|
On January 19 2012 07:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:28 allecto wrote:On January 19 2012 07:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 07:22 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:15 acker wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed. This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies. Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of. Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth. Theory doesn't always equal reality. This is a pretty fundamental concept in science. Just because basic economic theory says that minimum wage with cause more unemployment doesn't mean that this actually happens at all because this basic economic theory is over-simplifying the real world. Yeah, but the reality also doesn't state that minimum wages are beneficial for the poor. There have been plenty of studies that show the minimum wage to hurt not just overall employment but also the lowest classes' employment rate. Would you like to show us your conclusive, one-sided evidence? Because last I checked, evidence was quite mixed and hardly said that minimum wage hurts the poor.
Never said conclusive nor one-sided, just trying to point out that your statement was quite misleading and that there is another side to the argument.
Edit: Here's something recent that shows increases in minimum wage to hurt the poor. The point is simple economics: if the wage is too high then unskilled laborers will not be getting the job, more part-time jobs will exists, and supply of those jobs will be scaled back by the business.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144594861/raising-the-minimum-wage-who-does-it-help
|
On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid. Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda). Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets. Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement. Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off. We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage). This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations.
You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument.
Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality.
|
On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:
Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations.
...
............
...............................................
Moving on...
On January 19 2012 07:42 Hider wrote:
Your most definitely misaplying statistics.
I haven't given any statistics yet, though they're easy enough to look up if you happen to have access to Google Scholar. I've just put down very simple models every idiot learns in basic microeconomics where perfect competition does not apply, or has lessened effects.
|
On January 19 2012 07:47 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 23:21 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 23:16 darthfoley wrote:On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed." No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people. Robes kill people? (robs should not be allowed). Hands kill people (hands not allowed). Big muscles...... Whats your point. WHat kind of universal rule can you apply that disallow private persons to be allowed to own guns, but still be allowed by own knifes and other stuff. An pointing out the specific stuff that is allowed is not a an unisveral rule. rofl your arguments are so stupid. I don't even know how "robes" kill people. Hands only kill people if they mean to kill people. Guns were MADE to kill things, there is a big difference that your "argument" fails to cover. All it takes is a clever kid and a parent forgetting to put safety on and say goodbye to your 5 year old.
Make a uniserval objetive measurable rule then.
|
On January 19 2012 07:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:30 bOneSeven wrote:On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:
[quote]
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. . You can't predict 100% what would happen now on a free market. Back then, monopolies, shoddy products, bad wages were possible because of the lack of sound sources of information . Trying to pay a worker with a really low amount where the worker can find out what his work actually values/how much the employer earns off of him changes the case to a huge extent. I'm probably wrong on that premise, but I'm for sure on this simple statement. You can't abuse an informed worker nowadays on a completely free market because both the worker and the corporation loose unless both of them reach middleground. In my shallow understanding of economics, I see a pseudo-free-market , in the sense that the market is free for the great corporation, the government even helps the corporation to grow trough ways which would've been illegal 50 years ago. Take SOPA for example, it is pushed by huge corporations, if it would pass it would empower corporations in the manner that new ones may be instantly killed by some remote case of copyright . So the government would help, in this case, the corporation maintain it's reign and kill its opponents. How I see it, the big corporations don't even live in an even free ground, they are actually even helped by the government. Then again, I'm totally dumb in this field, some1 could explain me why my statements in regard to that quote is wrong.... There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid - Why ? Because the government is what is keeping corporations and businesses accountable. If we just let them run 100% free, do you really think that just because people are more educated on average, those in power are going to be more altruistic? No. They are going to find ways to exploit workers just like humanity has done since the beginning of the damn species. It might be harder, but it'll still be done. That's what government is - an artificial construction to protect humanity from itself.
I don't believe you're right, in a 1st world country at least. Corporation's main goal is gain, without regard to any kind of moral guidelines, however, with enough social awareness, they shouldn't be able to abuse or whatever ( they mostly do because of globalisation in the case of today.. ) because people can analyze the data today and see how much their work is actually valued.
