Minimum Wage Blowback: From Fast Food to Whole Foods

[Peter1469]

Minimum Wage Blowback: From Fast Food to Whole Foods (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-from-fast-food-to-whole-foods)

Calls for a $15 minimum wage are speeding up automation.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/uploads/2/7/6/1/27619303/6041817_orig.jpg


Government "help" always produces blowback. When government force is used to supposedly benefit "workers," employers adapt. It's during that adaptation process that the government "help" inevitably turns into government "hurt".


The "Fight for 15" thing has caused fast-food restaurants to rapidly automate. From McDonalds to Wendy's (who is putting kiosks in all 6,000 restaurants (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-wendys-to-put-kiosks-in-all-6000-restaurants)), those who thought the government would use the threat of violence to "help" them are not going to get $15/hr. They're going to get zero instead.


Pink slips instead of an unjustified raise.


It's not stopping at fast-food either. Other companies can see which way the wind is blowing as well, so they're getting out ahead of it.

Read more at the link.

[zelmo1234]

All of this demand for high wages for common jobs is funny.

Grocery stores get unions, and we get self scan checkout lanes, and part time stock clerks.

Now the Fast Food workers are listening to the call of the Unions and we now have to order ourselves.

I think it is funny, and these idiots can starve for all I care. Instead of complaining about their wages, how about you learn a skill and get a job that was not designed for a High School kid.

That might just be a better path? But no they demand 15 dollars and hour for work you could train a monkey to do

[Mac-7]

Minimum Wage Blowback: From Fast Food to Whole Foods (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-from-fast-food-to-whole-foods)

Calls for a $15 minimum wage are speeding up automation.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/uploads/2/7/6/1/27619303/6041817_orig.jpg



Read more at the link.

Now thanks to the evil business owners millions of illegal alien women are going to lose their jobs.

what can bleeding heart liberals in the government do about this?

[Archer0915]

I hate this. FF is where many young people start out! I think they should not automate and also not give them more money. If they do not like it they can move elsewhere.

[Peter1469]

We can also have a lower minimum wage for people under a certain age. I have seen it at 25, but I would make it lower like 21. That would give more opportunities to young people to get valuable work experience and start building a resume.

[Mac-7]

We can also have a lower minimum wage for people under a certain age. I have seen it at 25, but I would make it lower like 21. That would give more opportunities to young people to get valuable work experience and start building a resume.

Meaning that a lazy, slow moving 45 year old would get more pay that a younger person who might be a better worker?

[Peter1469]

Meaning that a lazy, slow moving 45 year old would get more pay that a younger person who might be a better worker?

If you were hiring unskilled labor why would you hire a 45 yr old when you could hire an eager teen for less?

[Common Sense]

This automation is happening with or without wage increases. The tech is just getting cheaper.

[Mac-7]

If you were hiring unskilled labor why would you hire a 45 yr old when you could hire an eager teen for less?

If bleeding heart socialists still allow me to make that choice I would pick the teenager.

[Mac-7]

This automation is happening with or without wage increases. The tech is just getting cheaper.

All the more reason to build a fence and deport all the illegal aliens.

[Common]

If any of you think they wouldnt go to robots if they paid 3.00 an hour youre fooling yourselves.

How can you corporate cheerleaders BELIEVE that corporations that make BILLIONS in profit cant pay a fair wage LIKE ALL CORPS DID FOREVER.

They are full of shit lieing greedy scumbags.

[Peter1469]

If any of you think they wouldnt go to robots if they paid 3.00 an hour youre fooling yourselves.

How can you corporate cheerleaders BELIEVE that corporations that make BILLIONS in profit cant pay a fair wage LIKE ALL CORPS DID FOREVER.

They are full of shit lieing greedy scumbags.

Your issue is with globalism, not corporations.

[MisterVeritis]

If any of you think they wouldnt go to robots if they paid 3.00 an hour youre fooling yourselves.

How can you corporate cheerleaders BELIEVE that corporations that make BILLIONS in profit cant pay a fair wage LIKE ALL CORPS DID FOREVER.

They are full of $#@! lieing greedy scumbags.
I need a translation. While I am very familiar with Marxism and its rants this is in an unfamiliar dialect.

[MMC]

Demo Economics, huh? :laugh:

[zelmo1234]

If any of you think they wouldnt go to robots if they paid 3.00 an hour youre fooling yourselves.

How can you corporate cheerleaders BELIEVE that corporations that make BILLIONS in profit cant pay a fair wage LIKE ALL CORPS DID FOREVER.

They are full of $#@! lieing greedy scumbags.

Because the corporations don't pay the wages, the Franchise owners do

The average owner makes 250K per year per store. And the increase in wages cost about 400K? Are you planning on giving them the money?

[decedent]

Meanwhile, in China:

iPhone Maker Foxconn Has Replaced 60,000 Human Jobs with Robots
(http://fortune.com/2016/05/26/foxconn-factory-robot-workers/)
Trump's shirts will soon be made by Chinese robots.

[gamewell45]

I think it is funny, and these idiots can starve for all I care.

They won't starve; you'll have to help pay for their food out of your tax dollars. Enjoy.

[nathanbforrest45]

If you were hiring unskilled labor why would you hire a 45 yr old when you could hire an eager teen for less?

Because you are hiring a teen mother who has no skills and never will and will end up being that 45 year old slug

[Green Arrow]

All of this demand for high wages for common jobs is funny.

Grocery stores get unions, and we get self scan checkout lanes, and part time stock clerks.

Now the Fast Food workers are listening to the call of the Unions and we now have to order ourselves.

I think it is funny, and these idiots can starve for all I care. Instead of complaining about their wages, how about you learn a skill and get a job that was not designed for a High School kid.

That might just be a better path? But no they demand 15 dollars and hour for work you could train a monkey to do

Considering manufacturing has left the U.S. at break-neck speeds I don't know how you expect every worker in America to get a job in a skilled trade. I know several people that work in the service industry that had the certifications to work in trades like you're talking about, but the jobs just aren't there anymore.

[MisterVeritis]

It is time to eliminate all minimum wage laws.

[Green Arrow]

It is time to eliminate all minimum wage laws.

That will never happen. Time to move on.

[gamewell45]

It is time to eliminate all minimum wage laws.


Good luck on getting that done. :)

[zelmo1234]

They won't starve; you'll have to help pay for their food out of your tax dollars. Enjoy.

No I am counting on insolvency to take care of that.

In the not to distant future, we will be back to, by the sweat of your brow, shale you earn you keep, And from what I am seeing, it can't get here fast enough.

[zelmo1234]

Considering manufacturing has left the U.S. at break-neck speeds I don't know how you expect every worker in America to get a job in a skilled trade. I know several people that work in the service industry that had the certifications to work in trades like you're talking about, but the jobs just aren't there anymore.

That is not true. Sales is and will always be a good profession for those willing to work at it. High school education is all that is needed to get your foot in the door.

Then there are the repair Trades, They are doing well, a good appliance repair person or installer, can almost name their price.

Then you still have the Tool & Die industry that is thriving in the USA, those people make very good livings

Welders and heavy equipment operator's are in high demand and making 6 figure income in many cases, and most community colleges will get you certification those trades

Even in the food services, a good Chef can earn a very good living as can a good bartender, the hours suck, but they are good jobs.

And then with a little training, usually at a community college, there are the nursing and medical assistant fields. Prison Guards, and public janitorial.

These are all good trades, that are not in the construction industry, and that is starting to ramp up again, but much of that work is cyclical, so a person needs to be a good financial planner.

What I see is a lot of jobs, that people don't want to do, because it takes effort. So what they want is 15 dollars an hour for saying would you like some fries with that?

I have not given up hope in America, and most of the people that can't find a trade, where they can make a living, are not trying too.

[Peter1469]

Minimum wage isn't going anywhere. But its current level is likely below a free market wage in most places.

[MisterVeritis]

Good luck on getting that done. :)
It is not my job to do it. Nor do I care all that much. I am retired and not likely to ever hire another person again. The ones who need to push their politicians hard to end minimum wage laws are the 20-nothings who have been harmed by it.

Ending welfare and food stamp programs would provide motivation.

[Green Arrow]

Minimum wage isn't going anywhere. But its current level is likely below a free market wage in most places.

If that was the case, why hasn't it already gotten to that point?

[Crepitus]

Minimum Wage Blowback: From Fast Food to Whole Foods (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-from-fast-food-to-whole-foods)

Calls for a $15 minimum wage are speeding up automation.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/uploads/2/7/6/1/27619303/6041817_orig.jpg



Read more at the link.
This is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage flap, not because of it. Most of these systems are too complex to have been designed in the last few months. Plus they were going to save the company money whether wage went up or not.

Use your heads people, they are using the minimum wage flap as an excuse to screw people harder while making it someone else's fault.

[MisterVeritis]

This is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage flap, not because of it. Most of these systems are too complex to have been designed in the last few months. Plus they were going to save the company money whether wage went up or not.

Use your heads people, they are using the minimum wage flap as an excuse to screw people harder while making it someone else's fault.
I accept your first point. As government regulations make it more expensive to hire and use humans, businesses will get creative and solve the problem that the government created.

The politicians, unconstitutionally, passed minimum wage laws. They are the ones screwing people. It is their fault.

[Crepitus]

I accept your first point. As government regulations make it more expensive to hire and use humans, businesses will get creative and solve the problem that the government created.

The politicians, unconstitutionally, passed minimum wage laws. They are the ones screwing people. It is their fault.
They are protecting people. Without a little government help we would all have been working in factories since we were children like in Dickens day.

[MisterVeritis]

They are protecting people. Without a little government help we would all have been working in factories since we were children like in Dickens day.
No. We wouldn't. The government was not granted such enormous, fascistic powers. The government seized those powers anyway. And now the politicians, pander to some and, ironically, hurt the ones they pandered to.

[Crepitus]

No. We wouldn't. The government was not granted such enormous, fascistic powers. The government seized those powers anyway. And now the politicians, pander to some and, ironically, hurt the ones they pandered to.
Then what would have stopped them?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Because the corporations don't pay the wages, the Franchise owners do

The average owner makes 250K per year per store. And the increase in wages cost about 400K? Are you planning on giving them the money? 250K for doing what? Ownership is static, work is dynamic. The workers create the value of the investment; the idle rich are just spectators.

[MisterVeritis]

No. We wouldn't. The government was not granted such enormous, fascistic powers. The government seized those powers anyway. And now the politicians, pander to some and, ironically, hurt the ones they pandered to.

Then what would have stopped them?
Market forces.

[Crepitus]

No. We wouldn't. The government was not granted such enormous, fascistic powers. The government seized those powers anyway. And now the politicians, pander to some and, ironically, hurt the ones they pandered to.

Market forces.
So tell me, which market force is it that drives businesses to pay low wage workers more?

[Peter1469]

If that was the case, why hasn't it already gotten to that point?

Gotten to what point?

[MisterVeritis]

So tell me, which market force is it that drives businesses to pay low wage workers more?
Companies are always in competition for good workers.

[Crepitus]

Companies are always in competition for good workers.
So how did they get away with it before things like minimum wage laws and unions?

[MisterVeritis]

So how did they get away with it before things like minimum wage laws and unions?
Market forces. The minimum wage laws were intended to keep blacks out of the labor force. And they are still working today.

[Crepitus]

Market forces. The minimum wage laws were intended to keep blacks out of the labor force. And they are still working today.
Right wing myth on the wage laws though I'm sure they were applied that way at times.

These mythical market forces were not working, that's by there were laws passed.

[zelmo1234]

250K for doing what? Ownership is static, work is dynamic. The workers create the value of the investment; the idle rich are just spectators.

I agree, you go and start a fast food joint? OH! Wait, it is about 1.5 million to get one going? And Banks don't generally make loans on restaurants, because they so often fail?

Do you think a group of minimum wage no skill workers can come up with that kind of cash?

Didn't think so.

So you answer is, they have taken the risk so they get the reward.

[Green Arrow]

Gotten to what point?

Where "the market's" wages are higher than the federal minimum.

[Peter1469]

Where "the market's" wages are higher than the federal minimum.

In cities they are.

[MisterVeritis]

Right wing myth on the wage laws though I'm sure they were applied that way at times.

These mythical market forces were not working, that's by there were laws passed.
Market forces always work. They even work when the government fascistically interferes. That is what is happening today. The government has priced entry level labor out of the market. Machines will take the entry level workers places.

[Crepitus]

Market forces always work. They even work when the government fascistically interferes. That is what is happening today. The government has priced entry level labor out of the market. Machines will take the entry level workers places.
mechanization/computerization was happening anyway. It is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage movement but not directly because of it. Market forces might work without the human element involved, but things like greed and the human desire to be in control skew that.

[MisterVeritis]

mechanization/computerization was happening anyway. It is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage movement but not directly because of it. Market forces might work without the human element involved, but things like greed and the
Did you run out of words?

What do you mean by greed? Is that what people on your side of the issue are when you want more money than you are worth? Isn't a fascistic, government directed wage greedy?

[Crepitus]

Did you run out of words?

