Minimum Wage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Godavari:

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

By what standard and reasoning? You are simply making assertions.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

UltraHammer:

Stagnant:
individuals and even large groups of workers have very low bargaining power when it comes to determining the value of their work

Jonluw:
To avoid the exploitation of people in society who don't have any bargaining power, I guess.

So some workers don't have any or almost no leverage or influence over their own pay. But isn't their labor what the employer wants? They have the thing that the employer is looking to pay for; does that not give them plenty of bargaining power?

Ever hear of a collective action problem? Theoretically they might have plenty of bargaining power. But consider what is required for them to apply it.

Dormin111:

Godavari:

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

By what standard and reasoning? You are simply making assertions.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

I'm making people into moral slaves? Uh, yeah. I guess you can call it that. That's kind of what moral obligations are for. They aren't moral "suggestions" or moral "we'd-appreciate-it-if-you-did-this-for-us-es" or moral "please-sir-may-I-have-some-more-s." They're obligations. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about anyone's right to be a colossal dick not produce necessities of life if it means we're forsaking other people's right to have those necessities. You think it's a bad idea to give people a right to food and shelter and medicine?

Godavari:

Dormin111:

Godavari:

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

By what standard and reasoning? You are simply making assertions.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

I'm making people into moral slaves? Uh, yeah. I guess you can call it that. That's kind of what moral obligations are for. They aren't moral "suggestions" or moral "we'd-appreciate-it-if-you-did-this-for-us-es" or moral "please-sir-may-I-have-some-more-s." They're obligations. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about anyone's right to be a colossal dick not produce necessities of life if it means we're forsaking other people's right to have those necessities. You think it's a bad idea to give people a right to food and shelter and medicine?

You have completely dodged my question. WHY do people have a right to food and medicine? Why should they get these things if they have not earned them through productive activity? WHY am I or anyone else obligated to sacrifice my wealth for anyone else?

Dormin111:
WHY do people have a right to food and medicine? Why should they get these things if they have not earned them through productive activity? WHY am I or anyone else obligated to sacrifice my wealth for anyone else?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Are you seriously asking me why people have a right to eat? Because we live in the fucking twenty-first century, maybe? Nobody "earns" food and medicine. They are human rights. The supersede your right to your petty wealth. If you can't comprehend that, I'm done with this conversation.

Godavari:

Dormin111:
WHY do people have a right to food and medicine? Why should they get these things if they have not earned them through productive activity? WHY am I or anyone else obligated to sacrifice my wealth for anyone else?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Are you seriously asking me why people have a right to eat? Because we live in the fucking twenty-first century, maybe? Nobody "earns" food and medicine. They are human rights. The supersede your right to your petty wealth. If you can't comprehend that, I'm done with this conversation.

Everyone has the right to take an action which does not infringe on the rights of others. Everyone has the right to eat food which they own, but they do not all have the right to GET food. Nobody earns food and medicine? What wizardry exists to allow sorcerers to conjure bread and aspirin out of thin air?

Yet again, WHY!!!!!??? Yes the UN said so (argument from authority), yes it is the twenty-first century and nearly everyone has this stuff now anyway, but WHY is it a right???

The fact is that food and medicine are produced. Production requires intelligence, effort, and volition. You cannot morally a declare a right to SOMEONE ELSE'S production as you do. You are declaring that individuals have moral permission to become thugs and brutalize others for wealth.

Now, do you have anything beyond floating abstractions, meaningless platitudes, and appeals to emotion?

Dormin111:
The fact that the employee accepts the wage (at the level which you arbitrarily declare to be low) means that the employee is getting a better deal than he would if he had not accepted the job.

Sure you're riddled with cancer, but at least it's not AIDS!

The only way in which the employer has the employee "by the balls" is that the employer has the right and ability to take away the benefit to the employee which the employer previously bestowed upon him. In which case the employee goes back to subsistence farming and pauperism, the natural alternatives to sweatshop labor.

And you think that's an acceptable situation economically, politically, and morally?

Dormin111:
"Shouldn't" by what standard? How does one measure it? By the standards of the average 19th century Americans, the people currently living on the American poverty line are extremely wealthy. These are all floating abstractions.

Because it's not like people have to deal with things like inflation, and rising cost of living, amirite? We did away with slavery, what more do you greedy poor people want from us?

Dormin111:
I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

I'm not drunk enough to follow that chain of logic. You're not preserving liberty. The system you advocate makes social mobility a myth and turns employees into indentured servants to their employers. You think you're advocating freedom, but in reality your system would lead only feudalism.

Dormin111:
You have completely dodged my question. WHY do people have a right to food and medicine? Why should they get these things if they have not earned them through productive activity?

The Constitution clearly states that all people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kind of hard to have any of those when you're starving to death.

WHY am I or anyone else obligated to sacrifice my wealth for anyone else?

Because that's what makes civilization work. If you drive on public roads, you are using infrastructure that you and everyone else paid for with tax money so that all can benefit. The property you own is defended by a national military and local law enforcement maintained by the taxes collected from you and others. The food you eat is inspected to meet strict health and safety regulations by workers who are paid through your taxes. The taxes you pay fund the schools that educate the children of the next generation. The taxes you are legally obligated to pay fulfill the salaries of the postal workers, the social security that gives you a safety net in your old age, the single payer healthcare that helps our senior citizens live longer and healthier lives. On and on it goes. Every April you are being called upon to sacrifice a portion of your wealth to chip into a pool that allows our civilization to continue.

Society can only exist when everyone sacrifices a little bit to maintain the commons. The only way you live an existence where you sacrifice nothing for the benefit of others is if you're a hermit living in the wilderness. If you want to live in society, that is the price you must pay.

The thread has become asking whether or not people have a right to food and medicine? Ok then...

Dormin111:

Yet again, WHY!!!!!??? Yes the UN said so (argument from authority), yes it is the twenty-first century and nearly everyone has this stuff now anyway, but WHY is it a right???

Sorry, for a moment there I thought you were questioning the legitimacy of the rights the UN bestowed upon people while taking the rights you claim as your own for granted, just because you said so.

I daresay I am getting slightly annoyed[1] by how completely detached from the reality you're criticizing you are.

Also, if it's not a right, you do realize you don't have a right to buy it either, right? You're just lucky someone's willing to sell it to you. By your own argument, you have no right to anything you do not produce. So how would you feel if people decided they don't like you and refuse to sell you stuff? I'm asking that not from an emotional point of view, but from a purely pragmatic one.

What are you "producing" anyway, if I may ask? Did you "produce" the building you live in? Actually, scratch that, did you "produce" the land on which said building stands on? No? Then why the hell do you have the gall to assume you have a right to build anything there? Oh and if you didn't build it, why are you taking advantage of it, instead of deriding the construction company for using a resource they did not produce (land) and build stuff on it?[2]

You know what, actually...why do you even abide by the forum rules then? I mean it's not like anyone here is producing your goodwill, so we have no right to it, right? So, why do you follow the forum rules, if they're not legitimate?