The last thing you said is inherently flawed imo. A human construction to stop humans against themselves ? It's human so....Won't work....Doesn't make sense to me at least
|
On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet).
I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets. Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement. Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off. We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage). This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality.
No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases.
|
On January 19 2012 08:01 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement. Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off. We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage). This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality. No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases.
You're proving my point. You're ignoring a lot of external assumptions you're making (about empirical reality!) that I do not know the truth value of, but I do know you're not stating. For example, it's not logically impossible that if company x paid its workers more, and this was widely publicised as an ethical thing to do, company x's profits would actually increase because of an increase in public goodwill that leads to better brand image. Your argument relies on the premise, among others, that wages have no complicated interactions with anything else, which is an empirical one, not one that's analytically true.
Edit: Another logically possible example that you would need empirical data to falsify:
Company y is a very large company that manufactures a useful and attractive consumer good that is moderately expensive, called the Widgetmaster 3000. Its lowest-wage workers spend a great deal of time with the Widgetmaster and get to know it well, and because it's a good product they want it. However, they're paid at such a rate that they cannot afford to buy said product. A marginal pay increase, as it happens, would bump a large number of those people up enough that they could justify to themselves buying a Widgetmaster, but that marginal amount happens to be a number such that their effective wages after purchasing a Widgetmaster from the company are actually lower; the company receives more money from the workers as a result of giving them more money. This too is possible.
|
On January 19 2012 08:05 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 08:01 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality. No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases. You're proving my point. You're ignoring a lot of external assumptions you're making (about empirical reality!) that I do not know the truth value of, but I do know you're not stating. For example, it's not logically impossible that if company x paid its workers more, and this was widely publicised as an ethical thing to do, company x's profits would actually increase because of an increase in public goodwill that leads to better brand image. Your argument relies on the premise, among others, that wages have no complicated interactions with anything else, which is an empirical one, not one that's analytically true. Edit: Another logically possible example that you would need empirical data to falsify: Company y is a very large company that manufactures a useful and attractive consumer good that is moderately expensive, called the Widgetmaster 3000. Its lowest-wage workers spend a great deal of time with the Widgetmaster and get to know it well, and because it's a good product they want it. However, they're paid at such a rate that they cannot afford to buy said product. A marginal pay increase, as it happens, would bump a large number of those people up enough that they could justify to themselves buying a Widgetmaster, but that marginal amount happens to be a number such that their effective wages after purchasing a Widgetmaster from the company are actually lower; the company receives more money from the workers as a result of giving them more money. This too is possible.
Yeah, lets ignore theoretical and empirical evidence and make up fake scenarios to justify minimum wages. Seems reasonable.
|
On January 19 2012 07:50 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:
Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. ... ............ ............................................... Moving on... Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:42 Hider wrote:
Your most definitely misaplying statistics. I haven't given any statistics yet, though they're easy enough to look up if you happen to have access to Google Scholar. I've just put down very simple models every idiot learns in basic microeconomics where perfect competition does not apply, or has lessened effects.
No you have not written anything about statistic, but since your convinced that higher minimum wages doesn't decrease total production you must be misapplying statistics when you read them.
I can only assume that some people think that higher wages increases total spending, and hence has made a statistical analysis "proving their point". This is nonsense, if wages are above the real value of the employeed total production is less and given equal money suply prices will rise. Hence real wages aren't the same.
The companies that decreases their profit/number of employeed will obivisouly hire less people to remain profitable (obv. assuming that minimum wages > real value).