What do you mean by greed? Is that what people on your side of the issue are when you want more money than you are worth? Isn't a fascistic, government directed wage greedy?
Go back and look again, for some reason it cut off a portion of my post. fixed now.

No, a government directed minimum wage is not greedy.

[MisterVeritis]

mechanization/computerization was happening anyway. It is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage movement but not directly because of it. Market forces might work without the human element involved, but things like greed and the human desire to be in control skew that.
Uh, those are market forces. You get to choose for you and I get to choose for me. I will do what I believe is in my best interests. You get to do the same.

[MisterVeritis]

Go back and look again, for some reason it cut off a portion of my post. fixed now.

No, a government directed minimum wage is not greedy.
Why isn't a government imposed wage greed? It is more than you are worth.

[Crepitus]

Uh, those are market forces. You get to choose for you and I get to choose for me. I will do what I believe is in my best interests. You get to do the same.
No, that's human nature, which doesn't always come tempered with common sense.

[Crepitus]

Why isn't a government imposed wage greed? It is more than you are worth.
No, it's not. There is not one person in the world who is worth less than having a place to sleep and enough to eat if he/she is willing to work full time.

[MisterVeritis]

No, that's human nature, which doesn't always come tempered with common sense.
I cannot help that you do not understand liberty and therefore fail to understand market forces. That is a personal problem.

[MisterVeritis]

No, it's not. There is not one person in the world who is worth less than having a place to sleep and enough to eat if he/she is willing to work full time.
This is why you fail.

It is not the concern of a business that you have a place to sleep.

[Cletus]

No, it's not. There is not one person in the world who is worth less than having a place to sleep and enough to eat if he/she is willing to work full time.

It is not the value of the person that should determine the wage. It is the value of the person's labor to the employer.

[Crepitus]

I cannot help that you do not understand liberty and therefore fail to understand market forces. That is a personal problem.
I cannot help if you think it's OK to starve people to death when they work for you. That is a personal problem.

[MisterVeritis]

I cannot help if you think it's OK to starve people to death when they work for you. That is a personal problem.
It is not my problem.

And that is why you fail. All Marxists and all wannabe tyrants believe as you do. You run afoul of human nature and believe, magically, that you have the answer.

You are the greediest people around. Thank you for providing the evidence.

[Crepitus]

This is why you fail.

It is not the concern of a business that you have a place to sleep.
This is why you fail. It is the concern of the business. People who do not make ends meet to the point where they can eat and live have short working lives.

[MisterVeritis]

This is why you fail. It is the concern of the business. People who do not make ends meet to the point where they can eat and live have short working lives.
No. It is up to you to figure out where you will live and how you will feed yourself. It is not up to the business owner to wipe your nose.

This is why Marxists fail and end up murdering whole populations. You are fools.

[Crepitus]

It is not my problem.

And that is why you fail. All Marxists and all wannabe tyrants believe as you do. You run afoul of human nature and believe, magically, that you have the answer.

You are the greediest people around. Thank you for providing the evidence.
Ugh, I don't have time to run around this circle with you again.

Have a nice day.

[MisterVeritis]

Ugh, I don't have time to run around this circle with you again.

Have a nice day.
This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.

:grin:

[zelmo1234]

Go back and look again, for some reason it cut off a portion of my post. fixed now.

No, a government directed minimum wage is not greedy.

Sure it is. People are asking for more money in most cases than the own makes. That by any definition is Greed.

As for the Automation? It is directly related to the Minimum wage discussion. When you have a model that is making desired profit margins, you don't invest millions to change it.

These owners have not choice.

[Crepitus]

Sure it is. People are asking for more money in most cases than the own makes. That by any definition is Greed.

As for the Automation? It is directly related to the Minimum wage discussion. When you have a model that is making desired profit margins, you don't invest millions to change it.

These owners have not choice.

Lie.

The problem is that there is no such thing as an upper limit on a desired profit margin. If a million dollar investment nets 10 million in profits over time they will do it whether the present profit margin is adequate or not.

So no, it is not directly related to the minimum wage discussion. That is simply an excuse, and you and the other gullible conservatives are eating it up with a spoon.

[Crepitus]

This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.

:grin:
If that's what you call what you are using I don't want it and am better off without it.

[zelmo1234]

No, it's not. There is not one person in the world who is worth less than having a place to sleep and enough to eat if he/she is willing to work full time.

Yes there is!

And the Minimum wage is not just for full time workers is it?

Most of these jobs are not designed nor were they intended to support families and pay the bills, They were jobs that Kids did, and they were jobs that adults would take to make a little extra money. They require very little skill.

Listen if your Dream job is flipping burgers for McDonalds, they you are going to have to sacrifice some of life's luxuries. And Yes I understand that the current policies of our government are causing a lot of this to happen, but the people elect politicians that create this crap, so they need to live with it.

[zelmo1234]

I cannot help if you think it's OK to starve people to death when they work for you. That is a personal problem.

Now we see some of the same old BS. There are not people starving in the USA today.

And the fastest way to have wages rise it to get people working again. As a business owner I have jobs that pay a certain amount, because I require skilled trades, My workers make more than the 15 dollars an hour. But in the summer I hire Collage Students as runners. This means they get tools and supplies for the contractors, I also hire interns, that work on Web Pages, and Marketing. I am helping them complete their degree and build a resume.

Those workers make more than MI Minimum, which I think is 8.15 per hour, but they don't make as much as my skilled trades people. If I had to pay them 15 dollars an hour I could hire one extra skilled person for each site, and would be better off.

Fast food restaurants will be better off, firing half of their staff's and putting in computers .

That is the way of the world. So you say that they are starving at 7.25 an hour? How about unemployed, is that going to be better for them?

Because that is what is going to happen to millions of workers

[Captain Obvious]

When it goes from the land of opportunity to the land of handouts and feeding the wealth pig, society collapses.

[del]

blah, blah, blah

[zelmo1234]

Lie.

The problem is that there is no such thing as an upper limit on a desired profit margin. If a million dollar investment nets 10 million in profits over time they will do it whether the present profit margin is adequate or not.

So no, it is not directly related to the minimum wage discussion. That is simply an excuse, and you and the other gullible conservatives are eating it up with a spoon.

Ok if I am lying, Tell me how a Franchise owner that makes 250k pays for the 350 to 400 K in increased wages?

I will tell you how they are doing it. They are putting in computers. Because that is how they can continue to be profitable.

And What do you think the proper return on investment should be? Who is the one that gets to decide that.

Here is what I can tell you. I am at the point in my life, that if I sold all of my assets and invest the money in securities I could make more than I am making today. Last week we just hired our 88 and 89th employee.

If you were to pass legislation tomorrow that cut my profit margin, that is exactly what I would do and the people that work for me would be out of a job.

That is why the socialist BS that the left are pitching never works, They always assume that people will continue to do what they are doing for less money.

[del]

lol

[zelmo1234]

blah, blah, blah

Here is a perfect example? I can't imagine employing people like this, but can you Imagine paying it over 7.25 an hour?

[Captain Obvious]

blah, blah, blah

Smartest thing you've said in a while, keep up the good work.

How's the wood chipper running?

[William]

The main two things I don't understand about this discussion are -

What is government, and what are the reasons for stuff like the minimum wage?

The way I think about it, is that government is something most societies think is necessary. In a democracy, government is elected one way or another, and we try and choose those people who will order society the way we think it should be. So government is not the enemy unless it becomes a dictatorship, and if that can happen, we should change our system of government to something which prevents that (if you put too much power in the hands of one man - like a President - there is a danger of an effective dictatorship).

So government should be a tool we use to do things most of society agrees should be done. Of course there are things an elected government may do which we don't agree with, but in any society with millions of people, you are not going to give everyone exactly what they want. So I don't understand the attitude a lot of people here seem to have - that it is bad to have government control things. We elect these people, and that's what they are there for.

And the reason for stuff like the minimum wage and social services, is not to stop people making too much profit - it's to stop stuff (like Crepitus said) like little boys going up chimneys, and children working down mines and in factories doing dangerous jobs for pennies. It's to stop people having to depend on charity and the workhouse to survive.

We all live in society, but no matter how much we may hide behind our parents' wealth, or in gated communities, we cannot escape having to move about, go to school, go shopping, or to the movies, in that society. And we cannot escape having to step over street people (like we saw in San Francisco) or being in danger of being attacked by a desperate poor person. No matter how hard hearted we become, or how many security guards we can afford - we will be faced with the reality one day.

So isn't it better to have controls - like minimum wage - public education, public health, etc. so that we don't have to escape from desperately poor people? And isn't it better that we try to keep the gap between billionaires and street people to a reasonable level? We all like having lots of money, but isn't it possible to both have enough money and make sure people are not hungry and without shelter - and isn't that better for society?

[Captain Obvious]

The main two things I don't understand about this discussion are -

What is government, and what are the reasons for stuff like the minimum wage?

The way I think about it, is that government is something most societies think is necessary. In a democracy, government is elected one way or another, and we try and choose those people who will order society the way we think it should be. So government is not the enemy unless it becomes a dictatorship, and if that can happen, we should change our system of government to something which prevents that (if you put too much power in the hands of one man - like a President - there is a danger of an effective dictatorship).

So government should be a tool we use to do things most of society agrees should be done. Of course there are things an elected government may do which we don't agree with, but in any society with millions of people, you are not going to give everyone exactly what they want. So I don't understand the attitude a lot of people here seem to have - that it is bad to have government control things. We elect these people, and that's what they are there for.

And the reason for stuff like the minimum wage and social services, is not to stop people making too much profit - it's to stop stuff (like Crepitus said) like little boys going up chimneys, and children working down mines and in factories doing dangerous jobs for pennies. It's to stop people having to depend on charity and the workhouse to survive.

We all live in society, but no matter how much we may hide behind our parents' wealth, or in gated communities, we cannot escape having to move about, go to school, go shopping, or to the movies, in that society. And we cannot escape having to step over street people (like we saw in San Francisco) or being in danger of being attacked by a desperate poor person. No matter how hard hearted we become, or how many security guards we can afford - we will be faced with the reality one day.

So isn't it better to have controls - like minimum wage - public education, public health, etc. so that we don't have to escape from desperately poor people? And isn't it better that we try to keep the gap between billionaires and street people to a reasonable level? We all like having lots of money, but isn't it possible to both have enough money and make sure people are not hungry and without shelter - and isn't that better for society?

Subsidizing minimum wage is a way for politicians to keep their jobs basically, at the expense of the middle class because the wealthy class ain't paying for this shit, no fucking way.

This is democracy. Your former prime minister got it right, "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter".

[zelmo1234]

The main two things I don't understand about this discussion are -

What is government, and what are the reasons for stuff like the minimum wage?

The way I think about it, is that government is something most societies think is necessary. In a democracy, government is elected one way or another, and we try and choose those people who will order society the way we think it should be. So government is not the enemy unless it becomes a dictatorship, and if that can happen, we should change our system of government to something which prevents that (if you put too much power in the hands of one man - like a President - there is a danger of an effective dictatorship).

So government should be a tool we use to do things most of society agrees should be done. Of course there are things an elected government may do which we don't agree with, but in any society with millions of people, you are not going to give everyone exactly what they want. So I don't understand the attitude a lot of people here seem to have - that it is bad to have government control things. We elect these people, and that's what they are there for.

And the reason for stuff like the minimum wage and social services, is not to stop people making too much profit - it's to stop stuff (like Crepitus said) like little boys going up chimneys, and children working down mines and in factories doing dangerous jobs for pennies. It's to stop people having to depend on charity and the workhouse to survive.

We all live in society, but no matter how much we may hide behind our parents' wealth, or in gated communities, we cannot escape having to move about, go to school, go shopping, or to the movies, in that society. And we cannot escape having to step over street people (like we saw in San Francisco) or being in danger of being attacked by a desperate poor person. No matter how hard hearted we become, or how many security guards we can afford - we will be faced with the reality one day.

So isn't it better to have controls - like minimum wage - public education, public health, etc. so that we don't have to escape from desperately poor people? And isn't it better that we try to keep the gap between billionaires and street people to a reasonable level? We all like having lots of money, but isn't it possible to both have enough money and make sure people are not hungry and without shelter - and isn't that better for society?

I don't think that the government is the answer, Sure we all want those things, but look at what happens when the government becomes involved with an issue. It becomes more expensive, and the quality drops.

that is just the way it is. So if you can go it with out government it will be a better end result.

[del]

Here is a perfect example? I can't imagine employing people like this, but can you Imagine paying it over 7.25 an hour?

it's easier to imagine than the fantasies you regularly post.

[del]

Smartest thing you've said in a while, keep up the good work.

How's the wood chipper running?

send over your kids

[Captain Obvious]

send over your kids

Two out of three ok?

[Crepitus]

Yes there is!

And the Minimum wage is not just for full time workers is it?

Most of these jobs are not designed nor were they intended to support families and pay the bills, They were jobs that Kids did, and they were jobs that adults would take to make a little extra money. They require very little skill.

Listen if your Dream job is flipping burgers for McDonalds, they you are going to have to sacrifice some of life's luxuries. And Yes I understand that the current policies of our government are causing a lot of this to happen, but the people elect politicians that create this crap, so they need to live with it.