You know why nobody is "refuting your arguments", mate? Because you don't have a bleedin' argument to refute. Self-entitled, self-absorbed whining with a punctuation overdose =/= argument.

[1] You generally don't want to make me use that expression, ever.
[2] Since I'm a nice chap, I feel I owe you a warning: It's a trap! A very obvious one, actually.

Dormin111:

Godavari:

Dormin111:
WHY do people have a right to food and medicine? Why should they get these things if they have not earned them through productive activity? WHY am I or anyone else obligated to sacrifice my wealth for anyone else?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Are you seriously asking me why people have a right to eat? Because we live in the fucking twenty-first century, maybe? Nobody "earns" food and medicine. They are human rights. The supersede your right to your petty wealth. If you can't comprehend that, I'm done with this conversation.

Everyone has the right to take an action which does not infringe on the rights of others. Everyone has the right to eat food which they own, but they do not all have the right to GET food. Nobody earns food and medicine? What wizardry exists to allow sorcerers to conjure bread and aspirin out of thin air?

Yet again, WHY!!!!!??? Yes the UN said so (argument from authority), yes it is the twenty-first century and nearly everyone has this stuff now anyway, but WHY is it a right???

The fact is that food and medicine are produced. Production requires intelligence, effort, and volition. You cannot morally a declare a right to SOMEONE ELSE'S production as you do. You are declaring that individuals have moral permission to become thugs and brutalize others for wealth.

Now, do you have anything beyond floating abstractions, meaningless platitudes, and appeals to emotion?

Dormin you realize you only have the "right " to anything, life included because society fucking collectively said you do, and are willing to defend your "right " in the first place?

That rights itself is a commodity to be traded for, realistically, and only convenience to others or force of arms is the only method of retaining thus, to be honest.

The only reason you can entertain the idea you 'own ' shit at all is because society has payed people to guarantee that 'right ' through diplomacy, bribery, or violence.

The reason people have a right to medicine is the same reason you have a right to life or anything else. Because other people thought shit would work better for giving it to you. If they didn't, absolutely nothing stops the next person in line from cracking your selfish skull open.

You are no more magically entitled to the Earth and the shit on it than anybody else. You exist at the comfort of others.

If you want to ignore this fact and the legal tradition because you selfishly think you own shit that is already owned by others, if you want to steal resource and land from the country and pretend that because you "worked " on it or "improved " it it 's yours, and that you alone unlike any other in the world get to keep 100% of what you built with other peoples property (I never see libertarians thinking if a worker walks in Ford and builds a car with company metal on company machines they get to keep that car free of charge) on other peoples land, without paying rent, then you better bring a big enough bribe or force to steal it if you get caught.

Otherwise you deserve every bit of punishment any other thief gets. You think if you steal from all of us you should get better treatment than if you just stole from a few rich guys?

Ha.

If 'men with guns ' take you to prison, you deserve it the same as any other squatter or thief. You might be comfortable giving. up your stock in this nation so a few rich guys can have a ball, and do it for free, but the rest of us say no thanks, our stock in the nation isn't so cheap, and you don't yet speak for us.

Dormin111:

Magichead:

Dormin111:
Anyone who wants a genuine economic reason as to why minimum wage is harmful (besides the completely valid points that it raises unemployment, hurts the development of inexperienced workers, and generally leads to the impoverishment of minorities) should Google "Say's Law." Supply creates demand.

In the Hayekian fantasy land you inhabit perhaps, back in the real world of applied mixed-market economics that's a load of bollocks. Unemployment can be mitigated with welfare,
workers can be trained via welfare

Of course this begs the question, "where does the wealth to give and train come from"? Which brings it right back to Say's Law. You choose to erode the basis of wealth creation in order to subsidize non-wealth creation. Plus you throw in the "knowledge problem" by suggesting that the government magically knows what fields to train workers in.

and the minimum wage is so far down the list of things that affect the socio-economic status of ethnic groups that you need a fucking telescope to see it.

Direct your telescope here: http://www.newser.com/story/122469/minimun-wage-hike-and-teen-unemployment.html

"The last hike in minimum wage came in 2009 with no worse timing as burdened businesses cut payrolls with little to spare for hiring young and unskilled workers. According to a 2010 study by academic economists, this wage increase resulted in teen employment dropping by 7% to 12%, depending on educational level. Only 24% of teens ages 16-19 now hold jobs, the lowest figure since 1948 when tracking began, For black teens, unemployment stands at an abysmal 42%."

It is common sense. Uneducated black teens stumble out of high school and want a job. Their labor is not worth $7.50 per hour, so they are not hired. They never get any work experience. They never get a recommendation. They fall into poverty.

Of COURSE! How could I have been so blind. Forget the terrible education system, the engrained socio-economic status through ghettoisation, the awful healthcare, the gang culture and violence, and the racism of potential employers, all we have to do is allow people to pay them pennies a day and the problem is solved! You are a genius!

Just in case there was any doubt: /sarcasm

What costs society more:

I don't care what costs the floating abstraction commonly referred to as "society" more. Speak in concretes. Individuals exist and individuals have costs.

Pardon? I'm pretty sure society does, in fact, exist. I live in one, it's rather nice, or was until Hayekian psychos like yourself tricked their way into office. Individuals only exist by virtue of the society they inhabit, and the individual's costs are a function of the group's costs.

What costs society more: unemployment benefits for X% of the population, training programmes for a subset therein, and a concerted effort to integrate ethnic groups and improve their socio-economic status;

All at the expense of wealth which would have done all of these things productively, rather than at a pure dead-weight cost.

Except that it doesn't. Wealth is not sentient, it does things at the pleasure of those who possess it, and in case you'd not noticed, ensuring that people don't starve, die of dysentery or a mild infection, have a roof over their heads, and get an education are not even slightly near the top of the list of "things rich people want to do with their money".

Every time in history you permit the wealthy to decide what to do with their wealth without recourse to the effect that it has on society at large(the same society which enabled them to earn that wealth, by the by), the result is a stagnating underclass rife with poverty, crime and disease, from which there is little or no chance of escape.

or the rampant crime, poverty, health problems, homelessness and so forth that result from a race to the bottom on wages?

Oh, so that's why Europe and American slums are wonderful, crime-free bastions of civility.

Eh? You're going to argue that the example which pretty conclusively proves the point being made that massive wealth disparity and low wages result in poverty and crime in fact proves the opposite? And this makes sense in your bizarro-world, does it?

No, slums are not nice places, but they were even less nice when the vast majority of the population lived in them. Redistributive mixed-market economics is what brought us to the point that there is a large middle class, and only a portion of the working class live in poverty.

Just about everyone with half a brain recognises that it's much cheaper and safer in the long run to expend a little government income providing a safety net, and ensuring a decent wage for a day's work, than it would be to pay for the massive authoritarian apparatus that would be necessary to keep the wealthy as safe as they are today when half the population live on the brink of starvation.

