70% of the voters in my state are unequivocal moron retards

[sbw]

state amendment in florida to raise minimum wage passes, 70.2%-29.8%. FUCK!!!!!!!!

Scott

[Jezebel]

what's wrong with minimum wage in Florida being raised?

[Claverhouse]

Libertarians/Conservatives strongly believe that the nature and amount of monies and benefits given should be entirely a private matter between the employer ( say, a giant corporation ) and the labourer ( say, a male packer or female maid ) viewing them both as full equals able to bargain equally, without artificial regulation from that mean old government or the artificial unfair banding together in old-fashioned corruptly-run trade unions.



:ph34r: :rofl: :ph34r:

With minds of this quality, they're going to get in the White House... ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[sbw]

minimum wage raises ALWAYS result in inflation, and also result in higher levels of unemployment among the very same poor people that the law is allegedly attempting to help; basic algebra dictates that if labor cost is to remain static (which is important to anyone who runs a business) then more $ per worker directly results in less total # of employees. therefore, some of the poor people lose their jobs.

Scott

[sbw]

"In short, this is not opposition based on philosophy or political leanings, but on economic analysis and on the mounting factual evidence that the law increases unemployment among the very people intended to be benefited."

full text:

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

this refers mostly to the unemployment question.

Scott

[booyalab]

"..the law increases unemployment among the very people intended to be benefited."

Scott

Is this because employers can't afford to have as many workers or what?

[sbw]

Yes. There are differing views, naturally, but my impression is that a vast majority of economists (I'm not one) subscribe to this default position.

Scott

[crule81]

There are differing views, naturally, but my impression is that a vast majority of economists (I'm not one) subscribe to this default position.

That's right. After over a dozen economic courses, I never read any economist attempt to even argue that contraints such as minimum wages or rent ceilings made economic sense. I remember, however, several students attempt to argue this point with a professor. He would just point to the supply and demand curve, draw a bunch of lines, and show how a minimum wage would decrease the quantity of labor demanded. I tend to agree with the economists on this one.

[sbw]

I've taken only one course (micro-101 during my one college semester before I dropped out), but that obviously makes sense. Clearly, my fellow floridians haven't taken any economics courses either.

Scott

[booyalab]

I've taken only one course (micro-101 during my one college semester before I dropped out), but that obviously makes sense. Clearly, my fellow floridians haven't taken any economics courses either.

Scott

I only took one economics course, in high school, and it was such a fucking waste of time. I learned less in that class then probably any other class preceding or following it.

As I can recall, we "learned" the difference between micro and macro economics (durrrr) and the basic importance of supply and demand (double durr) Also we learned that my teacher's initials were B.O.

[cjs55]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Well good thing most of the issues aren't up to the people to vote on.

[jimkopelli]

There's a really good Wizard of Id I want to insert here... but I can't get to it online w/o paying money. Good thing it's clipped at home. Will post it later.

[Claverhouse]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

Hallelulah !



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[sbw]

AGREED.

Scott

[sbw]

I only took one economics course, in high school, and it was such a fucking waste of time. I learned less in that class then probably any other class preceding or following it.

As I can recall, we "learned" the difference between micro and macro economics (durrrr) and the basic importance of supply and demand (double durr) Also we learned that my teacher's initials were B.O.[/quote]

[sbw]

I tried to use the quote button, and screwed it up--just trying to agree w/ booya (what's stuart scott doing here?) about high school econ being useless...

anyway, addendum:

the producer (business) actually has 3 options in the face of minimum wage legislation:

1) cut payroll (i.e., fire people; we touched on that one)

2) cut benefits (which fucks over ALL of the existing employees, rather than eliminating SOME of them)

3) raise prices, so that revenue and labor increase concominantly (which doesn't fuck over the employees so much as it fucks over everyone in the society, since they now have to pay more for goods and services; this is known as INFLATION)

As you may notice, these options all suck. In addition, the people that the legislation is trying to help (i.e., minimum-wage earners) will see their gain (in terms of hourly wage) eaten away by the inflation that is a DIRECT RESULT of the minimum wage law. So in summation, by trying to help (subsidize) those lowest on the economic ladder, most of whom are either retired or in high school or completely without job skills (i.e. does not speak english, or cannot do math well enough to run a cash register) anyway, we fuck everything up for everyone else by making everything more expensive, and the beneficiaries see a smaller-than-expected increase in their real wages due to inflation. So they ain't getting much help any-damn-way. We are, indeed, a stupid country.

