Minimum Wage Fallacy Exploded

[Newpublius]

The minimum wage is typically expressed as an hourly rate. When one hears that the rate is $7 or $8 or $9 per hour, the differences in proposed minimum wages are expressed as relatively small numbers. For example, if an existing minimum wage of $7 is increased to $8, the mind automatically focuses on the difference - in this example a 'mere' dollar. Of course this has the ring of reasonableness to it and is a proposition that is difficult to argue against because ultimately the emotional response winds up controlling peoples' opinions on the matter - hence the strong popular appeal of generally higher minimum wage.

Of course this doesn't even survive the most superficial of inquiries, simple thought experiments reveal the fallacy for what it is, a non existing free lunch. We only need to express the hourly wage as an annual wage.



$7/hr

40 hours
$280/wk
$14560/yr


$8/hr

40 hours
$320/wk
$16640/yr


$9/hr

40 hours
$360/wk
$18720/yr


$10/hr

40 hours
$400/wk
$20800/yr


$11/hr

40 hours
$440/wk
$22880/yr


$12/hr

40 hours
$480/wk
$24960/yr


$13/hr

40 hours
$520/wk
$27040/yr


$14/hr

40 hours
$560/wk
$29120/yr


$15/hr

40 hours
$600/wk
$31200/yr



Of course the annual wages reveal the free lunch fallacy. The annual wages are clearly capable of being scaled against commonly purchased automobiles.

If worker 1 produced labor equivalent to the value of a Toyota Yaris, would you give him or her $31,200.00 for that labor product? Of course you wouldn't. The difference of $8 per hour at the hourly level is now the rather obvious and intuitive difference between a Toyota Avalon and a Toyota Yaris.

Of course secondary arguments ignoring how much labor is idled by a minimum wage argue that paying people more will be inherently stimulative. Another free lunch fallacy. For sure, even assuming no excess unemployment, the unidled labor will be compensated more, but this doesn't happen in a vacuum, because there isn't more aggregate income, this represents, at best a transfer of income from one group to another.

[Chris]

But you can argue rationally against an emotional argument, which is all min wage arguments are. But the low of supply and demand says it's decrease low wage jobs--it's not fair! Look what it truly costs, someone pays--it's not fair!

[decedent]

Damn these liberals wanting to work for their free lunches. Living wages are for commies. The poor are a blight on the American landscape and we should punish them as much as possible.

[Chris]

Damn these liberals wanting to work for their free lunches. Living wages are for commies. The poor are a blight on the American landscape and we should punish them as much as possible.

I see you've got the fake conservative down pat.

[Newpublius]

$#@! these liberals wanting to work for their free lunches. Living wages are for commies. The poor are a blight on the American landscape and we should punish them as much as possible.

Welfare is rightfully a societal burden, not a burden to be imposed on employment. When society does the latter, employers find it rather easy to avoid that cost and total welfare decreases. This is the deadweight loss imposed by price floors.

[zelmo1234]

If you want to see people that really want to prevent the poor, working poor and minorities from getting ahead. look no further then the policies inflicted upon them by the Democratic party. And then look at the results and tell me who in their right mind would want more of the same.

[Chris]

Welfare is rightfully a societal burden, not a burden to be imposed on employment. When society does the latter, employers find it rather easy to avoid that cost and total welfare decreases. This is the deadweight loss imposed by price floors.

My argument would be more general, :), in the sense of societal burden being that of general welfare. This even reflected in the Constitution's General Welfare clause. Minimum wage, being redistributive, is special welfare. Government should be restricted to using its powers only for general welfare. How society meets it's burden I was just read, from Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments: "That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and of his understanding."

[Chloe]

If you want to see people that really want to prevent the poor, working poor and minorities from getting ahead. look no further then the policies inflicted upon them by the Democratic party. And then look at the results and tell me who in their right mind would want more of the same.

Your solution? Blame doesn't really fix anything or help people.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The minimum wage is typically expressed as an hourly rate. When one hears that the rate is $7 or $8 or $9 per hour, the differences in proposed minimum wages are expressed as relatively small numbers. For example, if an existing minimum wage of $7 is increased to $8, the mind automatically focuses on the difference - in this example a 'mere' dollar. Of course this has the ring of reasonableness to it and is a proposition that is difficult to argue against because ultimately the emotional response winds up controlling peoples' opinions on the matter - hence the strong popular appeal of generally higher minimum wage.

Of course this doesn't even survive the most superficial of inquiries, simple thought experiments reveal the fallacy for what it is, a non existing free lunch. We only need to express the hourly wage as an annual wage.



$7/hr
40 hours
$280/wk
$14560/yr


$8/hr
40 hours
$320/wk
$16640/yr


$9/hr
40 hours
$360/wk
$18720/yr


$10/hr
40 hours
$400/wk
$20800/yr


$11/hr
40 hours
$440/wk
$22880/yr


$12/hr
40 hours
$480/wk
$24960/yr


$13/hr
40 hours
$520/wk
$27040/yr


$14/hr
40 hours
$560/wk
$29120/yr


$15/hr
40 hours
$600/wk
$31200/yr



Of course the annual wages reveal the free lunch fallacy.


