've lost all but one of the fourtune 500 companies we once had in Maryland.

so what would you suggest? work even more than 50 hours per week? stop working altogether and starve?

I would suggest people educate themselves for a better job.

has it ever struck you that these people might not be entirely free in their decisions?

They would only not be "free" by their own previous decisions. Drug addictions, unplanned children, etc.

so even you admit that you have to keep businesses in check, but that you can't keep the market absolutely free at the same time.
so what makes minimum wages different from other measures to restrain businesses?

Yes, I believe in business regulations like workman's comp and things like that. But not for minimum wages.

no he did not. he simplified things way too much.
and instead of disproving my argument, you merely repeated what he said.

so please reread my post and try to disprove it.

We did, but you don't want to hear it.

again its clear that you have not read my post very carefully.
all i did was opposing the stark simplification that was visible in this thread.
i didn't even support minimum wage laws because i don't feel qualified to find an ultimate conclusion.

uh, right.

you're showing a dangerous "he's not with us he must be against us" attitude here...

Well, yeah. This is politics. I don't want you dead or want to break your legs. But the fact of the matter is in politics you're on one side or the other. That's it. Now, that doesn't mean that people can't disagree in the same party(check out the libertarian platform). It doesn't make us "enemies" we simply disagree.

thats not very surprising if i go by my experience in this thread since you hardly read what i actually write. instead you have mostly guessed what i could have written according to the prejudices you have...

Actually no, you say that we should just give people stuff they didn't earn, raise minimum wage, national healthcare and the like. Well, that all costs more money to consumers and taxpayers that the "left" seems to forget or not mention.

And I know you're not playing the "prejudice" card after all the garbage I went through in the Creation vs Evolution thread, among others.

 

[vladimir]

As a former employer I have a bit of insight into exactly what the cost of labor is and how it effects productivity and pricing.

first of all, thanks for the first productive reply to my post.

The cost to an employer of each employee can range from 21 percent to 50 percent or more of their base pay depending on the benfits offered. at the minimum you have your workmans comp insurance . so a 6.50 hr employee cost ( .ave) 7.77 and a ten dollar an hr employee cost 13.50 ...each hr.
In a retail store each hr is not a PRODUCTIVE hr . unless each 13.50 employee is making sales that cover more than his cost , so on a slow day your employees could be costing you 22.00 and hour or more.
So here is reality at the rates above you are not offering any health care insurance ..and you wont be able to afford to . You will be offering the minimum benifits you can to reduce overhead . You will alos reduce the size of your work force. You KNOW from records of previous months / years approxomately what to expect in sales reciepts and what you need to meet your overhead .
So to be PROFITABLE you must reduce your workforce .
it ludicrouse to assume that you can make up the extra 40 .00 per person a day by increasing productivity because in retail you do not produce you sell and to increase sales you either LOWER prices or increase advertising or both.
these options cost cash...cash you are spending now on unproductive employees .
A store like wallmart with a few hundred epmloyees WILL move someplace where the labor pool is less expensive . They have to ..a small retail will either close or have less emloyees working longer for less to no benifits.
This bullsnot arrow was aimed at stores like Wallmart but it hits RiteAids and other retails as well ..So if you are a large chain you decrease the amount of stores per demographic area and either reduce employees or benifits . you do what needs to be done to keep your net income as close to your projections as you can..or YOU get fired ( if your a regional manager or store manager in a " chain ' type operation " ) or go out of business if you are privately owned.

So the results of this bill are a higher base rate for labor .
Less labor to be hired
for jobs with less benifits like health care .
a shrinking pool of jobs in areas that need them..inner city stores in lower income areas wont be able to support or pay the higher prices that increased labor cost bring with them . so the stores will close or move..along with them go the jobs .

This bill is a disaster for the working people . And Chicago will pay in spades for their stupidity .


* The reason they make this type of money is through sound management and marketing and to KEEP making this type of money they will fire or lay off every person in Chicago and move to the Suburbs .
Also if I wanted to live in a country that could determine or was allowed to determine how much money I was allowed to make ..I would go to some socialist paradise and NOT live in the US .

congrats, finally a post that makes sense.

there is only one slight inconsistency i see here.
first of all, you state the total cost of an 10$ employee to be 13.50 but only mention workers compensation insurance to be responsible for the extra cost. but the comp insurance is nowhere near that level according to numerous sources like this one:
http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/Insurance/824-30-1862.html

so i'm wondering whether a 10$ employee would really be that expensive, because 3.50$ would be quite a difference indeed...

secondly, you say that a business has to remain profitable, which is of course true. the question is however, how much of that profit will exactly be lost by the increase in wages. it could still be profitable for walmart to stay in chicago if the profit per store was high ernough.

and if they just moved out of town, they would still provide jobs, while other businesses in town would be under less pressure from walmart's low prices...
thus the relation between labour cost and the amount of jobs is still not that clear to me...

