4 ms·

MIT professor studies high-wage retailers

32 points by kungfudoi 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago
This is low quality blog spam. I don't care if it is a blog from Harvard Law, he is just parroting a NYT piece[0] published today on a 2012 study and a 2014 book. This blog adds nothing, and instead we should just link to the NYT piece directly. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/opinion/joe-nocera-the-good-jobs-strategy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/opinion/joe-nocera-the-goo...
- jonknee 11y ago
  Well he's adding a fun Libertarian spin on the study to be able and trash poor people as being stupid and not worth a living wage... Thanks for the direct link!
  - blackbagboys 11y ago
    Let's not forget my favorite part of this blog, the non-sequitur about child support that makes it into almost every single post.
    - pistle 11y ago
      OMG that's funny. Search "child support" and the archives vomits a suspiciously high number of articles. O.o
      - vixen99 11y ago
        Highly amusing! Definitely suspicious (for some) that someone writing a book on X includes references in his blog to X.
        pistle 11y ago
        What's the background/timeline? The book could be an crystallization or effort to exorcise the demon?? I find the idea of child support to be such an interesting pecadillo to garner such focus.
- sloreti 11y ago
  Did you read the blog post? Greenspun disagrees with the NYT columnist's interpretation of the Ton's study, saying that companies shelling out higher pay for more highly trained employees is not necessarily beneficial to labor. The final paragraph reads: "It is worth looking at the reader comments on the NYT piece. By cutting labor costs as a fraction of sales, Costco and similar companies should be reducing the share of the economic pie enjoyed by labor and enlarging the slide of pie enjoyed by owners of capital (e.g., the Costco shareholders and/or the executives looting from them). But the liberal readers celebrate this move in the direction of less equality because they are dazzled by the headline dollars/hour number paid to the remaining handful of workers."

32 points by kungfudoi 11y ago

This is low quality blog spam. I don't care if it is a blog from Harvard Law, he is just parroting a NYT piece[0] published today on a 2012 study and a 2014 book. This blog adds nothing, and instead we should just link to the NYT piece directly. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/opinion/joe-nocera-the-good-jobs-strategy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/opinion/joe-nocera-the-goo...

jonknee 11y ago
Well he's adding a fun Libertarian spin on the study to be able and trash poor people as being stupid and not worth a living wage... Thanks for the direct link!
- blackbagboys 11y ago
  Let's not forget my favorite part of this blog, the non-sequitur about child support that makes it into almost every single post.
  - pistle 11y ago
    OMG that's funny. Search "child support" and the archives vomits a suspiciously high number of articles. O.o
    - vixen99 11y ago
      Highly amusing! Definitely suspicious (for some) that someone writing a book on X includes references in his blog to X.
      - pistle 11y ago
        What's the background/timeline? The book could be an crystallization or effort to exorcise the demon?? I find the idea of child support to be such an interesting pecadillo to garner such focus.
sloreti 11y ago
Did you read the blog post? Greenspun disagrees with the NYT columnist's interpretation of the Ton's study, saying that companies shelling out higher pay for more highly trained employees is not necessarily beneficial to labor. The final paragraph reads: "It is worth looking at the reader comments on the NYT piece. By cutting labor costs as a fraction of sales, Costco and similar companies should be reducing the share of the economic pie enjoyed by labor and enlarging the slide of pie enjoyed by owners of capital (e.g., the Costco shareholders and/or the executives looting from them). But the liberal readers celebrate this move in the direction of less equality because they are dazzled by the headline dollars/hour number paid to the remaining handful of workers."