Keep dreaming. If you knew anything about Say's Law you would know how ridiculous the concept of "racing to the bottom" is.

Question: Who buys the produce if everyone is poor?
Answer: Prices are cut, real wages increase, and people aren't poor. The Producer makes more money by selling a higher volume and the buyer is wealthier because he can afford more.

Demonstration of Say's Law (supply creates demand):

There are 10 workers and 1 business owner on a deserted island. In a standard day, the workers produce 10 food items and the businessman pays the workers 1 dollar each. This is an economy of perfect equilibrium. Every day the workers produce 10 food items, receive 10 dollars, and then spend their dollars on the food items to survive (don't worry about how the businessman survives, it is not relevant).

One day the businessman comes up with a genius idea for how to double his workers' production. Now the workers produce 20 food items per day. The businessman has 2 options:

1. Keep wages the same. The workers produce twice as much but still can only buy 1 food item a piece. Soon excess food items (supply) starts uselessly piling up. The workers are in the same position as before. The businessman makes 10 dollars per day and has a useless pile of products he cannot sell.

2. Lower prices to 50 cents or raise wages to 2 dollars. The businessman sells all of his products. He now makes 20 dollars per day. The Workers now consume twice as much as they used to.

You seem to suggest that the businessman would constantly choose option 1 because...???
Option 2 is in his best interest and his worker's best interest. The supply creates the demand.

[/quote]

Your spurious and laughable example has already been debunked by others, so I'll leave it alone. I will say that the problem is not that I have failed to understand Say's Law, the problem is that I reject it as a valid economic concept, as have all the economists who don't gorge at the Hayekian trough.

You live in a fantasy world, your ideas sound very rational and reasonable until you think about how they would play out in actual reality, at which point a normal person moves on. For some reason, Hayekians have managed to convince themselves that reality will conform to their philosophical ideals; it will not.

Damien Granz:
-snip-

This argument that if you have to pay rent it's theft (and that if the police make you, it's violence), but if other have to pay you rent it's capitalism (and that if the police make them, it's just 'enforcing a contract) is goddamn stupid, and I'm tired of it and the naive smart mouthed children that profess it.

image

Dormin111:

Magichead:
[quote="Dormin111" post="528.364223.14248043"]Anyone who wants a genuine economic reason as to why minimum wage is harmful (besides the completely valid points that it raises unemployment, hurts the development of inexperienced workers, and generally leads to the impoverishment of minorities) should Google "Say's Law." Supply creates demand.

There are 10 workers and 1 business owner on a deserted island. In a standard day, the workers produce 10 food items and the businessman pays the workers 1 dollar each. This is an economy of perfect equilibrium. Every day the workers produce 10 food items, receive 10 dollars, and then spend their dollars on the food items to survive (don't worry about how the businessman survives, it is not relevant).

One day the businessman comes up with a genius idea for how to double his workers' production. Now the workers produce 20 food items per day. The businessman has 2 options:

1. Keep wages the same. The workers produce twice as much but still can only buy 1 food item a piece. Soon excess food items (supply) starts uselessly piling up. The workers are in the same position as before. The businessman makes 10 dollars per day and has a useless pile of products he cannot sell.

2. Lower prices to 50 cents or raise wages to 2 dollars. The businessman sells all of his products. He now makes 20 dollars per day. The Workers now consume twice as much as they used to.

You seem to suggest that the businessman would constantly choose option 1 because...???
Option 2 is in his best interest and his worker's best interest. The supply creates the demand.

I cannot believe I missed this.

The business man chooses option 3, he fires half his employees, doubles the salary of the remaining five, but saves money on other employee related expenses (for example healthcare in the US). He has lowered costs while maintaining the same production and sales, resulting in higher profits.

Supply side economics has been debunked to death. No legitimate economist takes it seriously. Demand side economics just works so much better. There is no evidence of it working at all in the last few decades in the US. Under Reagan and Bush the US had similar growth to other developed nations, but government coffers plummeted, resulting in both of them overseeing massive government debts, during good economic times when they should have been paying off debt. At the same time the wealth gap between the rich and the poor went ballistic. The USA has the worst gap in wealth of any developed nation and it is down to one thing, Republicans running supply side economic theory.

Wulfheri:
I don't like minimum wages since it stimulates unemployement and screws with the free market. But there should be a minimum wage since if someone works 40 hours a week he/she should be able to live a decent life. In my opinion that is.

Define "decent life". Ask an African and they'd say the average first worlder lives a luxurious life.

And heres the problem with that rule. Make someone forced to "provide a decent life" wage if they work 40 hours a week.....nobody will offer 40 hour a week jobs unless they are worth it. Which is the exact problem with minimum wage laws. You can't hire someone who will only do 5 dollars worth of work, you have to hire someone that will do X (X being the local minimum wage law) worth of work. Meaning low skill, low producing workers are either out of work, or charity cases that the employer is paying too much, which usually doesn't happen, and becomes the former.

I think the problem is people expect too much in their lives. They want everything, the best of everything, and they want it before they are 30.

Godavari:

Dormin111:

Godavari:

By a very specific standard, actually. A person should (i.e. it is morally and ethically preferable) be able to afford food, shelter, and medical care. In addition, a person should be able to advance to a higher standard of living (through earning a promotion or a raise, going to school to learn a skilled profession, etc.) given enough hard work.

By what standard and reasoning? You are simply making assertions.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to do these things?

I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

I'm making people into moral slaves? Uh, yeah. I guess you can call it that. That's kind of what moral obligations are for. They aren't moral "suggestions" or moral "we'd-appreciate-it-if-you-did-this-for-us-es" or moral "please-sir-may-I-have-some-more-s." They're obligations. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about anyone's right to be a colossal dick not produce necessities of life if it means we're forsaking other people's right to have those necessities. You think it's a bad idea to give people a right to food and shelter and medicine?

Its a bad idea to force people to give people food, shelter, and medicine. Because someone else has to produce/provide that food, shelter, medicine. News flash, food and medicine don't poof out of thin air. Someone has to spend their time, money and effort producing that food and a lot of time and effort producing and developing that medicine. And living space is finite. And it especially gets hairy when people who CAN work, simply don't. It's what happened when the American colonies first started. They tried your model. Socialism. But too many people became lazy or just didn't work at all because they were entitled to food.

And again, you are assuming people have a right to these things. Which is the same as assuming you have the right to someones elses time and effort. Hey, my lawn means needs mowing. And I think I have the right to YOUR time and effort. Come do it. For free.

girzwald:

Godavari:

Dormin111:

By what standard and reasoning? You are simply making assertions.

I am suggesting that individual rights, both legally and morally should be maintained. An individual should receive what he has a right to. I have a right to what I produce either by my own will or through cooperation with others. You are bestowing all individuals with a mystical right to products which then must be produced by others. You are making people into moral slaves.