 

[Danoff]

...the relation between labour cost and the amount of jobs is still not that clear to me...

Take an economics class.

Price goes up, demand goes down.

 

[Famine]

Take an economics class...

... and answer the earlier question danoff DID ask you:

Would you support a minimum wage of $100/hr?

 

[vladimir]

... and answer the earlier question danoff DID ask you:

this is tiring...

NOWHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT I SUPPORTED THE LAW IN QUESTION!

thats as large as it gets, hope you can now read it.
and you can take that as a no if you're still to thick to understand...

 

[Swift]

Ok, then, uh. What are you doing here Vladimir? You don't support the law but are strongly contending for it.

 

[Danoff]

Vlad,

That's not the point. Whether you support the law we're discussing is not what I was asking. I was asking whether you'd support a theoretical law setting the minimum wage to $100/hr. If not, why not?

 

[Famine]

this is tiring...

NOWHERE DID I EVER SAY THAT I SUPPORTED THE LAW IN QUESTION!

thats as large as it gets, hope you can now read it.
and you can take that as a no if you're still to thick to understand...

Ad hominem. Nice. You know you've really run out of road when you jump into that one.

Note that - and without big capitals and red - I didn't say you did.

So... why would you definitely NOT support a $100/hour minimum wage, but can't come to a conclusion on a $7.50 one?

 

[vladimir]

It is on-topic because the slippery slope concept refers to any new precedent set that can now be used to justify other legislation that targets specific companies or types of business. If this survives the courts it will tell the government that they have the Constitutional ability to step into any company's workings and regulate them specifically.

Can you think of a good founded reason why a law can target Wal*Mart or even big-box stores specifically? Are fast food and small grocery employees in any less need of that extra money? What about mom and pop shops? Why not them? Better yet, why not government run tourist attractions? What is the justification for targeting a specific type of business and by what Constitutional basis is that legal? Allow this and the precedent is set to target laws and you have fast food chains being told how to fix their food so that it is healthier and a million other situations like this. It opens a very ugly door that communist countries enjoy.

good point. i guess it would be more fair if the minimum wage was increased generally.

And the less the employer has. That's fair.

i wasn't saying that my simple math was better then anyone else's. i just intended to show that simple math isn't suitable to grasp the issue.

Actually you are simplifying it to just the fact that employees need more money without considering how much they technically have when they all have that much money. You are using micro-economics, something which I find too many liberals doing. You have to look at it from a macro-economic standpoint. There is a large chain reaction here.

now you're wrong again because you also have forgotten to pay attention. i hate that i have to state it once again but i never said that i was supporting the minimum wage increase...

First of all, if I remember correctly Wal*Mart only has one store in the Chicago city limits and they have said they will move it and the new store they are planning to open to the Suburbs. Each Wal*Mart Supercenter can employ 700 or more people. That is 1400+ jobs that just moved out of Chicago. I guess they won't have more money.

the cnn article does not state that.

Now, let's assume they don't move out of the city. Everyone will want teh higher paying Wal*Mart jobs. I mean, why would you work at McDonald's for $6.50, or whatever it is, when you can work at Wal*Mart for $10? Now, surrounding businesses must also raise their wages in order to keep employess and draw the work force.

i guess walmart won't be able to employ everyone in the city.
now i suppose that there isn't exactly a great shortage of labour in that area (prove me wrong if you can) so there will still be ernough people to do the other jobs.

Now all the lower-income people are making $10. Poverty is not determioned by the number of dollars in your pocket, but how much you have compared to everyone else. If all the lowest paying jobs pay $10 then that is still poor and people in other businesses who made $10 before are suddenly poor as well. Plus other things will go up, such as housing and food, because every business has had to increase wages/prices to compete. The lower-income bracket might be making an extra $3 but now everything costs an extra $3. They are in the same boat as before.

won't happen as long as there isn't a massive shortage of labour.

Then other, less public, actions occur as well. Instead of just firing every other employee a company could be encouraged to replace them with an illegal immigrant. Or in order to reduce a workforce without actually firing people they just don't rehire. Reduction through attrition in a Wal*Mart type store is easy. These kinds of businesses have a high rollover rate and they could just not hire. So insteasd of current employees suffering, there are just not any new jobs. Or the third quietly performed option is, as danoff said earlier, the money is saved by outsourcing more people in a call center or technical type job. You have to pay guy A more money so you outsource teh job of guy B. What did guy B do to deserve that?

outsourcing or employment of illegals is possible. but in this case i think that the companies in question are already saving every cent they can so the increase shouldn't change much regarding these issues.