Now we see some of the same old BS. There are not people starving in the USA today.

And the fastest way to have wages rise it to get people working again. As a business owner I have jobs that pay a certain amount, because I require skilled trades, My workers make more than the 15 dollars an hour. But in the summer I hire Collage Students as runners. This means they get tools and supplies for the contractors, I also hire interns, that work on Web Pages, and Marketing. I am helping them complete their degree and build a resume.

Those workers make more than MI Minimum, which I think is 8.15 per hour, but they don't make as much as my skilled trades people. If I had to pay them 15 dollars an hour I could hire one extra skilled person for each site, and would be better off.

Fast food restaurants will be better off, firing half of their staff's and putting in computers .

That is the way of the world. So you say that they are starving at 7.25 an hour? How about unemployed, is that going to be better for them?

Because that is what is going to happen to millions of workers


Ok if I am lying, Tell me how a Franchise owner that makes 250k pays for the 350 to 400 K in increased wages?

I will tell you how they are doing it. They are putting in computers. Because that is how they can continue to be profitable.

And What do you think the proper return on investment should be? Who is the one that gets to decide that.

Here is what I can tell you. I am at the point in my life, that if I sold all of my assets and invest the money in securities I could make more than I am making today. Last week we just hired our 88 and 89th employee.

If you were to pass legislation tomorrow that cut my profit margin, that is exactly what I would do and the people that work for me would be out of a job.

That is why the socialist BS that the left are pitching never works, They always assume that people will continue to do what they are doing for less money.
Like I told Mr. V, I ain't got time to go around the same old circle with you.

[del]

Two out of three ok?

i don't give a shit; i still charge medicaid the same

[Dr. Who]

If you were hiring unskilled labor why would you hire a 45 yr old when you could hire an eager teen for less?
I don't know - maybe because the 45-year-old won't always be checking his/her phone for earth shatteringly important texts like "what are you doing?"

[Dr. Who]

It is not the value of the person that should determine the wage. It is the value of the person's labor to the employer.
So, do you think malnourished people who are living in their cars or shelters make better employees when they get sick more often than properly fed employees that actually have a decent place to sleep at night or can afford to get medical care? If you were running a FF operation would you want an employee in there with contagious pneumonia or every germ going, and coughing all over the food, let alone several such employees? Would you want them coming to work with cockroaches hanging out in their clothing because they are living in substandard accommodations? That too might have an impact on such a business.

[Peter1469]

I don't know - maybe because the 45-year-old won't always be checking his/her phone for earth shatteringly important texts like "what are you doing?"

Fire that kid and hire another. If the min wage for those 21 and under were 25% less than the min wage for older people it would incentivize hiring younger people who need entry level jobs to build a career.

Hiring a 45 year old for an entry level job is problematic. Why is the 45 year old not skilled?

I will bet on the younger kids. Tell them your policy up front. You are here to work.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Right wing myth on the wage laws though I'm sure they were applied that way at times.

These mythical market forces were not working, that's why there were laws passed. The market force is predatory greed, enabled by well-financed brainwashing glorifying the ruling parasites and humiliating those not in on the scam. It is modeled on religious superstition (Providence).

[The Sage of Main Street]

I agree, you go and start a fast food joint? OH! Wait, it is about 1.5 million to get one going? And Banks don't generally make loans on restaurants, because they so often fail?



Didn't think so.

So your answer is, they have taken the risk so they get the reward. Risk means stupidity, as in "That was a pretty risky thing you did." Why would banks finance a risky venture? Because they know there is actually little risk with an available market and artificially low wages accepted by brainwashed sheep. Capitalists throw money at a problem; the employees prevent the money from disappearing. And they are the ones who make it grow to pay off start-up loans and pay the employee who got the loan, who should not be the owner just because of that one task. That $1.5 million is not his money; he is only an agent.

We should abolish these absentee owners and have co-ops start up with bank loans. Motivated by an equal share in the gross revenues (but different salaries), they would more easily pay off the loan and then be free. With the iron controls of capital, it's like having your mortgage and its payments constantly increase as the value of your house or your income increases. Giving away our rights to the full value of our work is the gift that keeps on giving.

[The Sage of Main Street]

mechanization/computerization was happening anyway. It is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage movement but not directly because of it. Market forces might work without the human element involved, but things like greed and the human desire to be in control skew that. The market is a brain-dead myth for suckers and sheep, like the idiot's phrase, "What goes around comes around."

Only cowards would passively accept being cheated, with the excuse that the cheater will eventually go too far and get punished. It's derived from the religious superstition that evildoers will go to hell for all eternity while their weakling victims will go to heaven.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lie.

The problem is that there is no such thing as an upper limit on a desired profit margin. If a million dollar investment nets 10 million in profits over time they will do it whether the present profit margin is adequate or not.

So no, it is not directly related to the minimum wage discussion. That is simply an excuse, and you and the other gullible conservatives are eating it up with a spoon. The brownnosing yes-men have a childish and desperate need for some infallible father figure. So whatever the boss demands, he has a right to get and it is our duty to serve him in every way possible. The Buttboys for the Bosses want us to live in fear that if the boss isn't pleased in every way possible, he'll quit and the jobs He creates (like God) will cease to exist. Those with enough pride to be demoralized by this suffocating oligarchy are called "lazy."

[The Sage of Main Street]

Subsidizing minimum wage is a way for politicians to keep their jobs basically, at the expense of the middle class because the wealthy class ain't paying for this $#@!, no $#@!ing way.

This is democracy. Socialism and Capitalism are both enemies of democracy. Instead of a minimum wage mandated from the outside, unionization should be mandatory in order for a business to incorporate. That way, the people affected would determine for themselves what their work is worth.

The present rules of incorporation are anti-democratic. Those empowered by those rules try to hide their tyranny, but they are enabled by the government they pretend is hostile to them. It is all a government-backed legal document, like a bill of sale at a slave market. Neither the government nor the self-glorifying greedy employers should have the privilege of determining wages. Our value is not what the boss thinks it is, because his own value is not what he thinks it is.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Two out of three ok? Saving the other one for the Cincinnati Zoo?

[MisterVeritis]

Lie.

The problem is that there is no such thing as an upper limit on a desired profit margin. If a million dollar investment nets 10 million in profits over time they will do it whether the present profit margin is adequate or not.

So no, it is not directly related to the minimum wage discussion. That is simply an excuse, and you and the other gullible conservatives are eating it up with a spoon.
Would you want an upper limit on profit? If so, why?

The government has no business and no Constitutional authority for determining wages. It is fascism. It is evil, and it hurts the ones liberals, like you, pretend to want to help.

[MisterVeritis]

This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.

If that's what you call what you are using I don't want it and am better off without it.
Only a fool believes he, or she, is better off without wisdom.

[MisterVeritis]

Like I told Mr. V, I ain't got time to go around the same old circle with you.
This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.

[MisterVeritis]

So, do you think malnourished people who are living in their cars or shelters make better employees when they get sick more often than properly fed employees that actually have a decent place to sleep at night or can afford to get medical care? If you were running a FF operation would you want an employee in there with contagious pneumonia or every germ going, and coughing all over the food, let alone several such employees? Would you want them coming to work with $#@!roaches hanging out in their clothing because they are living in substandard accommodations? That too might have an impact on such a business.
If you have concerns use your money to resolve your concerns.

[Peter1469]

The market force is predatory greed, enabled by well-financed brainwashing glorifying the ruling parasites and humiliating those not in on the scam. It is modeled on religious superstition (Providence).

Incorrect. Nice story though.

[Crepitus]

Would you want an upper limit on profit? If so, why?

The government has no business and no Constitutional authority for determining wages. It is fascism. It is evil, and it hurts the ones liberals, like you, pretend to want to help.
You are being deliberately obtuse.

[Crepitus]

This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.

Only a fool believes he, or she, is better off without wisdom.
Sure, let me know when you actually have some.

[Crepitus]

This is why you cannot ever expect wisdom.
Stuck in a loop or what?

[William]

If you have concerns use your money to resolve your concerns.

So that's your answer to any social problems? Many people are concerned about terrorists like ISIS, should they use their money to have a private army?

Dr Who made a sensible post showing problems that exist in society, and that's all you can say? That's not a contribution to the discussion. We all live in society, and we all have a responsibility to make that society as fair as possible.

[MisterVeritis]

Would you want an upper limit on profit? If so, why?

The government has no business and no Constitutional authority for determining wages. It is fascism. It is evil, and it hurts the ones liberals, like you, pretend to want to help.

You are being deliberately obtuse.
Didn't you bemoan that there is no upper limit on profit?

Aren't the policies you support harming the people you claim to want to help?

[Crepitus]

Would you want an upper limit on profit? If so, why?

The government has no business and no Constitutional authority for determining wages. It is fascism. It is evil, and it hurts the ones liberals, like you, pretend to want to help.

Didn't you bemoan that there is no upper limit on profit?

Aren't the policies you support harming the people you claim to want to help?
Swing and miss, you aren't even paying attention.

[Dr. Who]

Fire that kid and hire another. If the min wage for those 21 and under were 25% less than the min wage for older people it would incentivize hiring younger people who need entry level jobs to build a career.

Hiring a 45 year old for an entry level job is problematic. Why is the 45 year old not skilled?

I will bet on the younger kids. Tell them your policy up front. You are here to work.
The 45 year old may have skills no longer in demand - related to industries that have moved offshore and now there is a glut of people with those skills in the market. Out of desperation, they are taking multiple jobs in order to support families.

[MisterVeritis]

So that's your answer to any social problems? Many people are concerned about terrorists like ISIS, should they use their money to have a private army?

Dr Who made a sensible post showing problems that exist in society, and that's all you can say? That's not a contribution to the discussion. We all live in society, and we all have a responsibility to make that society as fair as possible.
Focus.

The Constitution tells the Federal government what its responsibilities are. Do you understand this?

The Constitutional purpose of the Federal government is to protect the citizens from external and internal threats. Do you understand this?

You and Dr. Who are authoritarian statists. For the authoritarian statist, there is no problem so small that the federal government shouldn't tax the productive people to provide a solution to the unproductive. Wiping every nose is not a Constitutional duty for the Federal government. Do you understand this?

If you and Dr. Who want to wipe every nose than damn it, you buy the tissues and you do the wiping.

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, let me know when you actually have some.
Whether I have a surplus of wisdom or just a little wisdom is not relevant to the position you place yourself in of avoiding wisdom entirely.

[MisterVeritis]

Swing and miss, you aren't even paying attention.
This is what you wrote, "The problem is that there is no such thing as an upper limit on a desired profit margin. If a million dollar investment nets 10 million in profits over time they will do it whether the present profit margin is adequate or not."

You explain it.

[Dr. Who]

Focus.

The Constitution tells the Federal government what its responsibilities are. Do you understand this?

The Constitutional purpose of the Federal government is to protect the citizens from external and internal threats. Do you understand this?

You and Dr. Who are authoritarian statists. For the authoritarian statist, there is no problem so small that the federal government shouldn't tax the productive people to provide a solution to the unproductive. Wiping every nose is not a Constitutional duty for the Federal government. Do you understand this?

If you and Dr. Who want to wipe every nose than damn it, you buy the tissues and you do the wiping.
Right and when we have an uptick in communicable diseases such as hepititis, staph, strep, TB etc arising out of uninsured part-time food workers accidentally coughing or sweating over the food, you won't care unless you happen to be one of the people who gets sick. People living in third-world conditions tend to have third-world problems like highly communicable diseases.

[Peter1469]

The 45 year old may have skills no longer in demand - related to industries that have moved offshore and now there is a glut of people with those skills in the market. Out of desperation, they are taking multiple jobs in order to support families.

If I were hiring and interviewing people I could tell the difference. Ideally I would want some "old timers" to be example for the teens. But the bulk of my unskilled work force would be teens.

[zelmo1234]

If I were hiring and interviewing people I could tell the difference. Ideally I would want some "old timers" to be example for the teens. But the bulk of my unskilled work force would be teens.

That would be foolish if you have to pay them 15.00 an hour.

Why deal with all the distractions. Prom, Homecoming, the big game, spring break, finals week. At 15 dollars I can hire someone that has none of that.

[Chris]

So that's your answer to any social problems? Many people are concerned about terrorists like ISIS, should they use their money to have a private army?

Dr Who made a sensible post showing problems that exist in society, and that's all you can say? That's not a contribution to the discussion. We all live in society, and we all have a responsibility to make that society as fair as possible.


But why does that social obligation for all mean that only a few in the government decide solutions?

[Dr. Who]

If I were hiring and interviewing people I could tell the difference. Ideally I would want some "old timers" to be example for the teens. But the bulk of my unskilled work force would be teens.
I think that the bulk are not teens but 20 somethings these days. Some are university students, but there are a lot more people in their 30's and 40's than in the past. I see many immigrants taking these jobs while they look for something better.

[Dr. Who]

That would be foolish if you have to pay them 15.00 an hour.