Scott

[Johnny]

So it's perfectly O.K. to raise costs, but it's not O.K. to raise wages?

[Johnny]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

Hallelulah !

And some other system of government will diminish idiocy? I thought that was precisely why Democracy was a good thing...so that idiocy could be harnessed rather than battled.

[cjs55]

Harnessing idiocy just makes the country act idiotic in general.

Ever wonder how we get candidates like bush and kerry? Mass media + dumbing down of ideas to lowest common denominator. People complain about the calibre of the candidates but fail to realize that we get shitty candidates because of the inherent problems with democracy.

Democracy is like trying to get english majors to build a spaceship anyways. It doesn't make any sense except possibly on a very local level. Experts should be making decisions. Why should people that know nothing about economics be making decisions about it? There is just no explanation that I can think of. Initiative based budgeting and economic planning is ridiculous. It goes to show that the more democracy exists, the less sensible the results become.

It is true that the people don't have to make too many decisions directly, but unfortunately, they appoint those people that do make decisions, and those people's general lack of quality has long been apparent.

I believe in functional oligarchy (which is actually similar to what we have now, except its dysfunctional oligarchy due to the democracy part of the whole process).

[Claverhouse]

So it's perfectly O.K. to raise costs, but it's not O.K. to raise wages?

You don't see the point. It applies an unfair burden on the employer when he is forbidden to use the cheapest labour he or she can employ, such as 10 year-old children. Banning child-labour not only increases the employer's costs, but means the child no longer has an income to bring into the family home, and raises the costs to all the consumers through inflation since the price of the product has to go up in line with the increased wage-bill.

And don't get me started on the horrible situation of the poor slave-owners when their supply of cheap labour went west...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

Hallelulah !

And some other system of government will diminish idiocy? I thought that was precisely why Democracy was a good thing...so that idiocy could be harnessed rather than battled.

It's one thing to have a system whereby you will be ruled by people, some of whom may be idiots; it is another to enshrine idiocy as the prime principle driving the system.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[BritainOphira]

So it's perfectly O.K. to raise costs, but it's not O.K. to raise wages?

You don't see the point. It applies an unfair burden on the employer when he is forbidden to use the cheapest labour he or she can employ, such as 10 year-old children. Banning child-labour not only increases the employer's costs, but means the child no longer has an income to bring into the family home, and raises the costs to all the consumers through inflation since the price of the product has to go up in line with the increased wage-bill.

And don't get me started on the horrible situation of the poor slave-owners when their supply of cheap labour went west...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

If the children are such a burden on the poor families they come from, why not create a system in which they could be sold for direct use as food by those with the money to purchase them? ;)

[Johnny]

So it's perfectly O.K. to raise costs, but it's not O.K. to raise wages?

You don't see the point. It applies an unfair burden on the employer when he is forbidden to use the cheapest labour he or she can employ, such as 10 year-old children. Banning child-labour not only increases the employer's costs, but means the child no longer has an income to bring into the family home, and raises the costs to all the consumers through inflation since the price of the product has to go up in line with the increased wage-bill.

And don't get me started on the horrible situation of the poor slave-owners when their supply of cheap labour went west...

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Well, I think I'm still in the dark here. To me, the argument is that when the amount of money one collects as one revolves around the Monopoly board is increased, it unfairly penalizes the owner of a particular property to win the game...and so the property owner gets bored and raises the rent to cover the diminished penalty to the occupier to get the game over with faster and get the winner determined.

All I see that matters is that people are having fun playing the game or not...and if they're not, that's when the real inflation happens. This is why child-labor laws exist as I understand the situation. You gotta have game players or there's no game...and since it turns out that slaves, child laborers, and the equivalent don't make sustainable players, Florida is pushing panic buttons.

It's always better to be safe than sorry...unless I'm still in the dark here...

:sombrero:

[Johnny]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

Hallelulah !

And some other system of government will diminish idiocy? I thought that was precisely why Democracy was a good thing...so that idiocy could be harnessed rather than battled.

It's one thing to have a system whereby you will be ruled by people, some of whom may be idiots; it is another to enshrine idiocy as the prime principle driving the system.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Idiocy isn't being enshrined here. If it was, we'd have had all the presidential candidates (and that includes write-ins) debating together on television.

:sombrero:

[file cabinet]

Harnessing idiocy just makes the country act idiotic in general.

Ever wonder how we get candidates like bush and kerry? Mass media + dumbing down of ideas to lowest common denominator. People complain about the calibre of the candidates but fail to realize that we get shitty candidates because of the inherent problems with democracy.