 

[Danoff]

outsourcing or employment of illegals is possible. but in this case i think that the companies in question are already saving every cent they can so the increase shouldn't change much regarding these issues.

Ok, seriously, you need to take an economics course or two. Do you understand the concept of price points? The above statement from you makes NO sense from an economics point of view.

Let me break it down for you. Companies are out to maximize profit. Some jobs return the best value for the dollar in America. Some jobs don't. Changing the price of the jobs in America changes the number of jobs that return the best value here.

You don't understand economics. That's fine. But until you do, you should trust the guys who do understand it. It really is just this simple:


Price goes up, demand goes down.

 

[ledhed]

first of all, thanks for the first productive reply to my post.



congrats, finally a post that makes sense.

there is only one slight inconsistency i see here.
first of all, you state the total cost of an 10$ employee to be 13.50 but only mention workers compensation insurance to be responsible for the extra cost. but the comp insurance is nowhere near that level according to numerous sources like this one:
http://www.allbusiness.com/articles/Insurance/824-30-1862.html

so i'm wondering whether a 10$ employee would really be that expensive, because 3.50$ would be quite a difference indeed...

secondly, you say that a business has to remain profitable, which is of course true. the question is however, how much of that profit will exactly be lost by the increase in wages. it could still be profitable for walmart to stay in chicago if the profit per store was high ernough.

and if they just moved out of town, they would still provide jobs, while other businesses in town would be under less pressure from walmart's low prices...
thus the relation between labour cost and the amount of jobs is still not that clear to me...

Depending on the job the rate can run from 11 percent to 38 percent of the hourly wage for workmans comp...you pay based on the insurance company rates and the audit they do. And workmans comp is not the only benifit an employer is responsible for ...just the most expensive involantary one and it varies from state to state ..there is also unemployment ins ..social security and other factors that contribute to employee overhead. it all depends on the size of the operation and the type of work . Not to mention the cost of having someone on payroll just to prepare the payroll and have it ready.
it cost money just to have emloyees before they do one productive thing.

 

[ledhed]

I think that by the end of that you managed to defeat the opening statement.

my whole point was made by the pointless


I have to look into the min wage situation a bit..in Phila. it may not make sense but in Scranton PA. it does . Without a doubt . Thats why I am for it.
in areas WITHOUT a high demand for idiots ...I mean unskilled ..workers it will help , especially in areas that have lost all the former manufacturing jobs and now have Wallmart as an employer .

Is it fair for Wallmart to charge the same price for a widget in the Scranton store that pays 2.00 hr less for the same Job in the Phila . Store ?

Employers will take as much advantage of the system as they can to maximize profits..thats why they get regulated..do you think if the government diddnt REQUIRE you to pay workmens comp employers would pay it ?

If you do you need to get off the Aynn rand bandwagon and have a few drinks and hang with the real people .

Pure capitalism will not work .

 

[vladimir]

You missed the point. The point is that it was a law that was passed by the legislature and it took a federal judge to declare it unconstitutional. This state government wants the companies to "take care" of their employees. And is a prime reason we've lost all but one of the fourtune 500 companies we once had in Maryland.

thats what federal judges are there for...

I would suggest people educate themselves for a better job.

education does not CREATE jobs.
(not in the short term anyway.)

They would only not be "free" by their own previous decisions. Drug addictions, unplanned children, etc.

so what would you suggest? work even more than 50 hours per week? stop working altogether and starve?

Yes, I believe in business regulations like workman's comp and things like that. But not for minimum wages.

whats the difference?

We did, but you don't want to hear it.

apart from foolkiller and leadhed nobody replied to what i said...

Well, yeah. This is politics. I don't want you dead or want to break your legs. But the fact of the matter is in politics you're on one side or the other. That's it. Now, that doesn't mean that people can't disagree in the same party(check out the libertarian platform). It doesn't make us "enemies" we simply disagree.

even in politics you can abstain.

Actually no, you say that we should just give people stuff they didn't earn, raise minimum wage, national healthcare and the like. Well, that all costs more money to consumers and taxpayers that the "left" seems to forget or not mention.

i'm not saying that people should get stuff they did not earn, i just believe that a society has to sustain certain living conditions for its members.
i also believe that businesses should not be allowed to exploit workers based on high unemployment rates and a low welfare standard.
finally, in a fair society, healthcare should not be something that only rich people can afford.