Of course secondary arguments ignoring how much labor is idled by a minimum wage argue that paying people more will be inherently stimulative. Another free lunch fallacy. For sure, even assuming no excess unemployment, the unidled labor will be compensated more, but this doesn't happen in a vacuum, because there isn't more aggregate income, this represents, at best a transfer of income from one group to another. Excessive profits by your idle-rich idols is a two-martini free lunch.

[Bob]

If you want to see people that really want to prevent the poor, working poor and minorities from getting ahead. look no further then the policies inflicted upon them by the Democratic party. And then look at the results and tell me who in their right mind would want more of the same.

Were you and I argue that hiking the price of gasoline is outstanding to do and great for the economy, the left would shout at us and lash out at us.

But supposedly labor is different.

Folks, gas prices are a cost.

Labor is a cost.

Oil companies can argue their incomes cause a lot of higher paid work. I bet no democrat would buy that.

But they seem to blindly accept some sort of minimum wage law as somehow a good cost but gasoline prices a bad cost.

Both are bad costs to the economy.

[Newpublius]

FreelyFreely floating prices aren't 'bad' they allocate resources efficiently and send price signals to the market about demand. For instance, of a drought killed off a good portion of the tomato crop, the price of tomatoes would rise, people who really liked tomatoes would still buy them, people who didn't like them would refrain and the higher price would signal planters to grow tomatoes to mitigate the shortage imposed by the disaster.

I want people to have labor skills sufficiently capable of commanding the highest possible wage, but bottom line labor itself isn't intrinsically valuable. The time is valuable to the laborer, the product of labor is valuable to employers/consumers.

[Ethereal]

Freely floating prices aren't 'bad' they allocate resources efficiently and send price signals to the market about demand. For instance, of a drought killed off a good portion of the tomato crop, the price of tomatoes would rise, people who really liked tomatoes would still buy them, people who didn't like them would refrain and the higher price would signal planters to grow tomatoes to mitigate the shortage imposed by the disaster.

And the higher profit to be gained from tomatoes would incentivize new firms to enter the tomato market.

[Newpublius]

Yes, and I did say that!

[Ethereal]

Yes, and I did say that!

I thought you meant that existing firms would grow more tomatoes, not that new firms would enter the market. Either way, we're on the same page.

[Bob]

FreelyFreely floating prices aren't 'bad' they allocate resources efficiently and send price signals to the market about demand. For instance, of a drought killed off a good portion of the tomato crop, the price of tomatoes would rise, people who really liked tomatoes would still buy them, people who didn't like them would refrain and the higher price would signal planters to grow tomatoes to mitigate the shortage imposed by the disaster.

I want people to have labor skills sufficiently capable of commanding the highest possible wage, but bottom line labor itself isn't intrinsically valuable. The time is valuable to the laborer, the product of labor is valuable to employers/consumers.

Correct but I spoke of forced prices.

[decedent]

I see you've got the fake conservative down pat.

Well, how would you punish poor people, Einstein?

[Chris]

Well, how would you punish poor people, Einstein?

Why would you, Alice?

[donttread]

But you can argue rationally against an emotional argument, which is all min wage arguments are. But the low of supply and demand says it's decrease low wage jobs--it's not fair! Look what it truly costs, someone pays--it's not fair!

We are currently subsidising minimum wage via tax dollars to cover the housing , medical and food stamp benefits minimum wage workers require. We may as well pay higher prices at our fast food hang outs and at least have some choice in the matter

[Common]

All of you failed to mention that you cant live on 7-8-9-10 and MORE in many parts of the country. So this table is bullshit and absurd.

[Ethereal]

So this table is bull$#@! and absurd.

Way to keep things civil and mature. I'm sure this well help contribute to a constructive debate.

[Newpublius]

All of you failed to mention that you cant live on 7-8-9-10 and MORE in many parts of the country. So this table is bull$#@! and absurd.

Welfare remains welfare. One can't live off of $0 either and that's what happens if you compel,by law, the payment of $31,000 for labor worth $14,000. When expressed as an hourly wage many people have routinely overpaid for things. When shown to be a material cost, all you have is 'bullshit' -- sorry, but this is real life, there's no free lunch.

[Newpublius]

We are currently subsidising minimum wage via tax dollars to cover the housing , medical and food stamp benefits minimum wage workers require. We may as well pay higher prices at our fast food hang outs and at least have some choice in the matter

No, you're not. Wages received mitigate welfare. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY.

[Chris]

We are currently subsidising minimum wage via tax dollars to cover the housing , medical and food stamp benefits minimum wage workers require. We may as well pay higher prices at our fast food hang outs and at least have some choice in the matter

You'll end up with both as they are not tied together.