Democracy is like trying to get english majors to build a spaceship anyways. It doesn't make any sense except possibly on a very local level. Experts should be making decisions. Why should people that know nothing about economics be making decisions about it? There is just no explanation that I can think of. Initiative based budgeting and economic planning is ridiculous. It goes to show that the more democracy exists, the less sensible the results become.

It is true that the people don't have to make too many decisions directly, but unfortunately, they appoint those people that do make decisions, and those people's general lack of quality has long been apparent.

I believe in functional oligarchy (which is actually similar to what we have now, except its dysfunctional oligarchy due to the democracy part of the whole process).

I am pretty sure we're not a democracy.. look at the electoral colleges. It is very possible to get more votes and lose an election. Every vote is counted but not every vote counts in the big picture.
Someone told me we're a federalist nation.. and according to Wikipedia we are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

and mmmm.. the US is also a 'liberal democracy' :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

anyway, this is stuff I know nothing about but I am posting about it anyways.

[booyalab]

I do believe that people tend to be stupid which is precisely why I'm a conservative. (less government=better government) Although you might argue that 'traditional' conservatism has gone the way of the typewriter, at least in our present system, you can choose..to some degree.. how dependent you are on the government and it's stupid bureacracy- mentally and physically. Someone living under a fascist or communist regime would not have that privilege. Also, for the diversity of our country.....democracy or 'federalism' is clearly the better choice. You're allowed to have practically any stance, and people here have diverse stances, excluding one that infringes on another's freedom. This is what passionately political people want anyway, the idea that they could make a difference if they so desire...and then when cold harsh reality kicks in that they're not really making that much of a difference at all..we have the option of apathy, which is also not always tolerated in other systems.

[Claverhouse]

So it's perfectly O.K. to raise costs, but it's not O.K. to raise wages?

You don't see the point. It applies an unfair burden on the employer when he is forbidden to use the cheapest labour he or she can employ, such as 10 year-old children. Banning child-labour not only increases the employer's costs, but means the child no longer has an income to bring into the family home, and raises the costs to all the consumers through inflation since the price of the product has to go up in line with the increased wage-bill.

And don't get me started on the horrible situation of the poor slave-owners when their supply of cheap labour went west...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

If the children are such a burden on the poor families they come from, why not create a system in which they could be sold for direct use as food by those with the money to purchase them? ;)

Swift got there before you.

And contemplating the world of men sent him mad.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Sounds modest to me.

[Claverhouse]

Sounds modest to me.

:D



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

Mmmm. . . Irish
- Homer Simpson

[Dunearhp]

Democracy is a terrible system because people are idiots. No sarcasm, and I'm not just being bitter, I truly believe this.

Hallelulah !

And some other system of government will diminish idiocy? I thought that was precisely why Democracy was a good thing...so that idiocy could be harnessed rather than battled.

I agree. Everyone is an idiot. More so in the case of economists. Good democracy slows down the amount of damage that any given group of idiots can do in one term.

[sbw]

minimum wage doesn't directly relate to child labor.

Scott

[jimkopelli]

Here we go... basically it's been said, but isn't it nice to see your ideas in mass print?
http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/wiz1.jpg

[sbw]

thanks, jim--very nice.

Scott

[mgb]

I'll disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

I think that a higher minimum wage leading to higher employment is a short term effect.

A minimum wage that remains the same over many years actually drives people into poverty. Minimum wages (MW) don't keep up with inflation (the price of the actual goods) so the rich get richer because the price and value of the products goes up but the wages paid to make them don't.

So with institution of a MW raise the employer will see an immediate loss in profits. As inflation increases profits will again rise and as the people that created the products initially will be hired back because they are the best ones at making those products. Realizing that it would probably be a good idea for most employers to try and keep these trained employees rather than risk losing them to another company it would be to their advantage not to eliminate these people from their payrolls.

I could be wrong though, I am no economist.

[PsiKik]

How a about a decrease in executive salaries and bonuses. They get paid ridiculous amounts even if they are performing badly.

[jimkopelli]

But do you think they would inflict that on themselves? This is free enterprise... meaning do whatever you can get away with... They would raise hell if you tried to impose anything like a maximum salary... and then find a way around it.

[sbw]

[quote="mgbradsh"]I'll disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

I think that a higher minimum wage leading to higher employment is a short term effect.