Why deal with all the distractions. Prom, Homecoming, the big game, spring break, finals week. At 15 dollars I can hire someone that has none of that.
Furthermore, kids are less dependable than they used to be. They have a lot of entitlement issues these days. They don't understand that while they are at work they are expected to ... work, show up on time and call in if they can't come in etc. Many think that just because they are there, they should get paid, even if they are spending half their time attending to their social obligations. Hiring and firing workers is expensive for an employer - all that admin and training costs money.

[zelmo1234]

Furthermore, kids are less dependable than they used to be. They have a lot of entitlement issues these days. They don't understand that while they are at work they are expected to ... work, show up on time and call in if they can't come in etc. Many think that just because they are there, they should get paid, even if they are spending half their time attending to their social obligations. Hiring and firing workers is expensive for an employer - all that admin and training costs money.

Actually Kids always had those issues, that is why when I was a kid we only made 3.25 an hour.

Everyone needs to learn work ethic. And the higher minimum wages is, the fewer people there will be that are given a chance.

[Cletus]

So, do you think malnourished people who are living in their cars or shelters make better employees when they get sick more often than properly fed employees that actually have a decent place to sleep at night or can afford to get medical care? If you were running a FF operation would you want an employee in there with contagious pneumonia or every germ going, and coughing all over the food, let alone several such employees? Would you want them coming to work with cockroaches hanging out in their clothing because they are living in substandard accommodations? That too might have an impact on such a business.

An employee is only worth what his labor produces for the employer. There is no bottom line and there is no top line. There should be no minimum wage. Wages should be agreed to between employer and employee. It is none of the government's business.

[Dr. Who]

Actually Kids always had those issues, that is why when I was a kid we only made 3.25 an hour.

Everyone needs to learn work ethic. And the higher minimum wages is, the fewer people there will be that are given a chance.
When was that - the early 80's? That 3.25 is about $9.00 per hour in 2016 dollars.

[Peter1469]

That would be foolish if you have to pay them 15.00 an hour.

Why deal with all the distractions. Prom, Homecoming, the big game, spring break, finals week. At 15 dollars I can hire someone that has none of that.

I am not paying $15 and hour. You missed a lot of the conversation.

[William]

But why does that social obligation for all mean that only a few in the government decide solutions?

First off, I'm not talking about this just in the USA - you are not the centre of the centre of the universe - so what your constitution says, or your government does, really doesn't matter to the discussion. Dr Who was talking about problems which are common in all developed societies, and to say "Use your money to fix it," as Veritis did, is not useful to the conversation. We aren't talking about who gets to decide what - we are talking about things that everyone agrees should not happen, and the reason we have government is to enable problems which are beyond one person to be fixed. Don't you agree? :smiley:

[zelmo1234]

When was that - the early 80's? That 3.25 is about $9.00 per hour in 2016 dollars.

Well that is not 15 dollars an hour. and 9 dollars is too much for youth.

I think that we need to change the way that we use the minimum wage laws They should be aged based, and that would offer the youth a chance to learn work ethics

[William]

Well that is not 15 dollars an hour. and 9 dollars is too much for youth.

I think that we need to change the way that we use the minimum wage laws They should be aged based, and that would offer the youth a chance to learn work ethics

Lol, nobody learns work ethics by being underpaid - all they learn is what a miserable old sod their boss is. :grin:

[Cletus]

First off, I'm not talking about this just in the USA - you are not the centre of the centre of the universe - so what your constitution says, or your government does, really doesn't matter to the discussion. Dr Who was talking about problems which are common in all developed societies, and to say "Use your money to fix it," as Veritis did, is not useful to the conversation. We aren't talking about who gets to decide what - we are talking about things that everyone agrees should not happen, and the reason we have government is to enable problems which are beyond one person to be fixed. Don't you agree? :smiley:

No.

Once you said "what your constitution says, or your government does, really doesn't matter to the discussion". you were dismissed as someone with nothing to contribute.

[Chris]

First off, I'm not talking about this just in the USA - you are not the centre of the centre of the universe - so what your constitution says, or your government does, really doesn't matter to the discussion. Dr Who was talking about problems which are common in all developed societies, and to say "Use your money to fix it," as Veritis did, is not useful to the conversation. We aren't talking about who gets to decide what - we are talking about things that everyone agrees should not happen, and the reason we have government is to enable problems which are beyond one person to be fixed. Don't you agree? :smiley:

Nor am I talking just US government, but any government where the few think they're better than, smarter than, more knowledgeable than, and think they can decide for others.

Just because everyone agrees something should be done doesn't mean the few decide what that is not that collectively action is better.

[William]

Nor am I talking just US government, but any government where the few think they're better than, smarter than, more knowledgeable than, and think they can decide for others.

Just because everyone agrees something should be done doesn't mean the few decide what that is not that collectively action is better.

I agree, but I can't see where anybody said that - I certainly didn't. :huh:

[William]

No.

Once you said "what your constitution says, or your government does, really doesn't matter to the discussion". you were dismissed as someone with nothing to contribute.

Why should anyone care what your constitution says, when we are talking about something not limited to the US?

[Dr. Who]

Well that is not 15 dollars an hour. and 9 dollars is too much for youth.

I think that we need to change the way that we use the minimum wage laws They should be aged based, and that would offer the youth a chance to learn work ethics
You didn't think that 3.25 was too much back in the 80's which is the equivalent in 2016.

[Dr. Who]

An employee is only worth what his labor produces for the employer. There is no bottom line and there is no top line. There should be no minimum wage. Wages should be agreed to between employer and employee. It is none of the government's business.
Let me get this straight - you want to eliminate welfare and eliminate minimum wage, so that if there are more employees than jobs, they can be paid less than what it costs to live, even using food banks. Essentially you are in favor of people doing whatever they have to in order to live, even if that means crime. Welcome to the third world.

[Chris]

I agree, but I can't see where anybody said that - I certainly didn't. :huh:

You most certainly did:


We aren't talking about who gets to decide what - we are talking about things that everyone agrees should not happen, and the reason we have government is to enable problems which are beyond one person to be fixed. Don't you agree?


Think about it, think about the market, the economy, created by man's action but not design. The government is designed and accomplishes little in comparison.

[Cletus]

Let me get this straight - you want to eliminate welfare and eliminate minimum wage, so that if there are more employees than jobs, they can be paid less than what it costs to live, even using food banks. Essentially you are in favor of people doing whatever they have to in order to live, even if that means crime. Welcome to the third world.

If that is what you got from what I said, you need to take some time, relax, and get your head on straight.

I said a person's value as an employee (not as a human being) is determined by what kind a return the employer gets for that labor. The labor of some people may only be worth a Dollar an hour, while that of someone else may be worth 500 Dollars an hour. For the government or anyone else for that matter, to step in decide for the employer what a person's labor is worth to him is just plain wrong. Wages should be determined by establishing a value agreed to by both the employer and the employee, no one else.

An employer doesn't adopt his employers. All he owes them is a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. He is not responsible for paying their medical costs when they get sick or giving them x number of months off if they have a kid, or even holding a position open for them if they are unable to work for an extended period of time (except maybe if they are injured on the job as a direct consequence of the job). He is not responsible for what they do with their kids while they are at work or any of a hundred other things people seem to think they are.

[del]

Minimum Wage Blowback: From Fast Food to Whole Foods (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/minimum-wage-blowback-from-fast-food-to-whole-foods)

Calls for a $15 minimum wage are speeding up automation.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/uploads/2/7/6/1/27619303/6041817_orig.jpg



Read more at the link.


correlation does not imply causation.

write it on your hand so you don't forget.

[Dr. Who]

If that is what you got from what I said, you need to take some time, relax, and get your head on straight.

I said a person's value as an employee (not as a human being) is determined by what kind a return the employer gets for that labor. The labor of some people may only be worth a Dollar an hour, while that of someone else may be worth 500 Dollars an hour. For the government or anyone else for that matter, to step in decide for the employer what a person's labor is worth to him is just plain wrong. Wages should be determined by establishing a value agreed to by both the employer and the employee, no one else.

An employer doesn't adopt his employers. All he owes them is a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. He is not responsible for paying their medical costs when they get sick or giving them x number of months off if they have a kid, or even holding a position open for them if they are unable to work for an extended period of time (except maybe if they are injured on the job as a direct consequence of the job). He is not responsible for what they do with their kids while they are at work or any of a hundred other things people seem to think they are.
So at the end of the day, no one is responsible for anyone else's life experience and so based on that theorum, welcome to the third world, because that is how the third world operates. Some of the distinct differences between the third world and the first world is the safety net and things like minimum wage. The third world is replete with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. Do you want to know why? They don't have "statist" governments. The governments are filled with opportunistic elitists who are only in government to pad their pockets and they can do so because the legislation in that respect and in many others is sadly absent. So if we want to be the next Somalia or Liberia, lets just eliminate all of the legislation that separates us from the third world. We too can have the air quality of Mexico City, the disease rate of Africa and the crime rate of Somalia.

[Cletus]

So at the end of the day, no one is responsible for anyone else's life experience and so based on that theorum, welcome to the third world, because that is how the third world operates. Some of the distinct differences between the third world and the first world is the safety net and things like minimum wage. The third world is replete with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. Do you want to know why? They don't have "statist" governments. The governments are filled with opportunistic elitists who are only in government to pad their pockets and they can do so because the legislation in that respect and in many others is sadly absent. So if we want to be the next Somalia or Liberia, lets just eliminate all of the legislation that separates us from the third world. We too can have the air quality of Mexico City, the disease rate of Africa and the crime rate of Somalia.

I am not talking about air quality or anything other than what an employer owes an employee.

If I hire you for a job, my relationship with you exists only while you are doing that job. Your family life and any other baggage you carry of no concern to me. I will pay you a wage you agree to accept in exchange for your labor. That is all you have a right to expect from me and all I have a right to expect from you is a fair day's labor in exchange for that monetary compensation.

Now if you want me to pay for your health care, I should be able to dictate how you live your life... whether you drink or smoke, how much you exercise, what you eat, your choice of sexual partners, what kind of vehicle you drive... all of those factors and more go into determining how much you are going to cost me.

Can you explain to me why I should be required to give you time off at great personal expense to have a kid? Unless I am the one who impregnated you, I have no responsibility for your pregnancy. All I want you to do is perform some function for my company. I don't want to be your Daddy.

What exactly, do you think an employer owes an employee, other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

[Dr. Who]

I am not talking about air quality or anything other than what an employer owes an employee.

If I hire you for a job, my relationship with you exists only while you are doing that job. Your family life and any other baggage you carry of no concern to me. I will pay you a wage you agree to accept in exchange for your labor. That is all you have a right to expect from me and all I have a right to expect from you is a fair day's labor in exchange for that monetary compensation.

Now if you want me to pay for your health care, I should be able to dictate how you live your life... whether you drink or smoke, how much you exercise, what you eat, your choice of sexual partners, what kind of vehicle you drive... all of those factors and more go into determining how much you are going to cost me.

Now, can you explain to me why I should be required to give you time off at great personal expense to have a kid? Unless I am the one who impregnated you, I have no responsibility for your pregnancy. All I want you to do is perform some function for my company. I don't want to be your Daddy.

What exactly, do you think an employer owes an employee, other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

And your response is the same as any employer in the third world where there is neither any social contract nor human contract in business. If as a business owner you believe that the population should grow, and you want that growth to be stem from existing nationals rather than immigrants, you would apply your politics to your business. Otherwise, any moaning about immigration is worthless rhetoric.

You can either support a health care system that involves profiteering on the part of insurance companies or a system that takes profit out of the system. Why should you? Because losing good employees to treatable disease because they can't afford to pay for it will ultimately cost you more in absenteeism and in lost good employees.

[Cletus]

Are you an employer?

By the way, you didn't answer the question I asked.

[Crepitus]

Whether I have a surplus of wisdom or just a little wisdom is not relevant to the position you place yourself in of avoiding wisdom entirely.
Whatever you say Dude.

[del]

Fire that kid and hire another. If the min wage for those 21 and under were 25% less than the min wage for older people it would incentivize hiring younger people who need entry level jobs to build a career.

Hiring a 45 year old for an entry level job is problematic. Why is the 45 year old not skilled?

I will bet on the younger kids. Tell them your policy up front. You are here to work.


how many people have you hired?

[Crepitus]

correlation does not imply causation.

write it on your hand so you don't forget.
Lotta that going around lately.

[Crepitus]

So at the end of the day, no one is responsible for anyone else's life experience and so based on that theorum, welcome to the third world, because that is how the third world operates. Some of the distinct differences between the third world and the first world is the safety net and things like minimum wage. The third world is replete with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. Do you want to know why? They don't have "statist" governments. The governments are filled with opportunistic elitists who are only in government to pad their pockets and they can do so because the legislation in that respect and in many others is sadly absent. So if we want to be the next Somalia or Liberia, lets just eliminate all of the legislation that separates us from the third world. We too can have the air quality of Mexico City, the disease rate of Africa and the crime rate of Somalia.
Easy, you're getting the republicans all excited.

[gamewell45]

I am not talking about air quality or anything other than what an employer owes an employee.