I'm making people into moral slaves? Uh, yeah. I guess you can call it that. That's kind of what moral obligations are for. They aren't moral "suggestions" or moral "we'd-appreciate-it-if-you-did-this-for-us-es" or moral "please-sir-may-I-have-some-more-s." They're obligations. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about anyone's right to be a colossal dick not produce necessities of life if it means we're forsaking other people's right to have those necessities. You think it's a bad idea to give people a right to food and shelter and medicine?

Its a bad idea to force people to give people food, shelter, and medicine. Because someone else has to produce/provide that food, shelter, medicine. News flash, food and medicine don't poof out of thin air. Someone has to spend their time, money and effort producing that food and a lot of time and effort producing and developing that medicine. And living space is finite. And it especially gets hairy when people who CAN work, simply don't. It's what happened when the American colonies first started. They tried your model. Socialism. But too many people became lazy or just didn't work at all because they were entitled to food.

And again, you are assuming people have a right to these things. Which is the same as assuming you have the right to someones elses time and effort. Hey, my lawn means needs mowing. And I think I have the right to YOUR time and effort. Come do it. For free.

Citation for colony Americans being lazy after adopting Socialism. No where in the world has this ever happened. It is a common US right wing argument but it has no basis. There is no evidence that supports the claim. If the theory was correct then unemployment in countries with a high level of welfare would be sky high, this is not the case.

No one forces someone to give people food, shelter and medical care, it is paid for with taxes that are the cost of living in a society. If you want to live in a society and reap the benefits that come with it then you have to follow the rules of society. One of those rules that has existed since the dawn of man is you help those that need help. Cavemen did not let their sick and weak starve to death because they could not hunt, they gave them a share.

girzwald:

Define "decent life". Ask an African and they'd say the average first worlder lives a luxurious life.

And heres the problem with that rule. Make someone forced to "provide a decent life" wage if they work 40 hours a week.....nobody will offer 40 hour a week jobs unless they are worth it. Which is the exact problem with minimum wage laws. You can't hire someone who will only do 5 dollars worth of work, you have to hire someone that will do X (X being the local minimum wage law) worth of work. Meaning low skill, low producing workers are either out of work, or charity cases that the employer is paying too much, which usually doesn't happen, and becomes the former.

I think the problem is people expect too much in their lives. They want everything, the best of everything, and they want it before they are 30.

This applies to employers even moreso, you get what you pay for in this life

captcha: finger lickin good

advertizing much?

DrVornoff:

Sure you're riddled with cancer, but at least it's not AIDS!

Context, context, context.

And you think that's an acceptable situation economically, politically, and morally?

As long as it is arrived at voluntarily, I don't see why not.

Because it's not like people have to deal with things like inflation, and rising cost of living, amirite?

I took all of that into account. The price adjusted GDP per capita in 1900 was about 5,000 dollars per year. The modern day, US government poverty line in 12,000 dollars per year.

I'm not drunk enough to follow that chain of logic. You're not preserving liberty. The system you advocate makes social mobility a myth and turns employees into indentured servants to their employers. You think you're advocating freedom, but in reality your system would lead only feudalism.

Argument from assertion.

The Constitution clearly states that all people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Kind of hard to have any of those when you're starving to death.

Blatant and tired misreading of an old document. Right to life means the right to have a life (that is not to have it taken away by others), not the right to be kept alive. There is a reason Thomas Jefferson didn't launch a welfare system during his presidency.

Because that's what makes civilization work. If you drive on public roads, you are using infrastructure that you and everyone else paid for with tax money so that all can benefit. The property you own is defended by a national military and local law enforcement maintained by the taxes collected from you and others. The food you eat is inspected to meet strict health and safety regulations by workers who are paid through your taxes. The taxes you pay fund the schools that educate the children of the next generation. The taxes you are legally obligated to pay fulfill the salaries of the postal workers, the social security that gives you a safety net in your old age, the single payer healthcare that helps our senior citizens live longer and healthier lives. On and on it goes. Every April you are being called upon to sacrifice a portion of your wealth to chip into a pool that allows our civilization to continue.

All of that can be done by the private sector rather than the thugs with the guns.

Society can only exist when everyone sacrifices a little bit to maintain the commons. The only way you live an existence where you sacrifice nothing for the benefit of others is if you're a hermit living in the wilderness. If you want to live in society, that is the price you must pay.

There is no such thing as a commons accept for when the state uses its power to coerce one into existence. This is all a circular argument where you beg the question as to how this giant, coercive apparatus began.

girzwald:

I think the problem is people expect too much in their lives. They want everything, the best of everything, and they want it before they are 30.

Expecting is great, it's a way to reach something in life. One should always aim for the highest and unreachable. It's not the minimum wage that's the worst but the lack of expecting things from oneself.

Vegosiux:

Sorry, for a moment there I thought you were questioning the legitimacy of the rights the UN bestowed upon people while taking the rights you claim as your own for granted, just because you said so.

You mean the organization which I have never consented to rule over me? That is correct. I do not care what a bunch of bureaucrats who primarily live off of money extorted from me and other Americans arbitrarily declare to be "rights" without any coherent understanding of the concept. Especially when they consider "vacation" to be a right.

Also, if it's not a right, you do realize you don't have a right to buy it either, right? You're just lucky someone's willing to sell it to you.

The "right to have something" is not the same as property rights. I have the right to transact for food or healthcare because I own my own wealth. Plus these two sentences you wrote are a contradiction.

What are you "producing" anyway, if I may ask? Did you "produce" the building you live in?

I produced something at work which my employer gave me wealth to do which I use to rent a room in this building. If you do not understand that, then you are probably a criminal.

Actually, scratch that, did you "produce" the land on which said building stands on?

Will this Marxist myth ever die? Check out John Locke's theory of property rights. This land was claimed and put into productive use, therefore it is owned. See above for the rest.

You know what, actually...why do you even abide by the forum rules then? I mean it's not like anyone here is producing your goodwill, so we have no right to it, right? So, why do you follow the forum rules, if they're not legitimate?

The forum rules are legitimate. This is a privately owned website which runs its own space. They have every right to ban me at any time. I post here because I get enjoyment out of it, and I am not concerned with what others get out of it. You really need to revisit Lochean property rights.

You know why nobody is "refuting your arguments", mate? Because you don't have a bleedin' argument to refute. Self-entitled, self-absorbed whining with a punctuation overdose =/= argument.

I make argument when other people make arguments. This is the first time you have done so (though not very well). Aside from that you continuously used arguments from assertion and nothing more.

I was going to add that you have again dodged the question, but I assume your misconstrued beliefs about rights derive from your utterly incoherent views about property. If you need more assistance, I'll be happy to help you.

Wulfheri:

girzwald:

I think the problem is people expect too much in their lives. They want everything, the best of everything, and they want it before they are 30.

Expecting is great, it's a way to reach something in life. One should always aim for the highest and unreachable. It's not the minimum wage that's the worst but the lack of expecting things from oneself.