I'll assume you mean "leading to higher unemployment"--this could very well be a short-term effect (increasing automation and greater productivity/efficiency cost a society more jobs overall anyway), but the inflationary effects are permanent (rather than short-term) and negatively impact everyone.

Scott

[sbw]

and to clarify, the jobs lost by automation and greater productivity are generally replaced in other sectors, i.e., americans used to all be farmers before the industrial revolution, then they all worked in factories, and now since there are less factory jobs (with machines replacing some of the workers) we have greater numbers of americans working in IT, marketing, service industry, retail, etc.

Scott

[Claverhouse]

But do you think they would inflict that on themselves? This is free enterprise... meaning do whatever you can get away with... They would raise hell if you tried to impose anything like a maximum salary... and then find a way around it.

In Germany during the boom years there was a rule, unofficial or legal I forget which, whereby no-one in a business could earn more than 20 X as much as the lowest paid. However since they have opened up to Anglo flexibility and deregulation, this is going. As is their economy.

Why the fuck do all you morons love free enterprise so anyway ? You're all gonna die, whether you're as rich and lovable as Hetty Green or as poor and devoted as a nun. No wonder the Russkis long for Stalin again when they look at the corrupt mess that capitalism has made of the USA.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[PsiKik]

I found this interresting essay. A lot of it makes sense to me, reinforcing my view that there should be a minimum wage and why it should increase with inflation.
Those who tend to oppose minimum wage, 'believe' in trickle-down economics etc. tend to be conservatives who have not thought out the issues. They are of the mindset that does not want fact to interfere with their ideology. The way things are going we are headed for another great depression.

http://www.awitness.org/journal/great_depression.html

[cjs55]

But...but...haven't you seen the bumber sticker Claverhouse??

"He who dies with the most toys wins"


As far as Einstein goes, I'm afraid I'm not going to trust him when it comes to economic policy. Trinkle Down is idiotic, but I'm not sure exactly how much it has to do with the minimum wage necessarily. I'm not 100% sold on the aspect that minimum wage is bad either, but I just was responding mainly in this to the post to the people voting on economic issues that they know nothing about (this probably has something to do with California's problems)

[mgb]

[quote=mgbradsh]I'll disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

I think that a higher minimum wage leading to higher employment is a short term effect.


I'll assume you mean "leading to higher unemployment"--this could very well be a short-term effect (increasing automation and greater productivity/efficiency cost a society more jobs overall anyway), but the inflationary effects are permanent (rather than short-term) and negatively impact everyone.

Scott

Thanks for catching that. Yes, inflation in permanent in this case unemployment is not.

[sbw]

Claver, there are 3 reasons I love free enterprise:

1) there is a documented correlation between economic liberty and prosperity throughout human history; in other words, every society will always have some poor people, but even the poor people have better lives in a society where the good people are allowed to produce (and thus create jobs) with minimal government intervention...

and

2) I'm 24, and I want to retire early so as to have lots of free time to enjoy BEFORE I die. If the government unjustly steals a large amount of money from me (and they do), then I obviously cannot save and invest as much as I would otherwise be able to (which means I can't retire as soon). Therefore, my government is directly interfering with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

It's about freedom and liberty at least as much as it's about money.

Scott

p.s. and psikik, I'm not a conservative; I'm a pro-drug-legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, atheist libertarian. There aren't many worse slurs than "conservative" these days.

[sbw]

oops, 2 reasons. can't type, sorry.

Scott

[Claverhouse]

One of our old socialist loony fellow-travellers called Tony Benn once justly pointed out that if low wages were the key to greater economic progress then India must be the richest place on earth.

Believe it or not, Calcutta is not yet paradise.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ And as the poor saps found out after the Great Revolution, 'Liberty, Equality & Fraternity' is merely an advertising slogan which enabled the prosperous to get better off and the poor to continue to suffer. I don't believe in either Liberty or Freedom as desirables: only individual freedoms. ( EG: the freedom to do a specific something ). Liberty means you have the freedom to oppress whom you can. As with aristocrats or bourgeois seizing power in the name of freedom to give themselves the freedom to oppress peasants and workers, or fathers being free to beat their children ].

[mgb]

1) there is a documented correlation between economic liberty and prosperity throughout human history; in other words, every society will always have some poor people, but even the poor people have better lives in a society where the good people are allowed to produce (and thus create jobs) with minimal government intervention...

I guess the first thing that has to be defined in this statement is what "minimal government intervention" actually is. You could probably say that setting a minimum wage is a minimum intervention.