[Newpublius]

We may as well pay higher prices at our fast food hang outs and at least have some choice in the matter

No, actually you shouldn't. The reason should be relatively obvious. Paying higher prices at fast food hang outs (or at places that have a tendency to employ lower wage labor) has one absolute consequence that cannot be denied. Those funds aren't spent on other things. And if you think it doesn't matter because any given item represents a relatively small amount for you personally, consider your personal expenditure on pencils which obviously represent a small individual expense, but which, in the aggregate still add up to an entire industry in its own right.

[Common]

Way to keep things civil and mature. I'm sure this well help contribute to a constructive debate.

Nothing I said was uncivil or was intended to be, but heres some uncivil for your immature comment which you can stick up your ass.

You an chris are alot alike, when someone disagrees with you, you make comments like you did about me. When you disagree with Chris its ALWAYS because your emotional. No older marines died yet and made you a GOD. I have my opinions and beliefs and I couldnt care less if you like them or not.

Real Simple, you can live in rural louisiana on 10 bucks an hour and you would starve to death in NYC and NJ and most other states outside the south. There are Mc Donalds in Manhattan that were paying 10 bucks an hour 25 yrs ago

The raging of the right on the minimum wage I pay no attention to, because they would love to have people work for a buck and half an hour. Without a forced minimum wage employers would shaft people regularly as they do in fla there are law firms that specialize and just do wage theft and advertise it. I could just imagine if there was no forced minimum wage.

[Peter1469]

I can't imagine any real job where the market would set on a $1.50/hr wage.

[Common]

I can't imagine any real job where the market would set on a $1.50/hr wage.

They hard farms in NJ that was housing illegal immigrant workers, no running water.

They were paying them 1.50 an hour with a minimum wage until another farm ratted on them. They said the wage wasnt low considering they were giving them free room and board and one meal a day.

[Common]

I can't imagine any real job where the market would set on a $1.50/hr wage.

Peter if there were employers stealing from their employees there would be no need for a law firm to specialize in it not exclusively but its one of their specialties. It happens in florida and im sure it happens in other states.

Some Landscapers work their people 6 sometimes 7 days a week not a single benefit and some under the table and they pay them no overtime.

[gamewell45]

$#@! these liberals wanting to work for their free lunches. Living wages are for commies. The poor are a blight on the American landscape and we should punish them as much as possible.

And what sort of punishment do you recommend for these horrible Americans?

[Peter1469]

They hard farms in NJ that was housing illegal immigrant workers, no running water.

They were paying them 1.50 an hour with a minimum wage until another farm ratted on them. They said the wage wasnt low considering they were giving them free room and board and one meal a day.

That is a problem with allowing employers to use illegal aliens. That is not a true free market wage because the illegals have no power.

[Peter1469]

Peter if there were employers stealing from their employees there would be no need for a law firm to specialize in it not exclusively but its one of their specialties. It happens in florida and im sure it happens in other states.

Some Landscapers work their people 6 sometimes 7 days a week not a single benefit and some under the table and they pay them no overtime.

That is already illegal

[Green Arrow]

In order to be a "free lunch," wouldn't they be essentially doing nothing for the increase?

Americans have only been getting more productive as a people over the last few decades, I hardly think that qualifies as a "free lunch."

[Newpublius]

In order to be a "free lunch," wouldn't they be essentially doing nothing for the increase?

Americans have only been getting more productive as a people over the last few decades, I hardly think that qualifies as a "free lunch."

The productivity of labor is an important factor in determining wages, but not the only one. It's still the value of the product of labor which is relative to other things (for instance one can become very productive making something that drops in demand or something that attracted many entrants and the additional supply has caused prices to drop). Nevertheless even if we disregard that, let's assume productivity alone is the determining factor. Over time let's say your labor is becoming increasingly productive and valuable. The next logical question becomes, why can't you convince anybody to give you more money? The vast majority of US workers obviously manage to convince their employees to pay them more than minimum.

Labor is still a scarce resource and employers have to bid to get it. If they don't, ie if they underpay, and they might get away with that in the short term, employees will voluntarily turnover. The BLS stats show voluntary turnover and with employers like Walmart, the turnover rate increases dramatically.

In the US the MW viz avg wage is relatively low, the policy has negative consequences but it doesn't have real bite to it ($15 today will). It's a doctrine that negatively impacts people whose labor isn't particularly valuable.

One can see the same MW at work in a place where avg wage is much lower, Puerto Rico, and the MW has real bite there.

As the MW increases relative to avg wage it will cause excess unemployment (even if general unemployment rate is decreasing), and the canary in the coal mine is youth unemployment and in fact exactly what we predict will happen; happens. There has always been and always will be a wedge between general unemployment and youth unemployment as long as there is a MW.

[kilgram]

That is a problem with allowing employers to use illegal aliens. That is not a true free market wage because the illegals have no power.
An employee with a mortgage neither has any power to negotiate. And the list can go up.