I revise my vision and then your are more right. They(we?) expect too much for working/investing in oneself not so much, yes?

pyrate:

I cannot believe I missed this.

The business man chooses option 3, he fires half his employees, doubles the salary of the remaining five, but saves money on other employee related expenses (for example healthcare in the US). He has lowered costs while maintaining the same production and sales, resulting in higher profits.

There is no reason to think of employee-related expenses as independent of salaries (especially in a free market). That only started happening as a result of state intervention.

Check your math. If we start with ten employees who make one product per person per day for 1 dollar per hour and buy the product back at a cost of 1 dollar per day, then the businessman makes 10 dollars per day. Then the businessman makes the innovative discover and now each employee makes 2 products per day. You solution would mean the businessman fires 5 workers, so he goes back to making 10 dollars per day instead of the potential 20. That is a boneheaded move.

Thank your for supporting my point. There never were any "employee related expenses" in a free market. At most those expenses get folded into the regular income. Employer-provided insurance was a market response to wage ceilings enacted by the government during World War II.

Supply side economics has been debunked to death. No legitimate economist takes it seriously. Demand side economics just works so much better. There is no evidence of it working at all in the last few decades in the US. Under Reagan and Bush the US had similar growth to other developed nations, but government coffers plummeted, resulting in both of them overseeing massive government debts, during good economic times when they should have been paying off debt. At the same time the wealth gap between the rich and the poor went ballistic. The USA has the worst gap in wealth of any developed nation and it is down to one thing, Republicans running supply side economic theory.

This is not supply side economics, it is... economics. As in the application of supply and demand.

Dormin111:
-snip-

1) So, appeal to authority is okay when you do it, gotcha.
2) I'm not sure but, you're either lying, or you're suffering from some mysterious condition that makes you forget stuff within 24 hours of it occurring.
3) Why ain't you just a swell guy, offering your "help" for free.
4) Someone needs to learn the difference between "right" and "privilege", too, it would seem.

Damien Granz:

Dormin you realize you only have the "right " to anything, life included because society fucking collectively said you do, and are willing to defend your "right " in the first place?

Thus demonstrating that you do not know what a "right" is.

The only reason you can entertain the idea you 'own ' shit at all is because society has payed people to guarantee that 'right ' through diplomacy, bribery, or violence.

"Society" does not, never has, and never will "do" anything because "society" is not capable of action. Individuals "do" things and I will gladly associate with them to attain the protection of my objectively defined rights. However, your conception of the state does not allow this, but instead sentences me to chronic coercion by others.

The reason people have a right to medicine is the same reason you have a right to life or anything else. Because other people thought shit would work better for giving it to you. If they didn't, absolutely nothing stops the next person in line from cracking your selfish skull open.

Saying that someone has a "right" to medicine is the equivalent to saying someone has a "right" to rob other people in order to attain medicine. I am the one saying that people should form an orderly governance system which protects rights so I am not assaulted in line as you say, you are advocating mass robbery on the grounds of "that is what the majority wants." You are advocating tyranny through mob rule.

You are no more magically entitled to the Earth and the shit on it than anybody else. You exist at the comfort of others.

OH THANK YOU MASTER FOR ALLOWING ME TO LIVE! PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR RING SO I MAY KISS IT!

If you want to ignore this fact and the legal tradition because you selfishly think you own shit that is already owned by others, if you want to steal resource and land from the country and pretend that because you "worked " on it or "improved " it it 's yours, and that you alone unlike any other in the world get to keep 100% of what you built with other peoples property (I never see libertarians thinking if a worker walks in Ford and builds a car with company metal on company machines they get to keep that car free of charge) on other peoples land, without paying rent, then you better bring a big enough bribe or force to steal it if you get caught.

Sigh... they are called contracts. Really. And who am I stealing from again by saying that other people don't have a right to make doctors work at gunpoint?

If 'men with guns ' take you to prison, you deserve it the same as any other squatter or thief. You might be comfortable giving. up your stock in this nation so a few rich guys can have a ball, and do it for free, but the rest of us say no thanks, our stock in the nation isn't so cheap, and you don't yet speak for us.

So you will yet again not even attempt to answer my points. I shall reiterate in the clearest manner possible:

WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO A GROUP OF THUGS WHO I DID NOT CONSENT TO RULE ME?
WHY DO THEY GET TO USE COERCION AGAINST ME?
WHY DO THEY OWN EVERYTHING? BY WHO'S AUTHORITY?

Vegosiux:

1) So, appeal to authority is okay when you do it, gotcha.

I referenced Locke and then explained WHY his theory is correct. You just referenced.

2) I'm not sure but, you're either lying, or you're suffering from some mysterious condition that makes you forget stuff within 24 hours of it occurring.

If you don't quote what I wrote then I have no idea what you are talking about. Same with Number 4.

Dormin111:
Context, context, context.

As long as it is arrived at voluntarily, I don't see why not.

I'm going to punch you. You have your choice: in the face, the stomach, or the dick. And you have no right to complain because I gave you a choice and you arrived at it voluntarily.

You are confusing freedom of choice with coercion in a shitty situation. What you are demonstrating is selfishness that borders on the pathological.

I took all of that into account. The price adjusted GDP per capita in 1900 was about 5,000 dollars per year. The modern day, US government poverty line in 12,000 dollars per year.

Try living on that for a year and tell me how great it is.

Argument from assertion.

So it's only wrong when I do it. Got it.

Blatant and tired misreading of an old document. Right to life means the right to have a life (that is not to have it taken away by others), not the right to be kept alive.

It's still the law of the land. Don't want to follow the law? You go to prison.

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson didn't launch a welfare system during his presidency.

And what was that reason?

All of that can be done by the private sector rather than the thugs with the guns.

No it can't because that would be racketeering. How do you propose to have a private court system? Private law enforcement? Who writes the legislation? How would I privately owned military work? Do you really think it's acceptable to have your house burn down because you were a day late on your payments to the privately owned fire department? Do you want have to pay a toll on every single street to drive on it? What happens if you can't afford to pay the private corporation that keeps your food sanitary and have to take a risk on getting a mouthful of salmonella flavored fried chicken every time you sit down for lunch? Oh, and I suppose you'll be shit out of luck on insurance once someone points out to you that you are paying for other people's protection. All insurance is after all a pool, no matter whether it's public or private sector.

There is no such thing as a commons accept for when the state uses its power to coerce one into existence. This is all a circular argument where you beg the question as to how this giant, coercive apparatus began.

How it began? When people voluntarily created a government that they knew would create the commons. Durr-hey. Because as it turns out, people like having things like public roads, schools, and sanitation systems.

You can piss and moan and cry about how much you hate paying taxes all you want. And I will tell you the same thing: If you don't want to be a part of society, leave. You have that option.

Here's the thing, though. You do live in society. And as long as you do, "every man for himself" is not an acceptable mindset. You're selfish and resent the idea of using your money to help anyone but yourself, but it's irrelevant. You are still in this with us. And since we're pulling our weight, we expect you to do the same. Society has no patience for freeloaders like you.