If I hire you for a job, my relationship with you exists only while you are doing that job. Your family life and any other baggage you carry of no concern to me. I will pay you a wage you agree to accept in exchange for your labor. That is all you have a right to expect from me and all I have a right to expect from you is a fair day's labor in exchange for that monetary compensation.

Now if you want me to pay for your health care, I should be able to dictate how you live your life... whether you drink or smoke, how much you exercise, what you eat, your choice of sexual partners, what kind of vehicle you drive... all of those factors and more go into determining how much you are going to cost me.

Can you explain to me why I should be required to give you time off at great personal expense to have a kid? Unless I am the one who impregnated you, I have no responsibility for your pregnancy. All I want you to do is perform some function for my company. I don't want to be your Daddy.

What exactly, do you think an employer owes an employee, other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

Everything you've mentioned is a major reason why we need unions.

[Cletus]

Everything you've mentioned is a major reason why we need unions.

What do you think an employer owes you other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

Give me a list.

[Crepitus]

What do you think an employer owes you other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

Give me a list.
That's it.


It's just almost impossible to get these days.

[Cletus]

That's it.


It's just almost impossible to get these days.

I agree, but fortunately there are still some who don't feel they are entitled to more than they earn. They are just not always easy to find.

[William]

You most certainly did:

Think about it, think about the market, the economy, created by man's action but not design. The government is designed and accomplishes little in comparison.

I did not - I said:


We aren't talking about who gets to decide what - we are talking about things that everyone agrees should not happen, and the reason we have government is to enable problems which are beyond one person to be fixed. Don't you agree?

This means we elect government to do the things we want for society to be fair. Some of those things we can do ourselves - like being honest and fair with other people - but most of them - like defence, roads, education, postal services, justice and taxation - we need government to do.

If your government doesn't do what the people want it to do, you may have to redesign your system of government - maybe a presidential republic is not such a good idea. If you want to be governed by billionaires, I don't think you're going to get people who care much what the ordinary man wants or needs. :wink:

[Ethereal]

This automation is happening with or without wage increases. The tech is just getting cheaper.

Yes, but the rate at which it happens is effected by minimum wage laws. There is really no way to get around that.

[Ethereal]

This is happening coincidentally with the minimum wage flap, not because of it. Most of these systems are too complex to have been designed in the last few months. Plus they were going to save the company money whether wage went up or not.

Use your heads people, they are using the minimum wage flap as an excuse to screw people harder while making it someone else's fault.

How does making their goods and services more affordable screw people?

[Ethereal]

250K for doing what? Ownership is static, work is dynamic. The workers create the value of the investment; the idle rich are just spectators.

Whatever you say, Karl.

[Ethereal]

So tell me, which market force is it that drives businesses to pay low wage workers more?

Why does everyone always concentrate on nominal wage rates when they should be concentrating on purchasing power instead?

If a company cuts your nominal pay by 10%, but goods and services become 20% cheaper as a result of automation and computation, your purchasing power has actually increased.

In other words, even though your nominal wage rate has declined, your quality of life has increased.

The goal should be driving prices down by maximizing productivity, not artificially inflating the cost of labor.

[Mac-7]

Why does everyone always concentrate on nominal wage rates when they should be concentrating on purchasing power instead?

.

Because you a blowing smoke up our ass.

American workers in the private sector are not better off under free trade, globalization, open borders, ect than they were 20 years ago.

they are worse off

[Ethereal]

Because you a blowing smoke up our ass.

American workers in the private sector are not better off under free trade, globalization, open borders, ect than they were 20 years ago.

they are worse off

This discussion is about minimum wages, chief.

Your ignorant commentary on free trade is not relevant.

[Mac-7]

This discussion is about minimum wages, chief.

Your ignorant commentary on free trade is not relevant.

Its all related.

wages are falling because good jobs moved to mexico and china plus we have more immigrants than the economy can support.

and cheap iphones from china cant make up for that

[Ethereal]

Its all related.

wages are falling because good jobs moved to mexico and china plus we have more immigrants that the economy can support.

and cheap iphones from china cant make up for that

Wages are falling because of big government meddling in the economy, as always.

[Mac-7]

Wages are falling because of big government meddling in the economy, as always.

Yes, free trade and open borders are bad decisions by government

[FindersKeepers]

Everything you've mentioned is a major reason why we need unions.


I don't see how.

There was a time in this nation when workers formed unions naturally to protest deadly working conditions on a local basis and it did some good. But, that time is past.

With OSHA in the picture, today's unions have no place in the work safety world anymore. And, they no longer form to counter small local issues. Today, they are nationwide and their intent is to dictate wages, benefits and anything else they can seize from the company's rightful owners.

There is a reason union membership is at an all-time low. American just don't like being a part of a crooked industry in general. The ones who leave (and they've left in droves) see the strong-arming and decide they want no part of that. They'd rather do their own negotiating with their employers -- or leave and find a better job. There is a reason private schools and homeschools turn out more achieved student than do public schools -- with their unionized educators.

There is danger in believing the lies of Obama when he said if you started a business -- you didn't build it. Communistic danger in those lies.

[Peter1469]

correlation does not imply causation.

write it on your hand so you don't forget.

In this case the difference between $7.25 and hour and $15 an hour = robots now rather than later. :wink:

[Peter1469]

So at the end of the day, no one is responsible for anyone else's life experience and so based on that theorum, welcome to the third world, because that is how the third world operates. Some of the distinct differences between the third world and the first world is the safety net and things like minimum wage. The third world is replete with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. Do you want to know why? They don't have "statist" governments. The governments are filled with opportunistic elitists who are only in government to pad their pockets and they can do so because the legislation in that respect and in many others is sadly absent. So if we want to be the next Somalia or Liberia, lets just eliminate all of the legislation that separates us from the third world. We too can have the air quality of Mexico City, the disease rate of Africa and the crime rate of Somalia.

That is not how the 3rd world operates. It is capitalism: capitalism is responsible for the creation and growth of the middle class. It is exactly what the 3rd world does not have.

[Peter1469]

how many people have you hired?

I was never a recruiter in the Army if that is what you mean.

[FindersKeepers]

Wages are falling because of big government meddling in the economy, as always.


Wages are moderating -- in some cases -- as demand for specific services and products decreases.

The mistake is in thinking wages should be increasing on a national scale. When we have social programs -- massive programs like SS, nothing could be further from the truth.

Increased wages are ONLY important on a personal level --- and then, only to the specific person.

When the government got involved in wage- and benefit-setting, it created a snake-eating-its-tail economy. The more they boost the minimum wage -- the more cost of living increases -- and the value of the money paid to Social Security recipients decreases as inflation sets in. It's an anti-capitalist move.

[Ethereal]

Yes, free trade and open borders are bad decisions by government

You're off topic.

[Mac-7]

You're off topic.

I am talking about falling wages due to trade and immigration policies that lead to demands for a higher minimum wage.

[Chris]

Let me get this straight - you want to eliminate welfare and eliminate minimum wage, so that if there are more employees than jobs, they can be paid less than what it costs to live, even using food banks. Essentially you are in favor of people doing whatever they have to in order to live, even if that means crime. Welcome to the third world.


So at the end of the day, no one is responsible for anyone else's life experience and so based on that theorum, welcome to the third world, because that is how the third world operates. Some of the distinct differences between the third world and the first world is the safety net and things like minimum wage. The third world is replete with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. Do you want to know why? They don't have "statist" governments. The governments are filled with opportunistic elitists who are only in government to pad their pockets and they can do so because the legislation in that respect and in many others is sadly absent. So if we want to be the next Somalia or Liberia, lets just eliminate all of the legislation that separates us from the third world. We too can have the air quality of Mexico City, the disease rate of Africa and the crime rate of Somalia.


And your response is the same as any employer in the third world where there is neither any social contract nor human contract in business. If as a business owner you believe that the population should grow, and you want that growth to be stem from existing nationals rather than immigrants, you would apply your politics to your business. Otherwise, any moaning about immigration is worthless rhetoric.

You can either support a health care system that involves profiteering on the part of insurance companies or a system that takes profit out of the system. Why should you? Because losing good employees to treatable disease because they can't afford to pay for it will ultimately cost you more in absenteeism and in lost good employees.



At some point people are going to start to realize the your rhetorical tactic is to imagine terrible possibilities for the free market, associate it with all sort of emotionally wicked things, and castigate anyone who argues free markets as evil, juxtaposing that with imagining wonderful possibilities for the state. The fact of the matter however is it is the market that supplies solutions and the state that fails to. Third world governments are, after all, governments and not markets.

[Truth Detector]

One does not increase their opportunity in life by demanding that low wage simple non-skilled jobs be paid at a higher level. One increases their opportunities and prosperity by obtaining higher skills or higher education thus becoming a more valuable commodity to businesses needing/demanding those skills.

Making it more costly to hire low-skilled workers only increases the costs to EVERYONE thus leaving those non-skilled workers further behind and dependent on Government handouts. You would think that these simple FACTS would somehow get through the thick empty skulls of liberals after 40 years of failure and their "war on poverty."

No one should question why numbskulls on the left support a criminal partisan political cretin like Shrillary.

[Crepitus]

I agree, but fortunately there are still some who don't feel they are entitled to more than they earn. They are just not always easy to find.

Complacent conservatives are gonna be the end of us all.

[Truth Detector]

Complacent conservatives are gonna be the end of us all.

Wrong; unthinking loser leftists who vote for corrupt pandering politicians will be. Just look at Venezuela to see the future Obama and idiots like him want for AmuriKa! :biglaugh:

[The Sage of Main Street]

Swing and miss, you aren't even paying attention. Speaking of baseball, the plutes' bootlickers would preach that the club owners created the players' jobs and could justify paying them minimum wage if it weren't for the "Commniss" union.

[The Sage of Main Street]

But why does that social obligation for all mean that only a few in the government decide solutions? To counterbalance the present situation that only a few on Wall Street decide the status quo.

[Crepitus]

How does making their goods and services more affordable screw people?
Are you seriously asking this question in this way?

I thought you were smarter and more honest than this.

Sad.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually Kids always had those issues, that is why when I was a kid we only made 3.25 an hour.

Everyone needs to learn work ethic. And the higher minimum wages is, the fewer people there will be that are given a chance. Employers need to learn the pay-incentive ethic.

[Crepitus]

Why does everyone always concentrate on nominal wage rates when they should be concentrating on purchasing power instead?

If a company cuts your nominal pay by 10%, but goods and services become 20% cheaper as a result of automation and computation, your purchasing power has actually increased.

In other words, even though your nominal wage rate has declined, your quality of life has increased.

The goal should be driving prices down by maximizing productivity, not artificially inflating the cost of labor.
When was the last time you saw prices go down on anything that isn't volatile like gasoline?

[MisterVeritis]

Right and when we have an uptick in communicable diseases such as hepititis, staph, strep, TB etc arising out of uninsured part-time food workers accidentally coughing or sweating over the food, you won't care unless you happen to be one of the people who gets sick. People living in third-world conditions tend to have third-world problems like highly communicable diseases.
Just admit that you are an authoritarian statist with totalitarian tendencies. You will feel better.

The States, not the federal government, have responsibilities for safety.

But that is not what you, and Willian want. You both, unstated want each of us to be stripped of whatever wealth we create so the federal government can dole it out based on some petty bureaucrat's thoughts about our needs. Radical Karl, the wordsmith said it well, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

How much money above subsistence level do you give to the local socialist organizations? I would expect you to give everything you have above bare subsistence level given your arguments. Or is that not for you? Do you believe you will be one of the Masterminds, a part of the dictatorship of the proles?

[MisterVeritis]

Let me get this straight - you want to eliminate welfare and eliminate minimum wage, so that if there are more employees than jobs, they can be paid less than what it costs to live, even using food banks. Essentially you are in favor of people doing whatever they have to in order to live, even if that means crime. Welcome to the third world.
Eliminate unconstitutional government agencies and reverse their regulations. There will be more jobs than people to fill them.

Freedom, not serfdom, is the cure.

[The Sage of Main Street]

how many people have you hired? How many bosses have you supported, including financing the bloated lifestyles of their wives and children and the unearned privileges in economic competition their brats have?

[zelmo1234]

Employers need to learn the pay-incentive ethic.

Once upon a time, we employed a lot more people in the construction industry. But as wages increase and work ethic decreased, it made it more profitable to used Technology, Programing and to specialize jobs. Framers are no longer Finish carpenters, Roofing and insulation are farmed out to people that specialize. Drywall, plaster, and painting are now specialized.

Because of this there are fewer jobs and the quality in Luxury housing has gone way up.

[The Sage of Main Street]

In this case the difference between $7.25 and hour and $15 an hour = robots now rather than later. :wink: Businessmen can also all be replaced by robots. Then the idle-rich stockholders will be the Terminators.

[MisterVeritis]

Because of this there are fewer jobs and the quality in Luxury housing has gone way up.
I want to build a mostly underground luxury home.

[The Sage of Main Street]

One increases their opportunities and prosperity by obtaining higher skills or higher education thus becoming a more valuable commodity to businesses needing/demanding those skills.