It is what the filthy communists explain. The explotation and the power that has the owner of the means of production. You see a problem of overpowering in the case of illegals, but you don't see that happen to many other workers.

[Green Arrow]

The productivity of labor is an important factor in determining wages, but not the only one. It's still the value of the product of labor which is relative to other things (for instance one can become very productive making something that drops in demand or something that attracted many entrants and the additional supply has caused prices to drop). Nevertheless even if we disregard that, let's assume productivity alone is the determining factor. Over time let's say your labor is becoming increasingly productive and valuable. The next logical question becomes, why can't you convince anybody to give you more money? The vast majority of US workers obviously manage to convince their employees to pay them more than minimum.

Because I have no power over a multi-million (or billion as the case may be) dollar enterprise, an enterprise whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible and spending as little money as possible in pursuance of that goal.

[Peter1469]

An employee with a mortgage neither has any power to negotiate. And the list can go up.

It is what the filthy communists explain. The explotation and the power that has the owner of the means of production. You see a problem of overpowering in the case of illegals, but you don't see that happen to many other workers.

Legal employees have plenty of power and have government granted rights. If an employer is violating the law the Department of Labor will go after the employer on the employees behalf. Legal workers can easily look for other work.

I understand that some people are going to say employees are all exploited. I clearly disagree, but the main point here is that whatever level of exploitation legal employees face, it is nothing compared to exploitation faced by illegals.

[Peter1469]

Because I have no power over a multi-million (or billion as the case may be) dollar enterprise, an enterprise whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible and spending as little money as possible in pursuance of that goal.

You have power. You can go elsewhere. If you are exceptionally good at your job and have potential for advancement then you have a lot of power. If you are the average cog, then perhaps not so much.

[Newpublius]

Because I have no power over a multi-million (or billion as the case may be) dollar enterprise, an enterprise whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible and spending as little money as possible in pursuance of that goal.

You do, you can say no and find somebody else to give you more. Americans tell their employers to "take this job and shove it" all day long. As an employer if I COULD pay MW I'd do it. I can't because they'd leave. If 99% of labor force were clustered at MW, this would indicate monopsonistic power, its not, avg wage is much, much higher.

They should absolutely be seeking to minimize their costs, including wages and maximizing what they get for the output. You should be too.

If you're an employee, in a broader sense you are in business, your product is your labor, your customer is your employer. You should be minimizing your costs* associated with that employment and maximizing revenue, in this case the wage. And that's where the market is made.

* With respect to minimizing costs this is exactly what you do when you take your wages and spend those wages at the gas station, the grocery store, on cars, or contractors like doctors, painters, etc....all things being equal, you don't want to spend more for these things, you want to spend less. You maximize your welfare, seek the most advantageous trade possible to you. This is when you're the one acting as an 'employer'

[Chris]

The problem here is pushing the demands of living life onto others like employers. There can be no doubt the desire to live is a powerful driver to eat, clothe and shelter yourself. These wants are often emotionally framed as needs, necessities, and then pushed onto employers or even society as a whole as if they are responsible for your needs and thus have some power over you.

All Newpublius is saying is that your value in terms of labor and productivity is not determined by you alone, nor the employer alone.

[Green Arrow]

You do, you can say no and find somebody else to give you more. Americans tell their employers to "take this job and shove it" all day long. As an employer if I COULD pay MW I'd do it. I can't because they'd leave. If 99% of labor force were clustered at MW, this would indicate monopsonistic power, its not, avg wage is much, much higher.

That always works well on paper, not so much in reality. Particularly in a bad economic climate like our own.


They should absolutely be seeking to minimize their costs, including wages and maximizing what they get for the output. You should be too.

It wasn't a criticism, just an acknowledgement of reality. Businesses exist to make as much money as possible with as little cost possible. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

[Green Arrow]

You have power. You can go elsewhere. If you are exceptionally good at your job and have potential for advancement then you have a lot of power. If you are the average cog, then perhaps not so much.

As I told Newpubs, that's easy on paper. Not so easy in reality, particularly in a bad economic climate.

[Chris]

Paper? Reality? The fact is life makes demands of you to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, not employers, not society. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

[Green Arrow]

Paper? Reality? The fact is life makes demands of you to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, not employers, not society. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Yeah, well, I make the demand that if I work for you, you're going to pay me. If I do a damn good job, I demand to be paid damn well.

[kilgram]

Paper? Reality? The fact is life makes demands of you to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, not employers, not society. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Yes. Paper and reality.

Отправлено с моего GT-S6500D через Tapatalk

[Chris]

Yeah, well, I make the demand that if I work for you, you're going to pay me. If I do a damn good job, I demand to be paid damn well.

That's right, you make the demand. Were I an employer in need of your labor I would offer you what I subjectively value your labor at. If that wouldn't meet your demand, then you would have to find other employers to make demands from. It might be you find one who would, it might be you wouldn't.