And I know you're not playing the "prejudice" card after all the garbage I went through in the Creation vs Evolution thread, among others.

sorry, i don't understand this sentence.

So... why would you definitely NOT support a $100/hour minimum wage, but can't come to a conclusion on a $7.50 one?

because 100$/hour would be outrageous.

 

[ledhed]

education does not CREATE jobs.

Yes it does ..without a doubt .One of the first things a high tech company looks for is the labor pool of an area and the median education. Some jobs demand intelligence . in fact ALL jobs require some form of basic knowlage and the smarter the employee the more productive he/ she will be .
dont think for a minute that corporaations do not base decisions on an area to open a new plant or office , without first judging the labor pool .

 

[vladimir]

Price goes up, demand goes down.

yeah, right. demand for oil should have plummeted throughout the last years then...

 

[Danoff]

I have to look into the min wage situation a bit..in Phila. it may not make sense but in Scranton PA. it does . Without a doubt . Thats why I am for it.
in areas WITHOUT a high demand for idiots ...I mean unskilled ..workers it will help , especially in areas that have lost all the former manufacturing jobs and now have Wallmart as an employer .

Demand will go down as price goes up. So areas without high demand for idiots will see a decrease in demand and idiots will have a harder time finding jobs. You're advocating bad things for poor people. Minimum wage doesn't hurt you and I nearly as much as it hurts the people who are actually near it.

Is it fair for Wallmart to charge the same price for a widget in the Scranton store that pays 2.00 hr less for the same Job in the Phila . Store ?

Why yes. Yes it is. If Walmart wants to have employees in Phily it's going to have to pay more to account for the increased cost of living. It's all about supply and demand, only in this case it's about supply of workers and demand for work.

Employers will take as much advantage of the system as they can to maximize profits..thats why they get regulated..do you think if the government diddnt REQUIRE you to pay workmens comp employers would pay it ?

Why yes, yes I would. The government doesn't require that I get paid many times minimum wage but I do because my employer wants me that badly. If employers want skilled workers they have to offer incentives like workmens comp, health benefits, and high salaries. Companies all over the nation do this, it's not a dream or some kind of pie in the sky theory that doesn't work in reality. What I'm saying is reality, my company pays me more than they have to because they want a skilled worker.

Which is, by the way, how workers can command a higher salary. Not by forcing a company to pay them more than they're worth, but by learning to user their brains and actually being worth more.

If you do you need to get off the Aynn rand bandwagon and have a few drinks and hang with the real people .

Pure capitalism will not work .

Good thing I'm not advocating pure captialism. I'm advocating capitalism within the restraints of the bill of rights.

yeah, right. demand for oil should have plummeted throughout the last years then...

How did I know you'd go there. You'll ignore the millions of examples that support me for the one example you think supports you.

But it doesn't, growth in demand for oil took a big hit when the price jumped. And it will continue to take a hit as long as the price is higher than customers are willing to pay.

 

[Famine]

because 100$/hour would be outrageous.

Why would it?

After all, the workers who earn more can spend more!

Why is $100/hour minimum wage any different to $7.50/hour minimum wage?


A little economics teaser for you - what would happen to the price of gold if everyone on Earth was given one and only one solid gold ingot?

 

[ledhed]

yeah, right. demand for oil should have plummeted throughout the last years then...

Demand for oil not only has gone down in the US but alternative fuels have actually become more viable , further reducing demand in the US...the problem is for every drop the US doesnt use there is demand for it elswhere in the world so every drop is sold and the price doesnt go down..oil is also a commodity and is bought and sold on the futures market ..with demand skyrocketing in china and india and the destabilizing factors like war ...and Iran and chavez..and iraq...betting is on high oil prices forcing prices up in spite of demand..the futures market creates artificial demand based on someones version of the crystal ball..the whole house of cards could collapse and those that have bought oil " futures" at 77.00 a barrell could be stuck selling it in a market that will only pay 55.00 ...it all depends.

The US passes a law allowing exploration and drilling of the coast and a billion barrells become available ..oil future traders are all screwed.
peace could break out in the middle east..after hell freezess over but it could .

but the basic flaw in your argument is the futures and commodities market that drives up oil prices independent of actual demand .

 

[Danoff]

but the basic flaw in your argument is the futures and commodities market that drives up oil prices independent of actual demand .

I would say that the commodities market is part of demand.