I also think that your assertion that correlation between liberty and prosperity was a positive one might be off. As evidence I suggest we look at where those societies are now. Gone. There always will be poor people, I agree with that, but there doesn't have to be so many of them. The rich seem to get richer while the poor get poorer.

In a completely free market system you end up with monopolies. To stop that you need government to "interfere". It quickly no longer becomes a free market.

and



2) I'm 24, and I want to retire early so as to have lots of free time to enjoy BEFORE I die. If the government unjustly steals a large amount of money from me (and they do), then I obviously cannot save and invest as much as I would otherwise be able to (which means I can't retire as soon). Therefore, my government is directly interfering with my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.



As a twenty four year old (and I am not much older) the desire to have free time is pretty understandable. I can see how you might want to retire early. I can also see how every other twenty four year old would want the same thing. If you have too many twenty four year olds applying for the same jobs and soon you might find that corporations will hire the person that they can pay the least amount of money to do for that job. Unfortunately, you now have to deal with outsourcing as the entire world moves to a free market. How much would you pay your government to protect you from that?

And while you are worried about the government steals from you I think you are failing to see the corporations taking from you as well. Energy costs are going up everywhere, look at your computer, you probably paid over $200 for windows to be on there. That is money that could have been invested. And with things like linux out there that are free it makes windows look like a rip off, but because they have no competition that can pretty much charge what they want. But I don't see you taking shots at Bill Gates for stealing from you (I am assuming that you have windows, I tried linux but didn't have the time to figure it out, windows is a lot mroe convienent, but if you do use linux you are a more patient person that I).

I would argue that for every dollar that the government takes from you they are probably saving you at least that in money you would be over-paying for the products you use every day and in lower wages you would inevitably make without them stepping in and helping you. I know paying taxes is a tough pill to swallow but when you look at the big picture, there is a lot of benefit to you.

I'll follow that line with an immediate disclaimer because I also know how wasteful governments can be. There is a happy medium in there somewhere. I think the biggest issue facing the US right now (and a lot fo countries) is the corporate interference in government corrupting the process.

[Claverhouse]

And while you are worried about the government steals from you I think you are failing to see the corporations taking from you as well.

Damn, somewhere I've got a book published in your New Deal period, which pointed out that when a government takes money from you in return for a benefit, it's called a tax: when a company does it's called a profit. They are both forms of tribute.

Wish I could remember even the author's name. He was quite ironical for an economist. Most of whom are wild-eyed loons.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Slider]

ha, choosing wot you want to buy from a company and being force-fed crappy, ridiculous government programs are two wholly separate things.

there's nothing wrong with a 'minimum wage' - but raising it an entire dollar/hr is simply asinine. It is already adjusted every few years for inflation anyway, so that argument is bollocks. I didn't vote for it either. Of course, it was obviously going to pass, most people are morons about the simplest things, how could I possibly expect them to have grasped simple economic theory? even on this board some people still don't get it.

you can go on and on about how good you think it is . . . and sure, it sounds good in theory - just like communism - and they both end up sucking. Raise the price of wages - you're not just raising those a minimum wage, you hafta raise everyone's because it's an across-the-board adjustment. Companies raise prices of goods to make up for lost revenue - can you blame them? And it puts people out of jobs because companies can't pay that much. It also favors large corporations because they can easily make the adjustment; small businesses (which make up something like 80% of all businesses), on the other hand, don't fare as well.

free enterprise -- well, let's see:

no tarrifs/embargos = companies can sell products for less

selling products for less = good for the consumer.


yes, Swift . . . we should barbecue the ignorant 70% I think.

[Claverhouse]

Free Trade just wipes out indigenous markets by dumping cheaper produced stuff in the local market place.

Even in England, where the best of all apples have been grown ( ideal climate ) 85% of orchards have been ploughed under in the last twenty years, in favour of inferior stuff the supermarkets import. Fine for the consumer allegedly, ruinous for the growers, and when stuff can't be imported they'll no longer have the tradition, ability or room to grow their own food.

That may not matter in a presently highly developed country like Britain, but it's kicking the living daylights out of third-world countries.

And why the fuck do other wages have to rise in relation to the lowest wage ? Some sort of law ?

:D

Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Are we talking about a state minimum wage for Florida?This page from the US Department of Labor says they didn't have one as of Jan 1, 2004:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm#Florida

And Slider, the federal law is not automatically adjusted for inflation, but is voted on at random intervals.
The minimum wage does not increase automatically. Congress must pass a bill which the President signs into law in order for the minimum wage to go up.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/q-a.htm

For a history, go here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/coverage.htm . Please note that it went to $3.35/hr in Jan, 1981 and didn't change again for 9 years, when it went to $3.80 in April, 1990. It has been at $5.15 since September 1, 1997, only 7 years ago...