I cant see how employment would rise in any case?
|
On January 19 2012 08:14 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 08:05 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 08:01 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality. No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases. You're proving my point. You're ignoring a lot of external assumptions you're making (about empirical reality!) that I do not know the truth value of, but I do know you're not stating. For example, it's not logically impossible that if company x paid its workers more, and this was widely publicised as an ethical thing to do, company x's profits would actually increase because of an increase in public goodwill that leads to better brand image. Your argument relies on the premise, among others, that wages have no complicated interactions with anything else, which is an empirical one, not one that's analytically true. Edit: Another logically possible example that you would need empirical data to falsify: Company y is a very large company that manufactures a useful and attractive consumer good that is moderately expensive, called the Widgetmaster 3000. Its lowest-wage workers spend a great deal of time with the Widgetmaster and get to know it well, and because it's a good product they want it. However, they're paid at such a rate that they cannot afford to buy said product. A marginal pay increase, as it happens, would bump a large number of those people up enough that they could justify to themselves buying a Widgetmaster, but that marginal amount happens to be a number such that their effective wages after purchasing a Widgetmaster from the company are actually lower; the company receives more money from the workers as a result of giving them more money. This too is possible. Yeah, lets ignore theoretical and empirical evidence and make up fake scenarios to justify minimum wages. Seems reasonable.
A misreading of what I'm saying. I'm saying precisely that we shouldn't ignore empirical evidence and rely entirely on 'deductive logic' (which the person I'm arguing with only claims to be doing, and is in fact not doing). I have no expertise on economics, so I'm not taking a position on that.
|
You can also argue that people with better income also performs better at their job than those that have to slave for basically nothing. I'm sure there's a breaking point somewhere.
|
On January 19 2012 08:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:50 acker wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:
Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. ... ............ ............................................... Moving on... On January 19 2012 07:42 Hider wrote:
Your most definitely misaplying statistics. I haven't given any statistics yet, though they're easy enough to look up if you happen to have access to Google Scholar. I've just put down very simple models every idiot learns in basic microeconomics where perfect competition does not apply, or has lessened effects. No you have not written anything about statistic, but since your convinced that higher minimum wages doesn't decrease total production you must be misapplying statistics when you read them. I can only assume that some people think that higher wages increases total spending, and hence has made a statistical analysis "proving their point". This is nonsense, if wages are above the real value of the employeed total production is less and given equal money suply prices will rise. Hence real wages aren't the same. The companies that decreases their profit/number of employeed will obivisouly hire less people to remain profitable (obv. assuming that minimum wages > real value). I cant see how employment would rise in any case?
In a monopsony I think employment rises.
Edit: But again there is plenty of empirical evidence out there that suggests that minimum wages are counterproductive.
|
X is unfair to businesses! Y is unfair to corporations! Z is hurting profits! GPD! Free markets! Etc!
How do you guys want to judge our country? On the freedom of business owners to pay whatever they like and discriminate against whomever they wish? Bottom line GDP? Or the quality of life of our citizens?
Conservatives complain about how unfair regulations are to their industries, but don't seem to give two shits about the people actually working these minimum wage jobs, (and often go as far as to accuse them of simply being lazy).
I'm sick of the magical free market talk. If it doesn't work, it's not "free enough". When we deregulate entire sectors of the business world and it still doesn't work, it's because we "didn't deregulate it enough". Maybe it just doesn't work in reality?
Truck drivers on the occupy movement: Here's an industry which was deregulated several decades ago. Here are American workers putting in rather ridiculous hours for shit wages with minute benefits, because their employers aren't required to give them any. These poor guys, (and gals) carry bottles/cans around in their cabs because no company is required to provide them restrooms, and so they don't. These *same* shipping companies provide these benefits when working in other countries, because they are required to.
Germany produces twice as many cars as we do, *and* pays its workers twice as much. Those evil socialist pigs! Highly regulated companies posting record profits *while* paying their employees living wages. And here we're told that such practices will bankrupt the country.
Americans are working more, and making less.
Here's what happens when you deregulate another industry.