If those with most of the money don't pay people who are training or getting educated, then they have no right to benefit from that. If you "teach a man to fish," he will starve to death before he learns how to. All your images are taken from a self-serving imaginary world.

[zelmo1234]

I want to build a mostly underground luxury home.

I was in one in the GR parade this spring. Moisture control and ventilation was the hardest part according to the Builder

Great Home! Very High End.

[zelmo1234]

Businessmen can also all be replaced by robots. Then the idle-rich stockholders will be the Terminators.

Actually, Computers are not capable of vision just yet, The best and most profitable companies are the ones that are 5 years ahead.

Computers can help but can't make that final decision Yet.

[MisterVeritis]

I was in one in the GR parade this spring. Moisture control and ventilation was the hardest part according to the Builder

Great Home! Very High End.
Moisture control is important in the home I built on this steep hillside. I live on a wet mountain. The french drains and retaining walls divert most of the water.

What I have in mind is a 3/4ths buried home with the southern exposure consisting of nearly all glass. I looked at a few linear designs. I wouls shape my underground home more like a 120-150 degree angle with the inside of the angle looking south.

[Mac-7]

Complacent conservatives are gonna be the end of us all.

Obama voters who expect government to fulfill all their needs are the complacent ones

[Crepitus]

Wrong; unthinking loser leftists who vote for corrupt pandering politicians will be. Just look at Venezuela to see the future Obama and idiots like him want for AmuriKa! :biglaugh:
All that is a mere distraction which conservatives eat up while the corporations condemn us all to serfdom.

[Crepitus]

Speaking of baseball, the plutes' bootlickers would preach that the club owners created the players' jobs and could justify paying them minimum wage if it weren't for the "Commniss" union.
You know damn well they're working on that right now.

[Crepitus]

Obama voters who expect government to fulfill all their needs are the complacent ones
Not so. You conservative fall for the distractions as the corporations work on condemning us all to serfdom.

[MisterVeritis]

Not so. You conservative fall for the distractions as the corporations work on condemning us all to serfdom.
I love that I live rent free inside your head. Serfdom, indeed.

[Chris]

Serfdom? I work under a contract my employer and I voluntarily agreed to.

Marxist exploitation theory aside, as 45 Million In Global Slavery, But Fortunately Capitalism Kills Slavery Stone Dead (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/31/45-million-in-global-slavery-fortunately-capitalism-kills-slavery-stone-dead/#6360a12827e5) attest, the slaves/serfs are mostly in no-capitalist nations like North Korea.

[Dr. Who]

That is not how the 3rd world operates. It is capitalism: capitalism is responsible for the creation and growth of the middle class. It is exactly what the 3rd world does not have.
Capitalism is alive and well in the third world - first world businesses are moving there because it's so alive and well and there is no pesky legislation to get in the way of working employees more than 12 hours a day in sweat shop conditions and any pertinent legislation can be eliminated with a one time payment to a corrupt official. There is no middle class in the third world because those countries lack decent infrastructure, adequate educational facilities and all of those things that contribute to people advancing out of poverty and creating the kinds of industry that would support a middle class and they lack all of those things because government officials are pilfering such taxes that are collected for personal gain. However they are not lacking in capitalism. Those that are at the top of that heap are the definition of capitalists.

[Peter1469]

Capitalism is alive and well in the third world - first world businesses are moving there because it's so alive and well and there is no pesky legislation to get in the way of working employees more than 12 hours a day in sweat shop conditions and any pertinent legislation can be eliminated with a one time payment to a corrupt official. There is no middle class in the third world because those countries lack decent infrastructure, adequate educational facilities and all of those things that contribute to people advancing out of poverty and creating the kinds of industry that would support a middle class and they lack all of those things because government officials are pilfering such taxes that are collected for personal gain. However they are not lacking in capitalism. Those that are at the top of that heap are the definition of capitalists.

Capitalism is not alive and well in the third world. Capitalism can't work when despots steal 90% of everything. You need rule of law.

[Chris]

Capitalism is not alive and well in the third world. Capitalism can't work when despots steal 90% of everything. You need rule of law.

And property rights.

[Dr. Who]

Capitalism is not alive and well in the third world. Capitalism can't work when despots steal 90% of everything. You need rule of law.
Do you? I think all you really need is the ability to pay off the minor functionaries that get in your way and armed guards to make sure the rabble doesn't interfere with your enterprise. All of the best capitalists are setting up shop there.

[Peter1469]

Do you? I think all you really need is the ability to pay off the minor functionaries that get in your way and armed guards to make sure the rabble doesn't interfere with your enterprise. All of the best capitalists are setting up shop there.

You are not talking about capitalism. You are describing crony capitalism- which is worse in the 3rd world where rule of law is non-existent.

I agree crony capitalism is bad- as well as corruption.

[Peter1469]

And property rights.

I include property rights under Rule of Law. It also includes protection / enforcement of contracts.

[MisterVeritis]

You are not talking about capitalism. You are describing crony capitalism- which is worse in the 3rd world where rule of law is non-existent.

I agree crony capitalism is bad- as well as corruption.
Crony capitalism is corruption. It is not capitalism.

[Peter1469]

Crony capitalism is corruption. It is not capitalism.

It circumvents the good and beneficial parts of capitalism.

[Dr. Who]

You are not talking about capitalism. You are describing crony capitalism- which is worse in the 3rd world where rule of law is non-existent.

I agree crony capitalism is bad- as well as corruption.
Well, it takes two to tango. A business does not buy off corrupt officials because they want to obey laws, which means that corruption is inherent to capitalism and thus absent any barrier to human exploitation, environmental hedonism or unscrupulous marketing, capitalists would gladly indulge in that behavior and historically have done so, particularly where there is a surplus of the labor that they need and or no impediment to doing whatever is most profitable. Generally speaking, being a good corporate citizen is not inexpensive. Often doing the right thing is far less profitable than doing the wrong thing, else they wouldn't bother buying off politicians. Why does big Pharma dump expired product in Africa? Because they can.

Many are advocating the elimination of all of those pesky laws inhibiting business from doing just as they please, however if that were to happen, imagine how this would affect everyone? Industry would choose the cheapest methods of providing energy - coal. The air would be thick with it and they would be dumping toxins into the waterways. Products would have no safety oversight. Responsibility in advertising would disappear and business could flog snake oil with complete immunity or sell you clothing that would burst into flames if it came anywhere near a spark. There would be no rules around the stock market, so insider trading could run amok and people could be defrauded in stock schemes without recourse. Absent any wage regulations or labor regulations and absent any form of welfare, people would have no choice but to work for third world wages, if they were not a member of a small pool of in-demand skills. Basically, this takes us back to the 1800's or worse where business exploited child labor and people died in unsafe work conditions.

[Peter1469]

Well, it takes two to tango. A business does not buy off corrupt officials because they want to obey laws, which means that corruption is inherent to capitalism and thus absent any barrier to human exploitation, environmental hedonism or unscrupulous marketing, capitalists would gladly indulge in that behavior and historically have done so, particularly where there is a surplus of the labor that they need and or no impediment to doing whatever is most profitable. Generally speaking, being a good corporate citizen is not inexpensive. Often doing the right thing is far less profitable than doing the wrong thing, else they wouldn't bother buying off politicians. Why does big Pharma dump expired product in Africa? Because they can.

Many are advocating the elimination of all of those pesky laws inhibiting business from doing just as they please, however if that were to happen, imagine how this would affect everyone? Industry would choose the cheapest methods of providing energy - coal. The air would be thick with it and they would be dumping toxins into the waterways. Products would have no safety oversight. Responsibility in advertising would disappear and business could flog snake oil with complete immunity or sell you clothing that would burst into flames if it came anywhere near a spark. There would be no rules around the stock market, so insider trading could run amok and people could be defrauded in stock schemes without recourse. Absent any wage regulations or labor regulations and absent any form of welfare, people would have no choice but to work for third world wages, if they were not a member of a small pool of in-demand skills. Basically, this takes us back to the 1800's or worse where business exploited child labor and people died in unsafe work conditions.

Agree: capitalism is completely absent from the 3rd world.

[zelmo1234]

How many bosses have you supported, including financing the bloated lifestyles of their wives and children and the unearned privileges in economic competition their brats have?

I hope Hundreds and I hope to help Hundreds more.

As the Great Motivator Zig Ziglar Said. "You can have everything in life that you want, if you will just help enough other people get what they want"

He is a question for you? How many rich people prevented you from becoming rich? Or was it the man in the mirror that was the problem?

[zelmo1234]

All that is a mere distraction which conservatives eat up while the corporations condemn us all to serfdom.

So what do you think that the worst thing that corporations have done to you, that prevented you from becoming successful.

[zelmo1234]

Capitalism is alive and well in the third world - first world businesses are moving there because it's so alive and well and there is no pesky legislation to get in the way of working employees more than 12 hours a day in sweat shop conditions and any pertinent legislation can be eliminated with a one time payment to a corrupt official. There is no middle class in the third world because those countries lack decent infrastructure, adequate educational facilities and all of those things that contribute to people advancing out of poverty and creating the kinds of industry that would support a middle class and they lack all of those things because government officials are pilfering such taxes that are collected for personal gain. However they are not lacking in capitalism. Those that are at the top of that heap are the definition of capitalists.

You do realize that in the beginning we would have been considered a third world country. But for Capitalism we still would be. Because the developed world was basically a monarchy at the time, there was no incentive to succeed.

It can be seen everywhere, the more government takes the less the incentive to invest and grow, and first their is stagnation, which is where we are today, and then decline, which is what insolvency would bring.

[zelmo1234]

Do you? I think all you really need is the ability to pay off the minor functionaries that get in your way and armed guards to make sure the rabble doesn't interfere with your enterprise. All of the best capitalists are setting up shop there.

That is not capitalism, that is a War Lord.

Part of Capitalism is rule of law. and a big part of the problem that we have today is we are becoming a nation of men and not laws.

[zelmo1234]

Well, it takes two to tango. A business does not buy off corrupt officials because they want to obey laws, which means that corruption is inherent to capitalism and thus absent any barrier to human exploitation, environmental hedonism or unscrupulous marketing, capitalists would gladly indulge in that behavior and historically have done so, particularly where there is a surplus of the labor that they need and or no impediment to doing whatever is most profitable. Generally speaking, being a good corporate citizen is not inexpensive. Often doing the right thing is far less profitable than doing the wrong thing, else they wouldn't bother buying off politicians. Why does big Pharma dump expired product in Africa? Because they can.

Many are advocating the elimination of all of those pesky laws inhibiting business from doing just as they please, however if that were to happen, imagine how this would affect everyone? Industry would choose the cheapest methods of providing energy - coal. The air would be thick with it and they would be dumping toxins into the waterways. Products would have no safety oversight. Responsibility in advertising would disappear and business could flog snake oil with complete immunity or sell you clothing that would burst into flames if it came anywhere near a spark. There would be no rules around the stock market, so insider trading could run amok and people could be defrauded in stock schemes without recourse. Absent any wage regulations or labor regulations and absent any form of welfare, people would have no choice but to work for third world wages, if they were not a member of a small pool of in-demand skills. Basically, this takes us back to the 1800's or worse where business exploited child labor and people died in unsafe work conditions.

Actually, the companies have been burning coal cleaner and cleaner, but now instead of burning it here, we send it to China and India where they are at the level of the early 1900's

Meaning that are policies are actually causing more pollution and not less.

Yes in the beginning we have different work policies? Why? because we had people moving into cities from the farms? the entire family worked on the farm from about 4 years old on up. So when they moved to the city? What would change that.

As the industrial revolution got into full swing the need for labor decreased. There were no laws requiring Henry Ford to pay a better wage and work less hours, He did it because he needed better workers and the assembly line more than made up for the fewer hours.

That was capitalism.

[Dr. Who]

Agree: capitalism is completely absent from the 3rd world.
I disagree. It is completely unfettered in the third world. Those capitalists would love to have the same freedom in the first world.

[Dr. Who]

Actually, the companies have been burning coal cleaner and cleaner, but now instead of burning it here, we send it to China and India where they are at the level of the early 1900's

Meaning that are policies are actually causing more pollution and not less.

Yes in the beginning we have different work policies? Why? because we had people moving into cities from the farms? the entire family worked on the farm from about 4 years old on up. So when they moved to the city? What would change that.

As the industrial revolution got into full swing the need for labor decreased. There were no laws requiring Henry Ford to pay a better wage and work less hours, He did it because he needed better workers and the assembly line more than made up for the fewer hours.

That was capitalism.
That were also social pressures. If Henry Ford set up shop in the third world, he would have had few concerns. In fact, the Ford company had little concern about using slave labor in WWII Germany. Henry was very much against unions, so he thought to forstall that potential eventuality by voluntarily paying better wages and by introducing profit sharing.

[zelmo1234]

I disagree. It is completely unfettered in the third world. Those capitalists would love to have the same freedom in the first world.

Why would I want to have to employ my own military to be in business? That makes NO sense.

[zelmo1234]

That were also social pressures. If Henry Ford set up shop in the third world, he would have had few concerns. In fact, the Ford company had little concern about using slave labor in WWII Germany. Henry was very much against unions, so he thought to forstall that potential eventuality by voluntarily paying better wages and by introducing profit sharing.