[Chris]

Yes. Paper and reality.

Отправлено с моего GT-S6500D через Tapatalk


And the reality is if an employer doesn't meet your demands you can either go elsewhere or, let us recall, you can forcefully take control of the factory and drive the owner out.

[Peter1469]

Granted there are economic downturns and employment options may be limited. In such cases it is best to have some job with an eye open for something better. Most jobs in the US are "at will" meaning you are not locked into a long term employment contract.

[Green Arrow]

Granted there are economic downturns and employment options may be limited. In such cases it is best to have some job with an eye open for something better. Most jobs in the US are "at will" meaning you are not locked into a long term employment contract.

Right. My issue there is you don't always have the ability to just move on to a new job if your current employer won't pay you appropriately.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Your solution? Blame doesn't really fix anything or help people.

Go tell that to every leftist trying to blame white people for black problems.

[Peter1469]

Right. My issue there is you don't always have the ability to just move on to a new job if your current employer won't pay you appropriately.

Agreed

[Chris]

Economic hard times affect both employees and employers. Both are pretty much powerless to control natural booms and busts, and trying to control that, as the government, that entity of coercive power, tries, only makes matters worse.

[Newpublius]

Right. My issue there is you don't always have the ability to just move on to a new job if your current employer won't pay you appropriately.

That's a short term issue of course, turnover exists. If undercompensated American labor will voluntarily (and quite rationally) turnover even in the depths of the recession, particularly I might add for the Walmarts of the world.

[Peter1469]

If you want a repression proof job learn to become a bartender.

[Chris]

Or a politician.

[The Sage of Main Street]

We may as well pay higher prices at our fast food hang outs and at least have some choice in the matter The corporate parasites have tricked you into thinking that higher wages will, by some iron law of their magic market, cause higher prices. If we didn't let them have absolute control over the revenue, living wages could instead be taken out of the owners' hides. These conceited Dogberts are stuck on the idea that they have a divine right to never share what they extort in profits. They argue as if we must accept that their profits and the wages they are willing to pay are untouchable, so that logically their only recourse is to raise prices.

[Ethereal]

Nothing I said was uncivil or was intended to be, but heres some uncivil for your immature comment which you can stick up your ass.

You an chris are alot alike, when someone disagrees with you, you make comments like you did about me. When you disagree with Chris its ALWAYS because your emotional. No older marines died yet and made you a GOD. I have my opinions and beliefs and I couldnt care less if you like them or not.

Real Simple, you can live in rural louisiana on 10 bucks an hour and you would starve to death in NYC and NJ and most other states outside the south. There are Mc Donalds in Manhattan that were paying 10 bucks an hour 25 yrs ago

The raging of the right on the minimum wage I pay no attention to, because they would love to have people work for a buck and half an hour. Without a forced minimum wage employers would shaft people regularly as they do in fla there are law firms that specialize and just do wage theft and advertise it. I could just imagine if there was no forced minimum wage.

This is bullshit and absurd... :grin:

[Chris]

Nothing I said was uncivil or was intended to be, but heres some uncivil for your immature comment which you can stick up your ass.

You an chris are alot alike, when someone disagrees with you, you make comments like you did about me. When you disagree with Chris its ALWAYS because your emotional. No older marines died yet and made you a GOD. I have my opinions and beliefs and I couldnt care less if you like them or not.

Real Simple, you can live in rural louisiana on 10 bucks an hour and you would starve to death in NYC and NJ and most other states outside the south. There are Mc Donalds in Manhattan that were paying 10 bucks an hour 25 yrs ago

The raging of the right on the minimum wage I pay no attention to, because they would love to have people work for a buck and half an hour. Without a forced minimum wage employers would shaft people regularly as they do in fla there are law firms that specialize and just do wage theft and advertise it. I could just imagine if there was no forced minimum wage.



Nice emotional argument. Nothing factual, nothing logical, were there there'd be something to argue with you about but there's not. Your feelings and beliefs are your, well, feelings and beliefs.

[Ethereal]

An employee with a mortgage neither has any power to negotiate.

That depends on the person's situation. A mortgage does not automatically eliminate every employee's bargaining power. And a mortgage is a choice that many people voluntarily take on instead of just living within their present means and saving up money for a more modest home. And the largest obstacle to finding affordable housing is almost always the state. For example, a veteran in Alabama set up a mobile home on a wooded lot in a relatively smaller American city without submitting to regulatory inspections, fees, and ordinances, and has been getting harassed and intimidated ever since. All he did was try to settle on vacant land and live in peace and yet he is being aggressed against by local government "officials". Everywhere you look, statist policies are acting against the poor and the homeless.

[Ethereal]

Because I have no power over a multi-million (or billion as the case may be) dollar enterprise, an enterprise whose sole purpose is to make as much profit as possible and spending as little money as possible in pursuance of that goal.