[HairlessBluetick]

I have two points to state and that's all I'm going to say because I'm tired and I don't want to bother with more, but here they are:

1. $5.15 works out to be $10,712/year. And contrary to what many people think, most people who make minimum wage aren't teenagers. Most of them are adults and a good chunk are single parents. Can you live on 10712 a year? Could you raise your kids on that?

2. If minimum wage had been adjusted to inflation, it would be about 8. something. Doesn't sound like 5.15 to me. Or even $7.10.

[Claverhouse]

and sure, it sounds good in theory - just like communism -


I do get really sick of people saying communism is good in theory. It's not: it sounds bloody ridiculous, is unworkable and based on hysterical envy; and by basing it's roots in the laughable belief of Democracy and People's Rule is void of meaning: even in theory the People's Vanguard is merely an obvious form of oligarchy, one that entrenches itself as firmly as the one you've got over there. Or we have here.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

free enterprise -- well, let's see:

no tarrifs/embargos = companies can sell products for less

selling products for less = good for the consumer.


yes, Swift . . . we should barbecue the ignorant 70% I think.

The problem with what you are saying is that these low wage jobs are not only for adults but are also low skill service jobs with no chance of working your way up the ladder. The low wages people make aren't enough to meet needs like food, clothing and shelter. The manufacturing jobs move to countries where the governments allow companies to put the workers under lock and key and work 12 to 17 hours a day, 7 days a week for about $1 a day. This is something that even the US wouldn't stand for at home but people seem ok with it because it means they can pay $5 less for pants at Walmart, which they need to save because Walmart just put the family business under by artifically lowering its prices until the competition went out of business.

Cheaper products would be great, but really, that is not what happens. The products stay the same price (people were paying it before when the product was made in the US, why would they pay less if its made somewhere else) and the only one benefiting is the company. That sounds good to, except that the company fired all but the absolute essential staff and contracted out their jobs to other companies for a fraction of what it cost them to keep those employees. Fear not, those employees probably got picked up by the contractor and are happy to have a job for much less than they used to make.

Meanwhile the company is proud to present its record profits to investors.

The problem with your argument is that your trickle down theory of low prices to consumers doesn't work if the consumers can no longer afford the price of the goods. This will actually lead to a deflated economy. I know your dollar is worth the same at home but its dropping all over the rest of the world right now.

The 70% of the people that voted for this are people that don't deserve to work 60 hours a week at two jobs so they can put food on the table. That's another great trick, make them work less than 40 hours a week at a job so they aren't full time and aren't entitled to benefits or overtime.

A dollar more an hour (I have no clue what the actual number is) is a pittence to the companies but can make all the difference in the world to someone struggling to make ends meet.

[sbw]

And why the fuck do other wages have to rise in relation to the lowest wage ? Some sort of law ?



simply because the more experienced and higher-skilled laborers (the ones the company actually needs) will not accept being paid the same amount as the guy who started yesterday.

Scott

[Hunter]

Only problem with not raising the minimum wage is that in most places the cost of living more than likely exceeds what you get on minimum wage even working 60 hours a week. You won't get anywhere close to a comfortable life on $5.15 an hour (the min wage in NY right now). I realize there are people who say 'retrain and get a better job'! How are you supposed to do that when you're already working 40-60 hours a week just have food and shelter?

[jimkopelli]

Communism is a great system... for ants...

[sbw]

where I live, there are an unlimited number of service-industry jobs that average (with tips) 15-20 bucks an hour (I know--I used to work at a golf course). Any-damn-body can live on that. And hunter, 80% of the people who's wages are insufficient to support them are in that predicament because they decided to have children that they simply cannot afford. Some of my friends are starting to do this (just like my parents did), and I unapologetically have no sympathy for people who have kids because they want to, without considering the financial ramifications (read: financial suicide) of this decision. And I already know that I'm an asshole in this regard.

Scott

[sbw]

Jim--good call. ants and nomad gypsies.

Scott

[crule81]

Right. Any form of communism simply cannot work in any society larger than a tribe (or a commune, or Ann Arbor, or Berkeley, or Ithaca, etc...). Too bad there's not a hardcore Marxist who posts here. It would be fun. I've never met one. I wonder if they are able to have discussions without using silly jargon like "The peace-loving workers of ... " or bringing up the dialectic in every other sentence.