Of course he was against Unions. He was the highest paying and had the shortest work week with the most benefits?

If you had that factory and the workers wanted a Union? Don't you think that would piss you off.

And NO he would have done terrible in the 3rd world. Henry Ford would not have been able to produce his cars for the masses if he would not have won a Trademark Case against the Automotive association. In a third world country, they would have crushed him and he never would have started his factory.

Who, you are a fine person, but you may have the worst business sense of anyone I know. You have no understanding of how they are run.

[Ethereal]

Are you seriously asking this question in this way?

I thought you were smarter and more honest than this.

Sad.

The entire point of automation and computation is to increase productivity and control costs.

How does that screw people over?

Yes, it's a serious question.

[Ethereal]

When was the last time you saw prices go down on anything that isn't volatile like gasoline?

The price of electronics has been going down for decades.

And prices would be coming down a lot faster if it weren't for big government meddling in the economy, namely, taxation, regulation, and inflation.

[Dr. Who]

Why would I want to have to employ my own military to be in business? That makes NO sense.
Because even the military that you would employ would be dirt cheap.

[Ethereal]

How many bosses have you supported, including financing the bloated lifestyles of their wives and children and the unearned privileges in economic competition their brats have?

How many businesses have you started? How many products have you brought to market? How many innovative practices have you developed?

Let me guess.

Zero?

[Crepitus]

So what do you think that the worst thing that corporations have done to you, that prevented you from becoming successful.
I'm always amazed by the fact that the anti big government crowd so staunchly defends the big corporations.

If big government is bad why is big business good?

[Crepitus]

The price of electronics has been going down for decades.

And prices would be coming down a lot faster if it weren't for big government meddling in the economy, namely, taxation, regulation, and inflation.
No, they really haven't. It's a smoke-screen. The prices on last years big thing go down while they push the next "must have" device.

[Ethereal]

I'm always amazed by the fact that the anti big government crowd so staunchly defends the big corporations.

If big government is bad why is big business good?

Some would argue that big business is a direct result of big government.

But one of the significant differences between big government and big business is that big business cannot confiscate my property or strip me of my liberty.

And if they try to, I'm perfectly at liberty to shoot them down like the dogs they are.

[Crepitus]

The entire point of automation and computation is to increase productivity and control costs.

How does that screw people over?

Yes, it's a serious question.
Costs jobs and any cost saving experienced by the company doesn't really go to price reductions it just contributes to more wealth concentration at the top.

[Ethereal]

No, they really haven't. It's a smoke-screen. The prices on last years big thing go down while they push the next "must have" device.

If you compare the price and quality of the first super-computers to today's standard laptops and smartphones, you will see that price has decreased substantially and that quality has increased substantially.

Even with TV's, the decrease in price is obvious and significant.

I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

[Ethereal]

Costs jobs and any cost saving experienced by the company doesn't really go to price reductions it just contributes to more wealth concentration at the top.

That would be true in a market defined by monopolistic or oligopolostic competititon, but in a highly competitive market like food service, the cost saving is necessarily put towards price reductions.

[Crepitus]

Some would argue that big business is a direct result of big government.

But one of the significant differences between big government and big business is that big business cannot confiscate my property or strip me of my liberty.

And if they try to, I'm perfectly at liberty to shoot them down like the dogs they are.
Haven't you heard any of the many cases of big businesses cozying up to government types to employ things like eminent domain? They can indeed take your property.

How about the for-profit prison system and their lobby to get more and keep criminals longer so they can make more money? They can indeed take your liberty.

To be against big government and for big business makes no sense at all.

[Dr. Who]

Some would argue that big business is a direct result of big government.

But one of the significant differences between big government and big business is that big business cannot confiscate my property or strip me of my liberty.

And if they try to, I'm perfectly at liberty to shoot them down like the dogs they are.
Well in many ways they can. Take Monsanto for instance - Monsanto has bankrupted farmers whose crops became contaminated with GMO DNA spread from neighboring farms and Monsanto demanded payment, litigated and obtained judgments against those hapless farmers.

[Ethereal]

Haven't you heard any of the many cases of big businesses cozying up to government types to employ things like eminent domain? They can indeed take your property.

You're only proving my point about how big government promotes big business.


How about the for-profit prison system and their lobby to get more and keep criminals longer so they can make more money? They can indeed take your liberty.

The only way someone ends up in a for-profit prison is if the government decides to put them there.


To be against big government and for big business makes no sense at all.

I'm not for "big business". I'm for free markets.

[Ethereal]

Well in many ways they can. Take Monsanto for instance - Monsanto has bankrupted farmers whose crops became contaminated with GMO DNA spread from neighboring farms and Monsanto demanded payment, litigated and obtained judgments against those hapless farmers.

And how did they do that? By exploiting the government's intellectual property laws and the government's court systems.

Face it.

Any example you can provide of big business infringing on someone's rights has a basis in big government.

[MisterVeritis]

That were also social pressures. If Henry Ford set up shop in the third world, he would have had few concerns. In fact, the Ford company had little concern about using slave labor in WWII Germany. Henry was very much against unions, so he thought to forstall that potential eventuality by voluntarily paying better wages and by introducing profit sharing.
Of all the histories I read the twisted ones are the best.

Unions are bad for everyone other than union bosses. It is the same with the Democratic party.

[Crepitus]

If you compare the price and quality of the first super-computers to today's standard laptops and smartphones, you will see that price has decreased substantially and that quality has increased substantially.

Even with TV's, the decrease in price is obvious and significant.

I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
Because I see things like this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-64-5-diag--oled-2160p-smart-3d-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/4920300.p?id=bb4920300&skuId=4920300

and this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1122057&gclid=CI7G7tbOis0CFZKCaQodpZsArQ&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&Q=&A=details

The price for flat screens has come down yes, but they aren't the cutting edge anymore. Those are still far out of reach of the average Joe just like they always have been.

Smoke-screen.

[Dr. Who]

If you compare the price and quality of the first super-computers to today's standard laptops and smartphones, you will see that price has decreased substantially and that quality has increased substantially.

Even with TV's, the decrease in price is obvious and significant.

I don't know how you could claim otherwise.
Sure, but they are effectively luxury goods that are not really necessary to live. The goods and services that are really necessary to live are not dropping in price, they are increasing. What good is a cheap cell phone if you have no place to live and can't afford to feed your family?

[Crepitus]

That would be true in a market defined by monopolistic or oligopolistic competition, but in a highly competitive market like food service, the cost saving is necessarily put towards price reductions.
Not really. Just how competitive do you think the food service industry is? When did the last big restaurant chain start? 30 years ago? Competition is DEAD. Killed by the mega-corps.

[MisterVeritis]

Well in many ways they can. Take Monsanto for instance - Monsanto has bankrupted farmers whose crops became contaminated with GMO DNA spread from neighboring farms and Monsanto demanded payment, litigated and obtained judgments against those hapless farmers.
That is a problem of a corrupt government.

[Chris]

It wasn't the chaingangs of half-starved, blue-starred Walmart workers that got me, that's expected, capitalistic serfdom, you know, no, it was when I reached to select a low-priced box of cereal and the shelf stocker stuck a gun in my ribs demanding buy the high-priced new-fangled stuff or your life, that I finally realized just evil capitalism is. Why oh why won't our government of angels protect us!?!?!!!

[Ethereal]

Because I see things like this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-64-5-diag--oled-2160p-smart-3d-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/4920300.p?id=bb4920300&skuId=4920300

and this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1122057&gclid=CI7G7tbOis0CFZKCaQodpZsArQ&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&Q=&A=details

The price for flat screens has come down yes, but they aren't the cutting edge anymore. Those are still far out of reach of the average Joe just like they always have been.

Smoke-screen.

The price for TVs in general have come way down relative to where they began. The same is true of virtually all electronic devices. Your smartphone has more computing power than a government super-computer did in the 1990's.

[Crepitus]

You're only proving my point about how big government promotes big business.

Who said they didn't?


The only way someone ends up in a for-profit prison is if the government decides to put them there.

Not so if the lobbyists convince the government to instate higher penalties.


I'm not for "big business". I'm for free markets.

Free markets must have some rules otherwise you end up with monopolistic mega-corps like we have now.

[Dr. Who]

Of all the histories I read the twisted ones are the best.

Unions are bad for everyone other than union bosses. It is the same with the Democratic party.
When unions first started forming there was good reason:

The new industrial age and the resulting growth of the U.S. economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries affected nearly everyone in America. Industrial combination and concentration became the norm, with huge trusts appearing in almost every industry. The workplace was changing as machines became common and the demand for unskilled workers brought new groups into the workforce, including immigrants, women, and children. By 1920, nearly 20 percent of all manufacturing workers were women, and 13 percent of all textile workers were younger than 16 years old.

The abundance of laborers available for these unskilled factory jobs made individual workers expendable and led to decreased wages. Most industrial laborers worked at least a ten-hour day, yet earned 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum wage necessary for a decent life. Many Americans feared that the great industrialists were reducing "freemen" to "wage slaves." Class division between the corporate giants and laborers became increasingly apparent throughout America. Little of the fortune that the industrial growth of the nation had generated went to the workers. In 1900, it was estimated that ten percent of Americans owned over three-fourths of the nation’s wealth. Many feared that the United States was on the brink of a disastrous class war.

Health and safety conditions in the workplace were poor and workers had limited recourse. Federal laws offered little protection, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was often used to stop the organization of laborers. It was not until the 1930s that the federal government would become actively involved in regulating labor. State and local authorities were usually more responsive to the interests of wealthy industrialists than the needs of laborers.

The social transformation brought on by the new industrial age affected every aspect of life in America. With women toiling alongside men, marriages were often delayed, resulting in smaller families. It was not uncommon for a single company to own an entire town. The company could increase prices at the local grocery store and give laborers easy credit, keeping workers in debt and stuck working at the same low-paying job. The crowded, dirty tenements in these towns led to high disease and death rates.
https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/rise-of-unions/

[Ethereal]

Sure, but they are effectively luxury goods that are not really necessary to live. The goods and services that are really necessary to live are not dropping in price, they are increasing. What good is a cheap cell phone if you have no place to live and can't afford to feed your family?

Housing and food are heavily distorted by government intervention.

[Crepitus]

The price for TVs in general have come way day relative to where they began. The same is true of virtually all electronic devices. Your smartphone has more computing power than a government super-computer did in the 1990's.
I am aware of this, and the average everyday smart phone is indeed cheaper than the first ever smart phone. But it was THE cutting edge at the time and now its not. This is:

http://gadling.com/2010/07/19/vertu-signature-15000-cell-phone/

A $15,000.00 phone. The price of last years models always falls. The cutting edge remains the province of a select few.

Smoke-screen.

[zelmo1234]

Because even the military that you would employ would be dirt cheap.

No because in a fighting force you get what you pay for. Look at medieval times it as not the peasants and common folks that were the knights and the Army, They had nothing to fight for. It was the lords and nobles and their families

That is part of the problem in the middle east? The general population has nothing to fight for. So why make the sacrifice.

It is much cheaper to have the rule of law, The rule of man is expensive, as we are starting to see in the USA today.

[zelmo1234]

I'm always amazed by the fact that the anti big government crowd so staunchly defends the big corporations.

If big government is bad why is big business good?

In what case. Usually the fact that corporations become large is because of Big Government, not because the lack of it. I assure you that there would be a lot more competition without the heavy hand of Big Government.

What is amazing to me is that people can't see it. The last 7 years are a perfect example of what happens when government takes sides. How has the middle class been doing over the last decade?

Now even with that? What has Big business done to you that has prevented you form being successful.

[zelmo1234]

No, they really haven't. It's a smoke-screen. The prices on last years big thing go down while they push the next "must have" device.

You are correct, but the poor and working middle class can't afford the next must have device. So the Upper middle class and the rich purchase the next must have, and they fuels the R&D that brings the cost of last years model down. so the lower classes can afford it.

Neat how that works!

[Crepitus]

In what case. Usually the fact that corporations become large is because of Big Government, not because the lack of it. I assure you that there would be a lot more competition without the heavy hand of Big Government.

What is amazing to me is that people can't see it. The last 7 years are a perfect example of what happens when government takes sides. How has the middle class been doing over the last decade?

Now even with that? What has Big business done to you that has prevented you form being successful.
Big corporations have undue influence on the government, not the other way around.

[Crepitus]

You are correct, but the poor and working middle class can't afford the next must have device. So the Upper middle class and the rich purchase the next must have, and they fuels the R&D that brings the cost of last years model down. so the lower classes can afford it.

Neat how that works!
This is the United States of America.

We aren't supposed to have a "lower class".

[zelmo1234]

Because I see things like this:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-65-class-64-5-diag--oled-2160p-smart-3d-4k-ultra-hd-tv-with-high-dynamic-range-black/4920300.p?id=bb4920300&skuId=4920300

and this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1122057&gclid=CI7G7tbOis0CFZKCaQodpZsArQ&is=REG&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C52934715962%2C&Q=&A=details

The price for flat screens has come down yes, but they aren't the cutting edge anymore. Those are still far out of reach of the average Joe just like they always have been.