I would argue that a large amount of the consolidation we observe in certain industries (like the banking sector, for example) is due to government policies that inhibit market competition from flourishing, mostly in the form of unfair privileges granted to politically connected firms.

[Ethereal]

Yes. Paper and reality.

Отправлено с моего GT-S6500D через Tapatalk

It does apply in reality, at least on a large and longrun scale. It may not apply very well in some individual circumstances, but the point of political policies is to apply to the most people most of the time. In other words, to make policy concerning the general welfare, not the specific or particular welfare.

[Ethereal]

Right. My issue there is you don't always have the ability to just move on to a new job if your current employer won't pay you appropriately.

And that is a fair point, but I think the solution is to simply get rid of all the unfair privileges that governments grant private firms rather than further expand government control into the private sector. It would be much easier for employees to command a viable market wage if so many firms were not benefiting from unfair political privileges.

[Bob]

When i read the Democrats viewpoint stacked up with republicans viewpoints, folks, they all came from public schools. I know some attended private schools. Were those republican schools?

As a young Democrat, my then views were formed in a family loyal to democrats. I don't believe I am a rebel son or the black sheep of the democratic family.

I happened to want to understand how things work and studied. My education in school taught me things like
1. Abe Lincoln the non slave owning president by magic fixed this country. My teachers forgot to mention he caused the deaths of over 630,000 humans. Come to think of it, I doubt many of you have clue one how many of our troops were killed serving FDR. I mean off the top of your head. Stuff like that is not taught in school. Saying how many died does not sound good for a president you want to rank high.

Take Bush as an example. The Democrats pretend to know to a count of a hundred how many died fighting two wars. Democrats suffer amnesia over how many died due to Obama. Seems they don't really mind it all that much.

Thank the schools for producing Democrats.

Republicans have to do a lot more study to learn all of the truth.

[Green Arrow]

And that is a fair point, but I think the solution is to simply get rid of all the unfair privileges that governments grant private firms rather than further expand government control into the private sector. It would be much easier for employees to command a viable market wage if so many firms were not benefiting from unfair political privileges.

That is fair and I don't necessarily disagree. I'm on the fence on the minimum wage, honestly.

[Peter1469]

Largely the minimum wage, as it currently stands, is a red herring. Very few jobs are worth less than it. And in bigger cities low wage workers get more than the federal minimum wage.

[Chris]

Let's not forget many of the megacorps like McDonald's support minimum wage.

Start at the 3 minute 42 second mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lwN5uP0LzI

Why does McD's support it? Because it helps big corporations and hurts small businesses. McD's is currently losing market share to small, specialty start ups, min wage is one way to stop them.

[Dr. Who]

That depends on the person's situation. A mortgage does not automatically eliminate every employee's bargaining power. And a mortgage is a choice that many people voluntarily take on instead of just living within their present means and saving up money for a more modest home. And the largest obstacle to finding affordable housing is almost always the state. For example, a veteran in Alabama set up a mobile home on a wooded lot in a relatively smaller American city without submitting to regulatory inspections, fees, and ordinances, and has been getting harassed and intimidated ever since. All he did was try to settle on vacant land and live in peace and yet he is being aggressed against by local government "officials". Everywhere you look, statist policies are acting against the poor and the homeless.
I don't obviously know the specifics, but the term squatter's rights has meaning in the law. If he is permitted to live there without any interference he can later legally assert his right to possession.

[Newpublius]

I don't obviously know the specifics, but the term squatter's rights has meaning in the law. If he is permitted to live there without any interference he can later legally assert his right to possession.

Adverse possession. Open, notorious, continuous and hostile and continuous for typically a fairly long time. Necessary circumstances will vary by state of course, but typically it cannot be asserted against the government generally. I have never had a case of this nature.

[decedent]

Welfare is rightfully a societal burden, not a burden to be imposed on employment. When society does the latter, employers find it rather easy to avoid that cost and total welfare decreases. This is the deadweight loss imposed by price floors.

I don't need to know any fancy economics to know that poor people don't deserve high wages. If they chose to be poor, why should they be rewarded?

[Dr. Who]

Adverse possession. Open, notorious, continuous and hostile and continuous for typically a fairly long time. Necessary circumstances will vary by state of course, but typically it cannot be asserted against the government generally. I have never had a case of this nature.
Which is why I said I don't know the specifics. Was the land public land or private (wooded lot could be either) although the mention of inspections and ordinances might imply public land.

[Peter1469]

Adverse possession. Open, notorious, continuous and hostile and continuous for typically a fairly long time. Necessary circumstances will vary by state of course, but typically it cannot be asserted against the government generally. I have never had a case of this nature.

Typically 20 years or so. That is why it is extremely rare these days.

[Green Arrow]

Plenty of people opposed to minimum wage have pointed out that companies like illegal immigrants because they can hire them to do a job for far less than what they would have to pay an American.

Given that fact, what would stop them from drastically lowering American wages if we got rid of the minimum wage?

[Captain Obvious]

You cannot consume more than you produce.

