Labour costs make up 1/3 to 2/3 of the price of most things (on average).

Yeah, I was thinking it was "roughly half". But this would apply more to 1st world countries, correct? IOW, I wonder how much Nike spends on labour - most of there sneakers are made in asian countries, I believe.

I dunno, the US pays more for labour but uses more capital intensive and less labor intensive processes.

Nobody "deserves" to even have a job, much less "deserve" to have a job for a certain amount of money.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

And this is relevant to my post somehow?

About someone getting a break at the expense of the company ("But also, as Fox points out, 'costly environmental regulations and American labor rates'").

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Sorry I just don't see the connection. I thought we were discussing the economic effects on luxury items of a rise in the minimum wage. I see no connection between that subject and your opinion about whether anyone "deserves" a job.

You said it is okay for someone to get a break caused by restrictions forced upon a company by the government. That implies that the person deserved the break, and since it is job related, it also implies that he deserved the job.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

As a general rule, Nike pays more to their celebrity spokes-person (annually) than they pay for all of their factory labour added together.

Not particularly surprising given that Nike sells a $20 shoe for $200 through smart marketing.

Indeed, one should praise Nike for their cleverness. It is the idiots wearing the logo that I'm contemptuous of.

It implies nothing of the sort. Just as it does not imply that anyone "deserves" to own a comapny that manufactures bicycle forks for profit or that anyone else "deserves" to buy them at $1300 or $1400.

So what was the point in saying it's okay for them to get a break at the expense of the company, when the expense was forced upon them by the government?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I said it sounds like a good tradeoff to me. That was my point. Does it not seem like a good tradeoff to you? All kinds of things are forced on us by government. Some good - some not so good. This one sounded good.

So you feel it's good that the government should force one private entity to follow environment regulations just so some guy who is too incompetent to compete earns more? Not to mention the indirect impact it has on consumers, who would as a result pay more.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I have no idea what environmental regulations have to do with this but I do think they are a good idea. Cleaning up your own mess is just a cost of doing business.

I also recognize that as a society we have decided that anyone who is willing to work in this country should be able to attain some minimal level of economic well being in exchange for that work. I have no problem with that concept.

So, you are again saying that people deserve the money/job.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.