Smoke-screen.

So? The 45 inch TV that you can by in Wal-Mart for 399 dollars is far better than any TV that they have had in the past.

What makes you think that everyone should be able to afford everything? I promise you that the Boat that the Red-Head and I are taking delivery of in 3 weeks is much more than most people can afford. As a matter of fact the slip that we have is more per year than most fishing boats. But Tracker brought down the price of Bass boats so that most middle class people can afford a very nice boat.

If you want the best toys, then you need a trade or skill that most don't have or you need to own your own business.

[Ethereal]

Not really. Just how competitive do you think the food service industry is?

Pretty competitive, judging by their relatively low profit margins.


When did the last big restaurant chain start? 30 years ago? Competition is DEAD. Killed by the mega-corps.

If competition is dead, it was killed by taxes, regulations, and inflation.

[Crepitus]

No because in a fighting force you get what you pay for. Look at medieval times it as not the peasants and common folks that were the knights and the Army, They had nothing to fight for. It was the lords and nobles and their families

That is part of the problem in the middle east? The general population has nothing to fight for. So why make the sacrifice.

It is much cheaper to have the rule of law, The rule of man is expensive, as we are starting to see in the USA today.
This is incorrect. Peasants did most of the fighting. Knights lorded it over them and sometimes fought each other. Mostly in tournaments.

[Crepitus]

Pretty competitive, judging by their relatively low profit margins.



If competition is dead, it was killed by taxes, regulations, and inflation.
It was killed by a monopolistic group of mega-corps. Nearly every fast food or restaurant chain is owned by Pepsi or Coke.

[zelmo1234]

Sure, but they are effectively luxury goods that are not really necessary to live. The goods and services that are really necessary to live are not dropping in price, they are increasing. What good is a cheap cell phone if you have no place to live and can't afford to feed your family?

But to some extent, this is wrong too. For example we buy plants for our garden. It is kind of expensive and likely does not save us any money. But one of the things that we are teaching in our low income gated project is, using time to save money. And it is working for those that want to learn. They are able to go to Garage sales and get the supplies they need for next to nothing. Using the compost area, they create mulch for starting seeds which are very inexpensive. And they can save a lot of money. This helps them to be able to use their limited resources on other things.

Buying Second hand can save a tone of money and if you have a computer, EBAY is the biggest garage sale in the world. One of the collage kids needed a suit for prom, instead of renting a tux he bought a Hickey Freeman Suit on Ebay for 50 bucks. And can likely sell it for about the same when it no longer fits him.

There are lots of ways to make money and some of them are saving money. When I was young my mother did not work. But she canned and froze fruits and Veggie's she clipped coupons and we always went to the orchards and picked our own fruits, many were drops. She made some of our cloths. and patched nearly all of them.

She likely saved as much as my father made.

[Ethereal]

Who said they didn't?

The implication seems to be that big business in and of itself is somehow just as bad as big government. But only big government can strip you of your property and your liberty.


Not so if the lobbyists convince the government to instate higher penalties.

It's still the government who puts them there.

It's the government's rules, the government's enforcement agents, and the government's court systems.


Free markets must have some rules otherwise you end up with monopolistic mega-corps like we have now.

Can you provide any quote from any free market thinker or libertarian who has ever said or implied that free markets shouldn't have rules?

[zelmo1234]

I am aware of this, and the average everyday smart phone is indeed cheaper than the first ever smart phone. But it was THE cutting edge at the time and now its not. This is:

http://gadling.com/2010/07/19/vertu-signature-15000-cell-phone/

A $15,000.00 phone. The price of last years models always falls. The cutting edge remains the province of a select few.

Smoke-screen.

So you understand why that is? The first people to buy it pay for the R&D that went into developing the new product. as that is paid off, the prices drop, as you start to sell more the profit margin can decrease.

That is a good thing, don't you see that?

[Crepitus]

The implication seems to be that big business in and of itself is somehow just as bad as big government. But only big government can strip you of your property and your liberty.



It's still the government who puts them there.

It's the government's rules, the government's enforcement agents, and the government's court systems.

Big businesses have undue influence over government.


Can you provide any quote from any free market thinker or libertarian who has ever said or implied that free markets shouldn't have rules?


That is the implication when they shout about "free markets" and "Too much government regulation".

[Ethereal]

When unions first started forming there was good reason:

The new industrial age and the resulting growth of the U.S. economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries affected nearly everyone in America. Industrial combination and concentration became the norm, with huge trusts appearing in almost every industry. The workplace was changing as machines became common and the demand for unskilled workers brought new groups into the workforce, including immigrants, women, and children. By 1920, nearly 20 percent of all manufacturing workers were women, and 13 percent of all textile workers were younger than 16 years old.

The abundance of laborers available for these unskilled factory jobs made individual workers expendable and led to decreased wages. Most industrial laborers worked at least a ten-hour day, yet earned 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum wage necessary for a decent life. Many Americans feared that the great industrialists were reducing "freemen" to "wage slaves." Class division between the corporate giants and laborers became increasingly apparent throughout America. Little of the fortune that the industrial growth of the nation had generated went to the workers. In 1900, it was estimated that ten percent of Americans owned over three-fourths of the nation’s wealth. Many feared that the United States was on the brink of a disastrous class war.

Health and safety conditions in the workplace were poor and workers had limited recourse. Federal laws offered little protection, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was often used to stop the organization of laborers. It was not until the 1930s that the federal government would become actively involved in regulating labor. State and local authorities were usually more responsive to the interests of wealthy industrialists than the needs of laborers.

The social transformation brought on by the new industrial age affected every aspect of life in America. With women toiling alongside men, marriages were often delayed, resulting in smaller families. It was not uncommon for a single company to own an entire town. The company could increase prices at the local grocery store and give laborers easy credit, keeping workers in debt and stuck working at the same low-paying job. The crowded, dirty tenements in these towns led to high disease and death rates.
https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/rise-of-unions/

Unions in America began as private organizations.

As one notable example, the Pullman strike was organized entirely by private individuals.

And wouldn't you know it? The federal government sent in the military and crushed the protest because they claimed the strike was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

[Dr. Who]

And how did they do that? By exploiting the government's intellectual property laws and the government's court systems.

Face it.

Any example you can provide of big business infringing on someone's rights has a basis in big government.
Well, if the business was not bent to begin with they wouldn't be buying legislation, would they? You can't argue both against and for government in the same breath. I agree something needs to be done to eliminate the conflict of interest in government that arises from the election process, however, that does not absolve the clutching greed of mega corporations. They have no compunctions whatsoever where money is at stake and that is true for most large corporations. An excessively scrupulous CEO will soon be replaced by one that cares far less and does whatever it takes to increase the bottom line and return on investment. That is the truth of it. Capitalism by its very nature reduces the world into winners and losers. It's intrinsic to the formula for that level of success.

We talk about the success of America being based on capitalism while ignoring the fact that much of that success has been based on the devaluation of human capital, if not here, then in some other ignorable country where resources could be purchased cheaply because those countries had and still have little protection for their people. America's success up until the late sixties was resource driven and manufacturing driven and manufacturing depended on cheap materials. That allowed the rise of the banks and large financial concerns that were bankrolling the big industries and let's not forget a government that did what it had to in order to protect the international interests of all of these major industrialists and oil barons. Capitalism had a great deal of government help to make it a success. Countless military engagements that had the thinnest of credible political rationales, but highly obvious capitalist motivations. Foreign governments were literally eliminated that stood in the way of American capitalist profits. I'm fairly sure that you know what I am talking about. The fact is that America can no longer do that without a great deal of scrutiny anymore and the world will no longer just look away. The world wide web and cameras on every phone has pretty much eliminated that level of clandestine activity.

The fact is that capitalism in America has always been crony capitalism, since the ink dried on the Constitution.

[Crepitus]

So you understand why that is? The first people to buy it pay for the R&D that went into developing the new product. as that is paid off, the prices drop, as you start to sell more the profit margin can decrease.

That is a good thing, don't you see that?
That isn't the discussion. You maintain that electonics prices have been dropping, that just isn't so. Last years models have been devaluing as the new stuff hits the market.

[Ethereal]

I am aware of this, and the average everyday smart phone is indeed cheaper than the first ever smart phone. But it was THE cutting edge at the time and now its not. This is:

http://gadling.com/2010/07/19/vertu-signature-15000-cell-phone/

A $15,000.00 phone. The price of last years models always falls. The cutting edge remains the province of a select few.

Smoke-screen.

So even though these high-end devices eventually become the norm, and rather quickly, you still consider it a "smokescreen"?

How does that change the fact that prices go down and quality goes up?

[zelmo1234]

Big corporations have undue influence on the government, not the other way around.

You are correct and but they did not get big without the help of government. Now Government regulations make it impossible for someone to start a competing firm.

And it was government regulations that helped that medium size company by elimination of future competition.

Just like the new 15 dollar minimum wage? do you know how hard it will be to start a new small business? You labor costs will kill you. And the ACA? Get larger than 50 employee's and you are screwed. So companies stay small, and that makes is easier for the big corporations to take more market share.

Did you really think all those taxes and benefits were free? NO they come at a cost that one a big corporation can afford.

[zelmo1234]

This is the United States of America.

We aren't supposed to have a "lower class".

Says who???

that is the stupidest thing that I have every heard. in free markets everyone is not the same.

You have confused the USA with the USSR communism is the system where everyone is to be the same

[Ethereal]

Big corporations have undue influence on the government, not the other way around.

It's not an either/or proposition. The influence goes in both directions. It's incestuous. But the root of the problem is big government since they have police powers which big business does not.

[gamewell45]

What do you think an employer owes you other than a fair day's wage for a fair day's work?

Give me a list.

The right to organize

The right to earn a living wage

The right to safe working conditions

The right to health coverage

The right to job security

The right to a 40 hour work week

The right to education

The right to respect

The right to strike

The right to have a say in your future

[Ethereal]

It was killed by a monopolistic group of mega-corps. Nearly every fast food or restaurant chain is owned by Pepsi or Coke.

And how did they kill it, exactly? And if competition is dead in the food industry, why do they have relatively low profit margins compared to other sectors of the economy?

[zelmo1234]

This is incorrect. Peasants did most of the fighting. Knights lorded it over them and sometimes fought each other. Mostly in tournaments.

Wrong. the peasants were used a worker bee's to provide for the armies. Actually the first knights that were common folk were the knights Templar's and many of them were the criminal element. but fighting in the holy wars was not a healthy occupation. So it was considered a death sentence.

But look at the Mason's of today. Even then they became nobles.

[Dr. Who]

Housing and food are heavily distorted by government intervention.
The market drives housing prices and rents - high demand equals high prices. I will allow that government intervention alters food prices, but so do things like drought, excessive rain or disease. Again, high demand drives up prices.

[Ethereal]

Big businesses have undue influence over government.

I agree.

But what you keep overlooking is WHY they want to influence government in the first place.


That is the implication when they shout about "free markets" and "Too much government regulation".

So you can't provide such a quote?

You do understand that "free markets" are not a lawless free-for-all, right?

In fact, the rule of law is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of free markets.

[Ethereal]

Well, if the business was not bent to begin with they wouldn't be buying legislation, would they? You can't argue both against and for government in the same breath. I agree something needs to be done to eliminate the conflict of interest in government that arises from the election process, however, that does not absolve the clutching greed of mega corporations. They have no compunctions whatsoever where money is at stake and that is true for most large corporations. An excessively scrupulous CEO will soon be replaced by one that cares far less and does whatever it takes to increase the bottom line and return on investment. That is the truth of it. Capitalism by its very nature reduces the world into winners and losers. It's intrinsic to the formula for that level of success.

We talk about the success of America being based on capitalism while ignoring the fact that much of that success has been based on the devaluation of human capital, if not here, then in some other ignorable country where resources could be purchased cheaply because those countries had and still have little protection for their people. America's success up until the late sixties was resource driven and manufacturing driven and manufacturing depended on cheap materials. That allowed the rise of the banks and large financial concerns that were bankrolling the big industries and let's not forget a government that did what it had to in order to protect the international interests of all of these major industrialists and oil barons. Capitalism had a great deal of government help to make it a success. Countless military engagements that had the thinnest of credible political rationales, but highly obvious capitalist motivations. Foreign governments were literally eliminated that stood in the way of American capitalist profits. I'm fairly sure that you know what I am talking about. The fact is that America can no longer do that without a great deal of scrutiny anymore and the world will no longer just look away. The world wide web and cameras on every phone has pretty much eliminated that level of clandestine activity.

The fact is that capitalism in America has always been crony capitalism, since the ink dried on the Constitution.

I'm not a capitalist, so I feel no obligation to defend capitalism.

But the fact remains, your example of Monsanto bullying farmers is based on government policies that confer ownership rights over ideas.

That is not the result of free markets, but of government intervention in the economy.

[Ethereal]

That isn't the discussion. You maintain that electonics prices have been dropping, that just isn't so. Last years models have been devaluing as the new stuff hits the market.

Devaluing?