[Newpublius]

Given that fact, what would stop them from drastically lowering American wages if we got rid of the minimum wage?

The market (employees voluntarily turnover). Think about it, if your concern is that companies will offer wages below minimum wage and are prevented by law from doing so, fact is they aren't prevented by law from lowering wages to the minimum wage itself. What prevents them from doing that? Again, same answer: the market. If your concern were valid, a massive portion of the labor force would be clustered around the minimum wage. They're not, average wage is far above minimum.

[Chris]

Some questions, even arguments.

There's the argument the firm has profit motive. But wait, isn't that the employee's motive as well? He works to exchange labor for pay and thereby gain from it a profit. And if not, if there's more to it, then how can it be seriously argued that's the firm's only motive?

Second, I take it that the argument about the firm's profit motive is used to say because the firm profits more and more then the employee should as well. So then if the firm suffers loses that too should be shared in lower wages? Or is the firm the only one to take risk?

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

[kilgram]

Yes, capitalism exploits workers.

I thought you didn't defend neither enterprises neither capitalism.

[Chris]

Yes, capitalism exploits workers.

I thought you didn't defend neither enterprises neither capitalism.

Another example of Pavlovian triggers. In the video capitalism is used to mean free market not crony capitalism. You'd know that if you'd bothered to watch it. Oh, you did? OK, then, what did you think of his refutation of your neo-Marxist theory of capitalist (free market) exploitation?

[kilgram]

Another example of Pavlovian triggers. In the video capitalism is used to mean free market not crony capitalism. You'd know that if you'd bothered to watch it. Oh, you did? OK, then, what did you think of his refutation of your neo-Marxist theory of capitalist (free market) exploitation?
I don't know. I was only able to listen that guy for 3 seconds. His voice was impossible to stand.

And having to listen him 6 minutes... Is a torture that I am not going to stand.

However, you've said that you are not capitalist (many times) but you are defender of free market. Capitalism and free market are not the same.

Now, you try to justify it going to the meaning some time ago I told you, as free market capitalism and you tried to avoid and I was coming to you with my special definitions.

By the way, I don't need to watch the video. Are the same arguments repeated during the last 120 years by all the conservative.

And reality is absolutely the different. Capitalists always will try to get the most competitive prices in market. It means, if they have to pay less for the workers, they are going to do that. And it is not going to be done by a company, instead by most of them.

It is the same as bidding to get a contract with a company for a job. I am meaning the bids that happen in the big market, in the big corporations. The company will contract the company with the most competitive offer (it means, the cheapest with a quality standard that they consider). And that is what they are going to do.

In the XIX century, explotaition was the common. Workers confined to small rooms in big buildings... Working 14 hours per day... Until worker unions stopped that abuse from corporations or entrepeneurs.

Coming to say that exploitation is not real, is a fucking lie repeated by capitalists for more than 125 years, from the Industrial Revolution. Change the chip.

[Chris]

I don't know. I was only able to listen that guy for 3 seconds. His voice was impossible to stand.

And having to listen him 6 minutes... Is a torture that I am not going to stand.

However, you've said that you are not capitalist (many times) but you are defender of free market. Capitalism and free market are not the same.

Now, you try to justify it going to the meaning some time ago I told you, as free market capitalism and you tried to avoid and I was coming to you with my special definitions.

By the way, I don't need to watch the video. Are the same arguments repeated during the last 120 years by all the conservative.

And reality is absolutely the different. Capitalists always will try to get the most competitive prices in market. It means, if they have to pay less for the workers, they are going to do that. And it is not going to be done by a company, instead by most of them.

It is the same as bidding to get a contract with a company for a job. I am meaning the bids that happen in the big market, in the big corporations. The company will contract the company with the most competitive offer (it means, the cheapest with a quality standard that they consider). And that is what they are going to do.

In the XIX century, explotaition was the common. Workers confined to small rooms in big buildings... Working 14 hours per day... Until worker unions stopped that abuse from corporations or entrepeneurs.

Coming to say that exploitation is not real, is a fucking lie repeated by capitalists for more than 125 years, from the Industrial Revolution. Change the chip.


So you want to argue words? I've said I'm not a capitalist in the sense you define the term, which is basically crony capitalism. I am in the sense of it being as well a common term for the free market.

If you don't listen to the video you are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. What you're doing is redefining terms and argument into a strawman you have ready arguments to knock it down with. It's really impressive, but quite meaningless. But go ahead continue your Marxist arguments.

[kilgram]

So you want to argue words? I've said I'm not a capitalist in the sense you define the term, which is basically crony capitalism. I am in the sense of it being as well a common term for the free market.

If you don't listen to the video you are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. What you're doing is redefining terms and argument into a strawman you have ready arguments to knock it down with. It's really impressive, but quite meaningless. But go ahead continue your Marxist arguments.
Go ahead continue your Austrian School arguments.

Sorry, I don't have any appreciation for those school of poor creators, pro-corporations and slavers school.