[booyalab]

I always say that if humanity was fundamentally good enough for communism to work, we would function equally as well under any form of government or no government, period.

[booyalab]

This is why I like capitalism, it's success relies on our worst attributes: selfishness, greed, pessimism, distrust of each other, etc. So paradoxically it's more likely to work for us

[mgb]

Right. Any form of communism simply cannot work in any society larger than a tribe (or a commune, or Ann Arbor, or Berkeley, or Ithaca, etc...). Too bad there's not a hardcore Marxist who posts here. It would be fun. I've never met one. I wonder if they are able to have discussions without using silly jargon like "The peace-loving workers of ... " or bringing up the dialectic in every other sentence.

As INTPs we should surely be able to argue with you...

I am pretty weak on communism, I think I wrote all my essays on Rousseau and Mill because the books were smaller, so bear with me.

I really think that the communism Marx had in mind as political theory was actually more of an economic "evolution". Communism was a utopian ideal that would occur once the other economic systems had created a world where the needs of everyone could be met. I guess I would equate it with the system on the Starship Enterprise where if you needed something the computer just made it for you (at least food wise). At that point greed would cease to exist because you could literally have everything.

Sounds pretty good to me. Let's not talk about Russia as communism. It wasn't. It was a bastardized version which suited the ruling class above all others just as an arms race was getting under way. True communism can exist on a large scale but the world is not ready for it. By that I mean that the world hasn't created the systems or technology for equality among all people to exist.

On the other hand...

The flaw with capitalism is that it does include greed but has no way to harness it. So eventually you will see capitalist societies destroy themselves because they have consumed every available resource. Now I know someone is going to come up with some sort of entreprenuerial example, but I mean every resource. What you have right now is America attacking other countries to secure resources for themselves before other countries can. They use war and diplomacy to do that. Things like the World Bank and IMF allow American corporations to completely disassemble the infrastructures of other countries so that natural resources can be stripped away and the often the countries main resource, people can be exploited through cheap labour and outragous costs for things that used to be almost free.

Capitalism in America and Europe now heavily relies on authoritarian governments all over the world that won't hesitate to kill someone if they step out of line and try and stand up for their rights and their homes.

In fact even the States uses government to slow capitalism down. Everyday the US seems to move towards a socialistic society because you don't want your citizens to be treated like the citizens of other countries. For example, medicare/medicaid. In a pure capitalistic society every person would fend for themselves. The government would not be paying for health care for anyone. You have a social assistance program when people are out of work. Even yes, legislated minimum wages. To pay for those programs and keep paying for them you see your taxes go up (otherwise you would have massive deficits, oops you have those already, wasn't there a tax cut...).

Capitalism in America rests on pretty shaky ground right now. It is build on a foundation of work done in other countries for cheap labour with raw goods bought for below market value in other countries. Your largest companies either make or purchase most of the goods offshore or do most of the work there or have significant off shore holdings because there just isn't enough in the US to support growth. When the people of these countries rebel your country goes into a state of crisis. Look at Venezuala, when the poor of the country elected a leftist leader and he began charging taxes on oil revenues the price of oil and gas went up in the US, affecting every single American. America now does everything it fought against the British for doing.

As people, you claim to be dog eat dog, but those rules only apply to the rest of the world and aren't even real. At home you want to see the elderly walking around, people off the streets and working, nice roads, an unpolluted country side and feel safe getting onto an airplace. Dog eat dog would be great, it implies that the US is some sort of meritocracy where the cream rises to the top. It doesn't. The cream is left in the middle class if they are lucky while the sons and daughters of the already rich are truly the only ones that have a chance of making it (unless you happen to marry one of them).

[Claverhouse]

Too bad there's not a hardcore Marxist who posts here. It would be fun. I've never met one. I wonder if they are able to have discussions without using silly jargon like "The peace-loving workers of ... " or bringing up the dialectic in every other sentence.

Yeah well, one of my best friends is a communist, he never speaks like that. Perhaps in his dissertions to the group he's part of, which I have no intention of ever reading... He's a council communist ( to be strongly differentiated from a councilist communist ) strongly affiliated to the Situationists ( the Internationale Situationniste ) now rather defunct. Basically he follows Rosa Luxembourg's views. But I've met other varieties... Marxism is really very boring.

On the other hand the devotees of Capitalism often speak in a language all their own too, regard any MBA course; or the inspirational speaking of tongues when they describe the glories of the functioning and the perfection that is to come.