The goal of a business is to make money. I get it. But why do we so insist upon the rights of businesses to make money in any way they see fit, and not insist upon a decent quality of life for our citizens? How do you want to judge our country? Bottom line profits? Or happiness of our people?
|
Well drudge is going bonkers right now about some "bombshell" campaign interview that a network is going to air. The candidate and network aren't identified, but typically drudge doesn't do this unless something major is actually coming.
|
On January 19 2012 08:05 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 08:01 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality. No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases. You're proving my point. You're ignoring a lot of external assumptions you're making (about empirical reality!) that I do not know the truth value of, but I do know you're not stating. For example, it's not logically impossible that if company x paid its workers more, and this was widely publicised as an ethical thing to do, company x's profits would actually increase because of an increase in public goodwill that leads to better brand image. Your argument relies on the premise, among others, that wages have no complicated interactions with anything else, which is an empirical one, not one that's analytically true. Edit: Another logically possible example that you would need empirical data to falsify: Company y is a very large company that manufactures a useful and attractive consumer good that is moderately expensive, called the Widgetmaster 3000. Its lowest-wage workers spend a great deal of time with the Widgetmaster and get to know it well, and because it's a good product they want it. However, they're paid at such a rate that they cannot afford to buy said product. A marginal pay increase, as it happens, would bump a large number of those people up enough that they could justify to themselves buying a Widgetmaster, but that marginal amount happens to be a number such that their effective wages after purchasing a Widgetmaster from the company are actually lower; the company receives more money from the workers as a result of giving them more money. This too is possible.
No actually not. If brand value of company X increases through increasing wages, the employeed real value increases as well. Here is an example
Year 0.
Assuming that total money suply in that world = 100.000.
Company A has turnover of 50.000 and pays wages of 45.000 (which is their only cost, hence profit = 5.000).
Company B, turnover = 50.000. Wages = 45000, profit = 5.000.
Shareholder wages is the residual = 10.000.
From year 0 to year 1 the below happens.
Assuming that wages = real value (not realistic assumption but it doesn't change my point).
Inflation = 0.
Workers are just as efficiently as previsouly, and works same amount of hours.
Same product is sold.
Both companies are going-concern.
Company A decides increasing wages for some reason, and then decide to increase prices, which increases turnover (cus of the above reason).
Turnover = 75.000. Wages = 60.000. Profit = 15.000
Company B: Turnover: 25.000. Wages = 45.000. Profit = -20.000.
Conclusion: So what has happened here is just a redestribution of wealth. THis is the best case scenario of higher wages for company A. And it benefits their shareholders and their employees. However it fucks up the shareholders of company B.
But it cant create wealth. Only increased production can. A increased production given unchanged inflation (=money suply) average prices decreases, hence real buying power has increased = wealth created.
|
On January 19 2012 08:16 nihlon wrote:
You can also argue that people with better income also performs better at their job than those that have to slave for basically nothing. I'm sure there's a breaking point somewhere.
Then your claim is that government is actually better at pricing the value of the employeed than private companies.
|
Hider, out of curiosity, have you ever taken a university course in economics?
|
Only increased production can. A increased production given unchanged inflation (=money suply) average prices decreases, hence real buying power has increased = wealth created.
lol.
Bah, you edited and are still not right (but at least not totally wrong anymore).