 

[vladimir]

Depending on the job the rate can run from 11 percent to 38 percent of the hourly wage for workmans comp...you pay based on the insurance company rates and the audit they do. And workmans comp is not the only benifit an employer is responsible for ...just the most expensive involantary one and it varies from state to state ..there is also unemployment ins ..social security and other factors that contribute to employee overhead. it all depends on the size of the operation and the type of work . Not to mention the cost of having someone on payroll just to prepare the payroll and have it ready.
it cost money just to have emloyees before they do one productive thing.

thats all very true, but i would be rather interested in a more specific example like how much profit does a walmart produce and how much would it decrease...

Yes it does ..without a doubt .One of the first things a high tech company looks for is the labor pool of an area and the median education. Some jobs demand intelligence . in fact ALL jobs require some form of basic knowlage and the smarter the employee the more productive he/ she will be .
dont think for a minute that corporaations do not base decisions on an area to open a new plant or office , without first judging the labor pool .

but all in all the high tech company does not expand for the sole reason that there is qualified labour.
educating yourself also costs, even if the education itself is free, you have to pay your bills while spending time not working but learning.

 

[ledhed]

I would say that the commodities market is part of demand.

Its artificial demand..not actual its based on the future and could actually collapse the market .

 

[vladimir]

Why would it?

After all, the workers who earn more can spend more!

Why is $100/hour minimum wage any different to $7.50/hour minimum wage?


A little economics teaser for you - what would happen to the price of gold if everyone on Earth was given one and only one solid gold ingot?

apparently i should use red, size 7 capitals more often. at least it seems like it did the job last time, while my stand towards the "earn more, spend more" statement seems not to have gotten your attention.

you're free to go and read what i have said about that...

 

[ledhed]

thats all very true, but i would be rather interested in a more specific example like how much profit does a walmart produce and how much would it decrease...


but all in all the high tech company does not expand for the sole reason that there is qualified labour.
educating yourself also costs, even if the education itself is free, you have to pay your bills while spending time not working but learning.

Once they make a decision to expand they go to the area With the most qualified labor force , also the fact that a high tech labor force exist will induce some companys to expand to take advantage of it...thats how you make tons of cash..seeing an unexploited resourse and tapping it .and a highly educated workforce is the envy of the world . By not educating yourself you disqualify yourself from even being considered for a job .

your education is your investment in your own physical plant and its a long term high yeild investment . the more you invest the more you earn..up to a point .

 

[vladimir]

How did I know you'd go there. You'll ignore the millions of examples that support me for the one example you think supports you.

But it doesn't, growth in demand for oil took a big hit when the price jumped. And it will continue to take a hit as long as the price is higher than customers are willing to pay.

globally the demand for oil rose (which is partly responsible for the price increase.)

what this shows however, is that things again are a lot more complicated than the simplistic supply and demand theory.

 

[Famine]

apparently i should use red, size 7 capitals more often. at least it seems like it did the job last time

Apparently I should ask questions twice more often. At least it seems like it did the job last time.

Why is $100/hour absolutely unsupportable (and "outrageous") but $7.50/hour worthy of consideration (albeit without conclusion)?

What would happen to the market price of gold if everyone on Earth was given one and only one solid gold ingot?


Take your time. Pop a few more insults off if you feel like avoiding the questions some more - it really strengthens your position 👍

while my stand towards the "earn more, spend more" statement seems not to have gotten your attention.

you're free to go and read what i have said about that...

Yes - you said:

what about some more simple math: the more someone earns, the more he can again spend.

 

[vladimir]

Once they make a decision to expand they go to the area With the most qualified labor force , also the fact that a high tech labor force exist will induce some companys to expand to take advantage of it...thats how you make tons of cash..seeing an unexploited resourse and tapping it .and a highly educated workforce is the envy of the world . By not educating yourself you disqualify yourself from even being considered for a job .

your education is your investment in your own physical plant and its a long term high yeild investment . the more you invest the more you earn..up to a point .

before they make this decision however, they want to be certain that they can sell theor product succesfully.
thus in a saturated market education won't help you.

and before you can do and investment, you need something to invest. those working fulltime at walmart kind of jobs usually don#t have anything to invest.

 

[Danoff]

globally the demand for oil rose (which is partly responsible for the price increase.)

what this shows however, is that things again are a lot more complicated than the simplistic supply and demand theory.

*sigh*

Yes, increased demand increases price. I'd say it falls directly within the simplistic supply and demand theory.

Increased price affects the acceleration in demand. But the basic axiom holds true. Price goes up, demand goes down, even if it's demand growth that takes the hit first rather than the demand velocity or acceleration being discontinuous (which is what would be required for demand to instantaneously reverse directions).

Oil is an excellent example to back me up. But if you don't believe supply and demand, my recommendation (again) is for you to take a course in economics.

Its artificial demand..not actual its based on the future and could actually collapse the market .

It's actual demand, but not based on consumption.