DrVornoff:

I'm going to punch you. You have your choice: in the face, the stomach, or the dick. And you have no right to complain because I gave you a choice and you arrived at it voluntarily.

You made the decision to punch me against my will. The corporation did not force the impoverished Chinese peasant to be an impoverished Chinese Peasant. The corporation just found the impoverished Chine peasant and offered him an opportunity to be less impoverished This is basic logic of choice and responsibility.

Try living on that for a year and tell me how great it is.

By what standard? By my standards it would be awful. By the standard of a 19th century middle class individual, it would be fantastic.

It's still the law of the land. Don't want to follow the law? You go to prison.

Except that you do not understand the meaning of the "laws" to which you are referring.

And what was that reason?

Because he did not mean "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in the way you think he did. In support of welfarism you are referencing a document written by a bunch of libertarians at a time when welfarism literally did not exist.

No it can't because that would be racketeering. How do you propose to have a private court system? Private law enforcement? Who writes the legislation? How would I privately owned military work?

I mistakenly read over these. I do thing the government should run the police, courts, and military.

Do you really think it's acceptable to have your house burn down because you were a day late on your payments to the privately owned fire department? Do you want have to pay a toll on every single street to drive on it? What happens if you can't afford to pay the private corporation that keeps your food sanitary and have to take a risk on getting a mouthful of salmonella flavored fried chicken every time you sit down for lunch? Oh, and I suppose you'll be shit out of luck on insurance once someone points out to you that you are paying for other people's protection. All insurance is after all a pool, no matter whether it's public or private sector.

The rest of these can be provided by private industry, though I would rather not spend the time going into every single example.

How it began? When people voluntarily created a government that they knew would create the commons. Durr-hey. Because as it turns out, people like having things like public roads, schools, and sanitation systems.

Please name a single government in all of history which was voluntarily created by all of its subjects. One does not exist. Even the American Constitution was crafted by a portion of the country and then coercively enforced on the rest.

You can piss and moan and cry about how much you hate paying taxes all you want. And I will tell you the same thing: If you don't want to be a part of society, leave. You have that option.

I should not have to leave. I own my property, not he state. From where does the state get its authority. Even if a state was voluntarily established by all of its subjects (it never has), i still reject my participation in it, that does not give the state the right to seize my land and throw me out. You are a feudalist. I "selfishly" want to keep what I produce, whole you selflessly claim that the state owns everything (by some mythical authority) and should be able to steal what it wants when it wants. Oh the irony.

Magichead:

Of COURSE! How could I have been so blind. Forget the terrible education system, the engrained socio-economic status through ghettoisation, the awful healthcare, the gang culture and violence, and the racism of potential employers, all we have to do is allow people to pay them pennies a day and the problem is solved! You are a genius!

Complete issue dodge. These factors exist but do not negate the effects of minimum wage.

Pardon? I'm pretty sure society does, in fact, exist. I live in one, it's rather nice, or was until Hayekian psychos like yourself tricked their way into office.

Lol, yeah Heyekian psychos like me support a state which consumes 50% of the economy, a federal reserve, an FDA, a war in Iraq, a war in Lybia, a progressive income tax, a capital gains tax, a corporate tax, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, thousands of pages worth of federal legislation, a social security system which consumes 25% of state revenues every year, a medicare system which consumes 15% of state revenues every year, a medicaid system which consumes 12% of revenues per year, assorted other welfare programs which consume another 25-30% of revenues every year, etc.

The American government hasn;t even resembled libertarianism since 1900.

Except that it doesn't. Wealth is not sentient, it does things at the pleasure of those who possess it, and in case you'd not noticed, ensuring that people don't starve, die of dysentery or a mild infection, have a roof over their heads, and get an education are not even slightly near the top of the list of "things rich people want to do with their money".

Completely dodged point. That wealth given through welfarism gone to the same people through productive action in the economy eventually.

Every time in history you permit the wealthy to decide what to do with their wealth without recourse to the effect that it has on society at large(the same society which enabled them to earn that wealth, by the by), the result is a stagnating underclass rife with poverty, crime and disease, from which there is little or no chance of escape.

Again, speak in concretes, not lofty, absurd, abstract social theorems.

Eh? You're going to argue that the example which pretty conclusively proves the point being made that massive wealth disparity and low wages result in poverty and crime in fact proves the opposite? And this makes sense in your bizarro-world, does it?

Historically, wealth disparity was at its lowest point during the pre-industrial era. That is, when feudalism was the norm, and almost no wealth was ever created, people were roughly equal in wealth. The noble lords did not have much more wealth than the lowest peasant. Than capitalism and industrialism came, wealth was created in superabundance, and ridiculous Marxist dogma told people it was somehow a bad thing for some people to have more money than others even when they earned it..

No, slums are not nice places, but they were even less nice when the vast majority of the population lived in them. Redistributive mixed-market economics is what brought us to the point that there is a large middle class, and only a portion of the working class live in poverty.

Prove it. I can point to tens of millions of European in the early 1900s who fled their benevolent welfare states to come to welfare-free America.

Your spurious and laughable example has already been debunked by others,

False. I have shown how every "attempted debunking" was based on faulty premises.

You live in a fantasy world, your ideas sound very rational and reasonable until you think about how they would play out in actual reality, at which point a normal person moves on. For some reason, Hayekians have managed to convince themselves that reality will conform to their philosophical ideals; it will not.

Yawn. You people never get tired of arguments from intimidation do you?

Dormin111:
You made the decision to punch me against my will. The corporation did not force the impoverished Chinese peasant to be an impoverished Chinese Peasant. The corporation just found the impoverished Chine peasant and offered him an opportunity to be less impoverished This is basic logic of choice and responsibility.

So the very act of giving you a choice makes it ethically okay no matter what they do? Bullshit. You would not be saying that if you were in the same position as that worker.

By what standard? By my standards it would be awful. By the standard of a 19th century middle class individual, it would be fantastic.

This isn't the 19th century. Times change. Evolve or die. You do not get to tell me that I have no right to complain about my shit wages just because it's better than slavery, which some of my ancestors used to be in. Some of my ancestors had to clean out blast furnaces in the steel mills for shit money even in the 19th century standards. Doesn't mean I don't have the right to demand for something better. We should be seeking to constantly improve our society, not say, "Well, we're slightly better than we were back in the Dark Ages, so I guess we can stop here."

Except that you do not understand the meaning of the "laws" to which you are referring.

Then enlighten me.

Because he did not mean "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in the way you think he did. In support of welfarism you are referencing a document written by a bunch of libertarians at a time when welfarism literally did not exist.

So social concepts should never be invented in order to improve the standard of living?

I mistakenly read over these. I do thing the government should run the police, courts, and military.

And the "thugs with guns" would force you to pay for those with taxes and you'd be right back to pissing and moaning.

The rest of these can be provided by private industry, though I would rather not spend the time going into every single example.