The video is pure propaganda. When you come with something that is not propaganda. I am going to consider it to listen.

You basically spam the forum with your Austrian school videos.

And capitalist, I've discussed it as free market. If you are unable to understand the different point of views, it is not my fucking problem. It is yours.

And, as I've told you thousand times, when I talk capitalism, in generic I talk about capitalism, crony, free market and the mother who gave birth to it. If I need to make differenciation because consequences that I am reporting are different depending of the kind of capitalism I am going to do it.

Capitalism brings inequality. Gives power to enterprises and absolute freedom. You are obsessed with the early stages of capitalism and you are unable to foresee how that is the primitive state of capitalism, that as it becomes more complex tends to become what we have today, and in a pure free market state there is nothing that will stop them to reincorporate slavery and worse conditions.

Private property will go to the ones who have more economic power. Security will be only for those who pay it. You will have secure and non secure areas. The non-secure areas will be separated from the secure and that will be the areas where all the non-havers will live. In other words, the poor people, the excluded ones from society.

I am not attacking any system where the government is involved, only where the market is involved.

As I've done all the time, giving examples...

And, I've given examples of explotaition like all the conditions of living of the workers until the 20s-30s of XX century, even later. Where worker unions forced governments to create laws to protect the workers against all the abuses of the means of production owners.

In a free market, you will have a class warfare raised to the maximum, and the social conflicts will be the norm. And here, obviously, I foresee that the means of production owners will want to protect their interests and how they have the money, they will use the security forces that they own to attack the protesters.

There is no need to have government in capitalism to create power structures that are pretty authoritarian.

PS: And you always say you are not capitalist. Not capitalist as in the "meaning" that I define it. You are capitalist, point. Don't lie. Why do you think that when I say capitalist I mean crony capitalist or neoliberal?

[Peter1469]

Go ahead continue your Austrian School arguments.

Sorry, I don't have any appreciation for those school of poor creators, pro-corporations and slavers school.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Austrian economics.

[Chris]

Go ahead continue your Austrian School arguments.

Sorry, I don't have any appreciation for those school of poor creators, pro-corporations and slavers school.

The video is pure propaganda. When you come with something that is not propaganda. I am going to consider it to listen.

You basically spam the forum with your Austrian school videos.

And capitalist, I've discussed it as free market. If you are unable to understand the different point of views, it is not my fucking problem. It is yours.

And, as I've told you thousand times, when I talk capitalism, in generic I talk about capitalism, crony, free market and the mother who gave birth to it. If I need to make differenciation because consequences that I am reporting are different depending of the kind of capitalism I am going to do it.

Capitalism brings inequality. Gives power to enterprises and absolute freedom. You are obsessed with the early stages of capitalism and you are unable to foresee how that is the primitive state of capitalism, that as it becomes more complex tends to become what we have today, and in a pure free market state there is nothing that will stop them to reincorporate slavery and worse conditions.

Private property will go to the ones who have more economic power. Security will be only for those who pay it. You will have secure and non secure areas. The non-secure areas will be separated from the secure and that will be the areas where all the non-havers will live. In other words, the poor people, the excluded ones from society.

I am not attacking any system where the government is involved, only where the market is involved.

As I've done all the time, giving examples...

And, I've given examples of explotaition like all the conditions of living of the workers until the 20s-30s of XX century, even later. Where worker unions forced governments to create laws to protect the workers against all the abuses of the means of production owners.

In a free market, you will have a class warfare raised to the maximum, and the social conflicts will be the norm. And here, obviously, I foresee that the means of production owners will want to protect their interests and how they have the money, they will use the security forces that they own to attack the protesters.

There is no need to have government in capitalism to create power structures that are pretty authoritarian.

PS: And you always say you are not capitalist. Not capitalist as in the "meaning" that I define it. You are capitalist, point. Don't lie. Why do you think that when I say capitalist I mean crony capitalist or neoliberal?



You still haven't addressed the point made in the video. You're merely flailing away at strawmen. And will be ignored.

Here's the argument: For Marx a capitalist economy (note economy, not politics) was exploiting. This was based on the labor theory of value generally rejected by economists. Many still believe it exploitative and do so by redefining the term exploitation. Instead of using the standard definition:

http://i.snag.gy/djVQ9.jpg

they generalize it as:

http://i.snag.gy/TbJ4C.jpg

Following this definition, they see powerful capitalists taking advantage of workers' vulnerability in order to maximize profit. --Note that that was argued earlier in this thread.

But, as the video goes on, this ignores competition among capitalists for label, as Newpublius pointed out. Competition forces capitalists to pay workers close to the value of what they're worth.

Ignored too by that definition is the fact that exchanges are voluntary and generally mutually beneficial.

Most of the rest of the video goes on to examine the alternative, the use of big government to fix prices, redistribute wealth and centrally plan the economy. This alternative however exposed the inherent structural problem of any political system to become corrupt.