|
On January 19 2012 08:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 08:05 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 08:01 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:49 ikl2 wrote:On January 19 2012 07:39 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:36 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:34 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:31 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 07:25 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:17 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used. Oh, yeh thats now how i define production. Obv. services count to my definition of "total production". Dont understand your last sentence. Profits aren't relevant. Total production (obv. onl production of what people demand creates wealth). You don't seem to understand that less regulations increase the income gap which leads to a lot of other things. There is no basic economics especially in todays economies. Well: Increased production of what people demand = more wealth. Thats a sentence that is true no matter what. It isn't depending on time or income gap or regulations or whatever. There is no conclusive proof that minimum wage decreases production or wealth. Sure there is. Through deductive logic. There may be no empirical proof or whatever (there probably "is), but i dont really care as you cant prove anything through empircal observations. You understand how deductive logic works, right? You need a certain number of starting claims about empirical reality in order for you to deduce anything. You actually cannot just dismiss empirical observation as you need it to start your argument. Further, if empirical reality seems to be in conflict with what you're saying - and I'm not taking sides here, that's for people who know what they're talking about to decide - then it may be all the worse for your starting assumptions, not for empirical reality. No you dont need empirical observations. You need true claims. Like obv. From true claims we know that companies loses money if they pay out more than what they receive. Hence paying higher wages for the same producing lowers their profit. Since this decreases profit for each product they produce, they cant hire as many people and still be profitable --> hence total production decreases. You're proving my point. You're ignoring a lot of external assumptions you're making (about empirical reality!) that I do not know the truth value of, but I do know you're not stating. For example, it's not logically impossible that if company x paid its workers more, and this was widely publicised as an ethical thing to do, company x's profits would actually increase because of an increase in public goodwill that leads to better brand image. Your argument relies on the premise, among others, that wages have no complicated interactions with anything else, which is an empirical one, not one that's analytically true. Edit: Another logically possible example that you would need empirical data to falsify: Company y is a very large company that manufactures a useful and attractive consumer good that is moderately expensive, called the Widgetmaster 3000. Its lowest-wage workers spend a great deal of time with the Widgetmaster and get to know it well, and because it's a good product they want it. However, they're paid at such a rate that they cannot afford to buy said product. A marginal pay increase, as it happens, would bump a large number of those people up enough that they could justify to themselves buying a Widgetmaster, but that marginal amount happens to be a number such that their effective wages after purchasing a Widgetmaster from the company are actually lower; the company receives more money from the workers as a result of giving them more money. This too is possible. No actually not. If brand value of company X increases through increasing wages, the employeed real value increases as well. Here is an example Year 0.Assuming that total money suply in that world = 100.000. Company A has turnover of 50.000 and pays wages of 45.000 (which is their only cost, hence profit = 5.000). Company B, turnover = 50.000. Wages = 45000, profit = 5.000. Shareholder wages is the residual = 10.000. From year 0 to year 1 the below happens.Assuming that wages = real value (not realistic assumption but it doesn't change my point). Inflation = 0. Workers are just as efficiently as previsouly, and works same amount of hours. Same product is sold. Both companies are going-concern. Company A decides increasing wages for some reason, and then decide to increase prices, which increases turnover (cus of the above reason). Turnover = 75.000. Wages = 60.000. Profit = 15.000 Company B: Turnover: 25.000. Wages = 45.000. Profit = -20.000. Conclusion: So what has happened here is just a redestribution of wealth. THis is the best case scenario of higher wages for company A. And it benefits their shareholders and their employees. However it fucks up the shareholders of company B. But it cant create wealth. Only increased production can. A increased production given unchanged inflation (=money suply) average prices decreases, hence real buying power has increased = wealth created.
I don't know if that's how you use the term 'value' in economics, so I won't argue and assume you're right that an increase in employee wages that results in increased goodwill counts as increased employee value. That seems like a weird way to talk about it, but sure.
And yes, if you look at it in the simplified context of (a) two companies and (b) stable accessible money supply over two years (is this really an assumption that helps us model how the world works? That would surprise me, given birth/death, people leaving/entering the market, immigration/emigration, money being printed...), then indeed, wealth is simply distributed. But isn't that a decent objection to almost everything that would make one company more profitable than another, and at the expense of another? This seems like how competition works. I'm genuinely curious about both the viability of assumption (b) (which again strikes me as an assumption about empirical reality...) and the implications of the position.
Edit: But frankly, I'd like to echo Haemonculus' point. Total economic production strikes me as a really shallow way to evaluate a country. 'Value' does not seem to me to be restricted to the realm of the monetarily profitable.
|
On January 19 2012 08:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +Only increased production can. A increased production given unchanged inflation (=money suply) average prices decreases, hence real buying power has increased = wealth created.
lol. Bah, you edited and are still not right (but at least not totally wrong anymore).
no i didn't edit that. Whats wrong with that sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