It doesn't really matter which creed you follow: most people get screwed: it is important to remember that whilst we rightly mourn the countless victims of communism or nazism or fascism, capitalism had just as many victims to it's credit, particularly in the early industrial revolution. Children died in those factories and people had bitter destroyed lives just as much as if they lived under Mao Ze Dung.

And the great leaders of capitalism weren't that much of an improvement either,
One of my email sigs:


Jay Gould had himself elected president of Erie. Fisk was made vice-president and comptroller. Continued tragedy for the Erie was assured.

Stewart H. Holbrook The Age of the Moguls.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Capitalism in America and Europe now heavily relies on authoritarian governments all over the world that won't hesitate to kill someone if they step out of line and try and stand up for their rights and their homes.
And that ain't the half of it.

Good points, overall, btw.

[crule81]

Yeah well, one of my best friends is a communist, he never speaks like that.
Too bad. I would find it amusing.


Perhaps in his dissertions to the group he's part of, which I have no intention of ever reading... He's a council communist ( to be strongly differentiated from a councilist communist ) strongly affiliated to the Situationists ( the Internationale Situationniste ) now rather defunct. Basically he follows Rosa Luxembourg's views. But I've met other varieties... Marxism is really very boring.
But I've never even had a conversation with a Marxist - all of the far left at the university I attended never even contemplated it. It's not too big in suburban Detroit either. I think it would be interesting to engage in discourse with one for awhile.

[dubbeltop]

yeah less work money works for me

[cjs55]

I was such a noob back in those days. Typos, incomplete ideas and illiteracy abound.

(Yes, I am much more mature now)

At least I still hated democracy.

[nomir_dva]

I would never have had the opportunity to read this interesting thread if it were not for dubbeltop's quite random comment.

[Claverhouse]

You are welcome to explore anywhere in the forum... We have no locked rooms with dreadful secrets.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[cjs55]

Most of the dreadful threads are in classics actually, which is about as unlocked and unsecretive as you can get.

[coffeezombie]

minimum wage raises ALWAYS result in inflation, and also result in higher levels of unemployment among the very same poor people that the law is allegedly attempting to help; basic algebra dictates that if labor cost is to remain static (which is important to anyone who runs a business) then more $ per worker directly results in less total # of employees. therefore, some of the poor people lose their jobs.

If it weren't for people demanding higher wages and less hours of work, most of us would probably be working 50 hours a week at 2 dollars an hour. The company will hire just as much labor as it takes to finish the job, just like they always do. I am not shedding tears because some capitalist making 5 million dollars a year has to sell one of his mansions in the Bahamas.

[Claverhouse]

Most of the dreadful threads are in classics actually, which is about as unlocked and unsecretive as you can get.

It's as near as we got to the Shaigarology Sub-Forum...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

If it weren't for people demanding higher wages and less hours of work, most of us would probably be working 50 hours a week at 2 dollars an hour.
Except employers are competiting for wages. If an employer did that then another employer would put it up slightly higher etc. In other words you statement belies an ignorance of market economics :)

[Stillwater]

Except employers are competiting for wages. If an employer did that then another employer would put it up slightly higher etc.

Except just as often, employees are competing for wages. It's a race to the bottom when there are more workers than jobs. At some point the employees realize that by competitive downward pressure on wages, they are cutting their own throats. The labor gets organized :angry: and the employers :vader: start shopping for more desperate workers :sombrero: . *sigh* An imperfect world :sobs: .

[Purple-Silver Fox]

Raising minimum wages only makes profits lower. Some businesses with low profits will fail, but that loss will be compensated by the growth of consumption of the wage-workers.

The problem is not that Western employees are earning to much, those elsewhere are earning too little. Dictatorships typically do a great job in keeping wages low.

[wildcat]

"In short, this is not opposition based on philosophy or political leanings, but on economic analysis and on the mounting factual evidence that the law increases unemployment among the very people intended to be benefited."

full text:

http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html

this refers mostly to the unemployment question.

Scott
There is no such a thing as an independent economic analysis. It is just a garb for a political view, one way or another. But the scoundrels find it handy.

[coffeezombie]

Except employers are competiting for wages. If an employer did that then another employer would put it up slightly higher etc. In other words you statement belies an ignorance of market economics :)
It doesn't mean an ignorance in anything. The fact is, most capitalists are in an unspoken collusion to pay their employees as little as they can get away with and to keep as much as possible for themselves. I take it that Marx was just as ignorant as I am. :rolleyes2