Good, it was all going to be bullshit anyway.

Please name a single government in all of history which was voluntarily created by all of its subjects. One does not exist. Even the American Constitution was crafted by a portion of the country and then coercively enforced on the rest.

Majority rules. You want to have a civilization, pretty hard to have unanimous agreement on anything beyond, "We should have laws saying that I won't slaughter you or steal your stuff and you agree not to do the same." And even then you still have some aberrations who are going to do that anyway.

i still reject my participation in it, that does not give the state the right to seize my land and throw me out.

I'm not saying the state should throw you out. I'm saying if you hate having to pay your fair share in order to live in society, you should voluntarily fuck off to the wilderness where you won't have to deal with us anymore.

You are a feudalist.

No, you, you booger!

I "selfishly" want to keep what I produce, whole you selflessly claim that the state owns everything (by some mythical authority) and should be able to steal what it wants when it wants. Oh the irony.

I said no such thing, chuckles. Again, I told you to up and fuck off because apparently you resent having to live in society with the rest of us. But you won't because you're too attached to the stuff you own, which you only have because of the rest of society. Because we all chipped in to pay for law enforcement and national defense. Because we all chipped in to pay for legislators who passed regulations that ensured you can buy quality products at affordable prices. Because we all chipped in and paid for the roads you drove on, the schools that educated you, and so on and so forth. You're in the same boat as us. So quit your weaselly little crying, man up, and pay your fucking taxes.

We are all in this together. That's not feel-good rhetoric. That's the inescapable truth. You only own what you do because society enabled it. And you can keep it. I don't want to take it from you. I don't want the state to take it from you. But if you're going to act like this, I expect you to put your money where your mouth is and be a contributing member of society. You want to live with us? That's the price you pay.

DrVornoff:

So the very act of giving you a choice makes it ethically okay no matter what they do?

As long as the person giving the choice does not cause harm, there is no problem. I do not violate any one's rights or harm them by making an offer. I is not a corporation or anyone else's moral responsibility to correct historical wrongs (unless the part was somehow responsible for them).

This isn't the 19th century. Times change. Evolve or die

Nonsensical answer. You said people "shouldn't" make "low" wages. Both "shouldn't" and "low" are arbitrary distinctions which your are now arbitrarily evaluating based on the arbitrary date. You continuously answer in floating abstractions.

Then enlighten me.

I already did. Right to "Life" refers to the right to control your own life rather than be enslaved or lose your life to murder.

So social concepts should never be invented in order to improve the standard of living?

If you want to help other people with new concepts, go for it, but that is not the proper function of a state, as dictated by the Constitution and by the fact that states have the legal ability to coercively achieve their ends.

And the "thugs with guns" would force you to pay for those with taxes and you'd be right back to pissing and moaning.

The thugs don't have to force me. I would gladly volunteer my money for these services as any rational individual would.

Majority rules. You want to have a civilization, pretty hard to have unanimous agreement on anything beyond, "We should have laws saying that I won't slaughter you or steal your stuff and you agree not to do the same." And even then you still have some aberrations who are going to do that anyway.

A government has a monopoly on force within a territory. The only proper function it has is to protect individual rights; if it does not perform this function, then it just a gang which uses force to steal from people. I do not care what a majority of people want to do. The majority does not have mythical powers.

I'm not saying the state should throw you out. I'm saying you should voluntarily fuck off.

Physically harming me until I leave is throwing me out.

I said no such thing, chuckles. Again, I told you to up and fuck off because apparently you resent having to live in society with the rest of us. But you won't because you're too attached to the stuff you own, which you only have because of the rest of society. Because we all chipped in to pay for law enforcement and national defense. Because we all chipped in to pay for legislators who passed regulations that ensured you can buy quality products at affordable prices. Because we all chipped in and paid for the roads you drove on, the schools that educated you, and so on and so forth.

State does not equal society. I can live with and trade with other people without a gun to the back of my head forcing me to pay for the gun's existence.

You're in the same boat as us. So quit your weaselly little crying, man up, and pay your fucking taxes.

It is always sad when the slave defends the master.

Dormin111:

While it is true that they are both required for an economy to function (there is no point in creating supply if there is no one who is demanding it), the expansion of either requires the growth of supply first. If we take the same island scenario and imagine a plane flew overhead and dumped 10,000,000,000 dollars onto the island which was all collected by the workers, the demand in the economy would shoot through the roof. However, since there are no more goods to supply this demand than normal, the only thing that would change is the price of the good and eventually the change of the worker. No one would be any wealthier for it.

Minimum wage law is based on the same faulty economic premise as the 10,000,000,000 dollar dumping scheme. The belief is that if supply is sapped of wealth which is given to demand, not only will supply not shrink, but it will grow. This is nonsense.

...what are you talking about?

Minimum wage has nothing to do with "dropping 10 trillion dollars from the sky" or whatever. It's simply about setting a floor for wages. So long as companies can still make a profit, they will still hire employees, and the employees will overall make more money in the process. Keeping the price of labor higher also encourages innovation and development, which makes the whole economy stronger; instead of hiring two employees to do your paperwork, it become more efficent to hire one employee and buy a computer for him to use to do it more efficently.

Does that have an impact on unemployment? Yeah, it can, which is why you don't want to push it too high, although at the low level it currently has it seems to have almost no effect on that. So long as it's at a reasonable amount, it's better for the economy in the long run to have it then not to have it.

Now, it certainly could be improved. One change I would like to see would be for it to be linked to standard of living cost in the area; if standard of living is cheaper in Mississippi then in California, then it doesn't make any economic sense for minimum wage to be the same in both states.

Yosarian2:

...what are you talking about?

Minimum wage has nothing to do with "dropping 10 trillion dollars from the sky" or whatever. It's simply about setting a floor for wages. So long as companies can still make a profit, they will still hire employees, and the employees will overall make more money in the process.

Uhh... no. Companies hire employees because they believe the addition of the employee will create more wealth than it costs, regardless of whether or not the company is profitable (unless the company is so unprofitable that it must go out of business).

Keeping the price of labor higher also encourages innovation and development, which makes the whole economy stronger; instead of hiring two employees to do your paperwork, it become more efficent to hire one employee and buy a computer for him to use to do it more efficently.

Now this is some certified voodoo economics. If it were more efficient to hire fewer employees than the company would have ALREADY hired fewer employees. Why does increasing the wage magically increase their productivity?

Dormin111:
As long as the person giving the choice does not cause harm, there is no problem. I do not violate any one's rights or harm them by making an offer. I is not a corporation or anyone else's moral responsibility to correct historical wrongs (unless the part was somehow responsible for them).

I don't buy it. If you're exploiting people in the name of personal gain, you're still wrong.

Nonsensical answer. You said people "shouldn't" make "low" wages. Both "shouldn't" and "low" are arbitrary distinctions which your are now arbitrarily evaluating based on the arbitrary date. You continuously answer in floating abstractions.

No. You don't get to tell me I have no right to stand up for myself just because you can pull a historical date out of your ass and say that things were worse back then. That's not how it works. I am talking about the hear and now where trying to live on $9,000 a year is insane. You don't get to tell me to shut up just because some of my ancestors used to be Roman slaves or because my great grandfather had to clean out the blast furnace in a steel mill.

I already did. Right to "Life" refers to the right to control your own life rather than be enslaved or lose your life to murder.

So you don't believe that the right to life entails not starving to death?

If you want to help other people with new concepts, go for it, but that is not the proper function of a state, as dictated by the Constitution and by the fact that states have the legal ability to coercively achieve their ends.

The state has a responsibility to sustain itself. Adam Smith wrote that social safety nets are necessary because the greatest threat to a capitalist state is the concentration of wealth and the disappearance of social mobility.

The thugs don't have to force me. I would gladly volunteer my money for these services as any rational individual would.

Yet you don't want to pay for clean water? That's rational?

A government has a monopoly on force within a territory. The only proper function it has is to protect individual rights; if it does not perform this function, then it just a gang which uses force to steal from people. I do not care what a majority of people want to do. The majority does not have mythical powers.

You're right, they have real powers. Chief of which is, "We outnumber the fuck out of you and we want the commons."

Physically harming me until I leave is throwing me out.

I at no point threatened you with physical harm. I just told you to fuck off.

State does not equal society. I can live with and trade with other people without a gun to the back of my head forcing me to pay for the gun's existence.

Then contribute to the commons. Can't have a society without it.

It is always sad when the slave defends the master.

It's always hilarious when a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about thinks he's Socrates.

Dormin111:
Now this is some certified voodoo economics. If it were more efficient to hire fewer employees than the company would have ALREADY hired fewer employees. Why does increasing the wage magically increase their productivity?

Employees are not robots. They're human beings. Best boss I ever had was at a Halloween store a few years back. Corporate said we could only be paid minimum wage with no benefits since it was only seasonal work, but he did everything he could to make working there more enjoyable. He let us dress in costumes whenever we wanted, there were always snacks in the breakroom that he paid for out of his own pocket, and if he saw customers giving us a hard time, he came in and stood up for us. We busted our balls for this guy.

On the flip side, I've also had a number of really awful bosses with attitudes like yours. The turnover rate at these jobs was always very high and everybody resented working there, but in a recession there's nowhere else to go. Shit jobs are the only ones that are ever hiring. They found excuses to avoid giving us benefits, they stacked arbitrary rules on us, increased our workloads without increasing our pay, didn't give us overtime, etc. They treated us like mules. There were a few people at these jobs who were very intelligent and hard-working. They got treated like shit too. And as soon as the opportunity for something better came long, they took it and never looked back. And often they never get that business their time or money ever again.

I've taken my time to study business. And I've learned a lot from my father who's worked in management longer than I've been alive and is now a consultant. The main lesson I learned is that minimum wage is not the biggest problem. It's not organized labor. It's not over-regulation. It's that management is typically incompetent, arrogant, and out of touch. Treat your workers better, pay them better, and genuinely reward them for going above and beyond, and your productivity will skyrocket. I've seen it happen. Success in business is about way more than just the numbers on a spreadsheet.

Dormin111:

Yosarian2:

...what are you talking about?

Minimum wage has nothing to do with "dropping 10 trillion dollars from the sky" or whatever. It's simply about setting a floor for wages. So long as companies can still make a profit, they will still hire employees, and the employees will overall make more money in the process.

Uhh... no. Companies hire employees because they believe the addition of the employee will create more wealth than it costs, regardless of whether or not the company is profitable (unless the company is so unprofitable that it must go out of business).

Yes, that's exactly what I just said.

They hire employees if they can make a profit with that employee, and then they pay them the lowest price the market will bear.

So long as the minimum wage is lower then the wealth an employee will produce, it won't prevent hiring. With our minimum wage as low as it is now, it's possible that there would be jobs lower then that, but not many, and by definition they aren't very economically important if they only produce 4$ an hour of wealth for .01% of the workforce or something like that.

Of course, if your employee makes you $50 an hour in wealth, but you can get away with paying him $7.00 an hour, that's what you'll do. If you can get away with paying him $4.00 an hour, then that's what you'll do. Businesses aren't charities, they always get the lowest cost structure they can manage.

Now, sometimes the market for labor will be strong and you'll have to pay employees more then that, but sometimes it won't, and you can pay them almost nothing and still find workers. The minimum wage prevents that scenario. (Unions can also help with this by keeping the value of labor higher, but they have gotten much weaker in our country in the past few decades.)

Keeping the price of labor higher also encourages innovation and development, which makes the whole economy stronger; instead of hiring two employees to do your paperwork, it become more efficent to hire one employee and buy a computer for him to use to do it more efficently.

Now this is some certified voodoo economics. If it were more efficient to hire fewer employees than the company would have ALREADY hired fewer employees. Why does increasing the wage magically increase their productivity?

Think about it. Would you invest money in higher productivity (say, better industrialization, better technology, ect) if your labor coast averaged $1.00 an hour? No, you'd just hire more people, because it's more cost effective in the short run then investing in expensive equipment. On the other hand, if your labor cost averages $20.00 an hour, then it's worth it to industrialize, to become more advanced, to use better procedures and better technology to get as much value out of that labor as you possibly can. In the long run, businesses and societies that become more efficient and use more advanced technology become far more profitable and better off then those that rely on cheap labor. This has been shown in history as well; rising costs of labor always leads to rapid technological development and dramatic improvements in efficiency.

Magichead:

Dormin111:

and the minimum wage is so far down the list of things that affect the socio-economic status of ethnic groups that you need a fucking telescope to see it.

Direct your telescope here: http://www.newser.com/story/122469/minimun-wage-hike-and-teen-unemployment.html

"The last hike in minimum wage came in 2009 with no worse timing as burdened businesses cut payrolls with little to spare for hiring young and unskilled workers. According to a 2010 study by academic economists, this wage increase resulted in teen employment dropping by 7% to 12%, depending on educational level. Only 24% of teens ages 16-19 now hold jobs, the lowest figure since 1948 when tracking began, For black teens, unemployment stands at an abysmal 42%."

It is common sense. Uneducated black teens stumble out of high school and want a job. Their labor is not worth $7.50 per hour, so they are not hired. They never get any work experience. They never get a recommendation. They fall into poverty.

Of COURSE! How could I have been so blind. Forget the terrible education system, the engrained socio-economic status through ghettoisation, the awful healthcare, the gang culture and violence, and the racism of potential employers, all we have to do is allow people to pay them pennies a day and the problem is solved! You are a genius!

You left out "The bank-caused economic shitstorm that hit in earnest in 2009". That was when it looked like our entire economic system was about to collapse, remember? I know it's kind of far-fetched, but having out-of-work adults competing for minimum-wage shit jobs might partially explain why black kids had so much trouble finding work.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked