There is a point where it does not make sense from an opportunity cost perspective to work. Here in BC that point is already above the minimum wage. Because of this, people don't work for minimum wage, there is no point, you are better served just doing nothing and getting E.I. or welfare because you earn so little money.
Really? What about all those fast food workers and Superstore workers with their 10 cent raise (lol). There's a great portion of BC population working at minimum wage and holding multiple jobs.
But you are right about manual labour. Neighbours of my dad own a winery and hire Mexican labourers because they can't get anyone to rock pick and plant blackberries.
There is a point where it does not make sense from an opportunity cost perspective to work. Here in BC that point is already above the minimum wage. Because of this, people don't work for minimum wage, there is no point, you are better served just doing nothing and getting E.I. or welfare because you earn so little money.
Really? What about all those fast food workers and Superstore workers with their 10 cent raise (lol). There's a great portion of BC population working at minimum wage and holding multiple jobs.
But you are right about manual labour. Neighbours of my dad own a winery and hire Mexican labourers because they can't get anyone to rock pick and plant blackberries.
Obviously it depends on how hard the work is. I have a friend who quit a $14/hr landscaping jobs for a $9.75/hr IGA job just because the commute was shorter and the work easier.
Minimum wages, and their effects on the economy really depend on the elasticity within the specific industry. If the service is necessary and has a very low elasticity of demand, like supermarkets, then minimum wages are optimal. If the industry has a very high price elasticity of demand, such as low skill manufacturing, then minimum wages could have a very large negative impact on the industry.
On January 22 2012 20:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Ron Paul needs another moment like this:
so, everything ron paul says in there is "you didnt go to war so youre a bad politician". i dont get this one.
How is defending your personal view of calling someone a chickenhawk so hard to understand? I honestly have no idea how you came up with such an extreme conclusion. It's more like: "You're a hypocrite."
I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them.
How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed.
The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
Ok lets imagine a scenario: You own a company. You sell food to customers. You produce the food your self. It cost you 2$ to produce 1 food. You can sell 1 food for 5$. Since you want at least 1$ for your self for each food sold you and you cant sell the food your self (your busy running the company) you need to hire someone to sell the food for you. You are willing to pay him 2$ for each food sold. Based on his qualifications you estimate that he is able to sell 5 food an hour, and hence you are willing to pay him on an hourly basis of 10$. He thinks he isn't paid sufficiently. So he tries to get another job. But he doesn't have any other kind of skill. And every other company in the world is in similar situation to yours, and they dont value him any higher than what you do.
Then why should he receive a higher wage? 2$ is (given your estimations are correct) what he is worth. THis is the correct wage. If minimum wage =4$, this guy will be unemployed for the rest of his life.
Is he needs to buy food and have a place to live, then he gotta work his butt of. THen maybe 8 hours/day isn't enough. He gotta work 14-15 hours a day. Or perhaps he should take an educaiton with a positive expected value.
But he should not be paid more than what he is worth.
What if every company refuses to pay the man 2$? What if there is a monopoly or more realistically an unfair competitive environment influenced by a country that utilizes child slave labor and traps and controls it's population far more rigorously than your own free loving libertarian nation. How does the man compete at 30cents an hour?
What if the world isn't ideal and your libertarian ideology does not properly reflect the real world (no matter how hard it tries to explain societies present problems)?
What if active governments provide unfair monopolistic advantages that make it impossible for a libertarian society to compete? For example, what if the United States suffers a shortage of energy and wealth but Canada decides to sell their energy to China because China is offering a better price (by subsidizing it's national interests with tax money) with the intention of hindering US interests and ultimately leading to the collapse of the worlds first truely free governement?
What if what is actually needed to prevent global disaster, by lets say... global warming or nuclear war, is an inefficient by highly aggressive plan that takes money from those who have it, in order to save those who can't afford massive biodomes or secret underground bunkers?
What if social security and welfare programs are the ideal way to prevent unskilled labourers from rising up against the elite and taking what they believe is rightfully theirs?
What if corrupt corporations take hundreds of years before competition finally beats them out? What if corrupt corporations are actually the ideal corporation in a truely free-market society?
What if racism isn't magically solved by competitive forces? And irrational behaviour actually provides economic incentives?
What if poorly regulated corporations actually BENEFIT from boom/bust cycles that the rich can use to consolidate their power (since those with wealth are best suited to survive boom/bust scenarios)
What if money isn't the end all be all motivator, and that once people have a few million bucks in the bank they no longer act rationally in the market?
What if current life-spans support short term investments over long term investments and an unregulated free-market society has no way of compensating for this approach?
What if the will of the people actually overrides the priviledge of wealth, and the first free society, without reasonable government intervention, crumbles as a result of riots and rebellion or simply the absolute domination of a NEW form of government ruled by corporatism?
What if a centralized universal healthcare system is actually the most efficient and effective form of healthcare (you would posit this would develop naturally in a freemarket system, but how is that guaranteed? and why should we sit and wait while hundreds of thousands of citizens go bankrupt or die largely from bad luck when it is easily within our means to prevent this from happening?)
Most imporantly: Why do you insist that your ideology is blatantly correct when you refuse to use empirical evidence, but also make all of your arguments rely on a magical chain of non-empirical truths which you can't reasonably cannot provide? It makes your arguments appear more like religious evangelism rather than ideological truths. Even if your arguments are true, you cannot convince anyone unless you provide some chain of evidence or support for your ideas, of which a few opinions and a few youtube videos aren't really substantial. After a certain point, with the amount that you've been spamming the forums (100+ posts in a week), you just begin derailing thread topics and hinder all rational discussion with nothing more than ideological dribble based loosely on a 1st year philosophy course and the adorable belief that humans are inherently rational and that that rationally can reasonably be predicted.
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them.
How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take.
For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by."
I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
To be fair, there are also portions of the U.S. where the minimum wage and social welfare programs are mismatched and end up overpaying. While the cost of living in a big city may be overwhelming for somebody on minimum wage and social benefits, that same package is more than enough for many (very) small towns. These are towns where a 4 member family dwelling can cost as little as $25,000 for a purchase, and where utilities are pretty much paid for by local use of renewable sources (wind and solar). Working minimum wage in this area and getting food stamps and other social benefits in this area is more than enough to live comfortably.
Fair enough. Which I guess gives the "states should have precedence" arguement a pretty good case. And I could probably agree to that. But I don't think just slashing programs right down (at least minimum wage) is a very good idea and then leaving it in the hands of corporations. Because lets face it, most corporations only give a shit to the point that they get their business. Government at least (or SHOULD) gives a shit in that people can have a livable life.
Actually, this inefficiency is almost necessary. States in the past have shown to be extremely terrible at being able to ensure people are sufficiently taken care of, as well as discriminating or showing preference to certain groups when allocating resources.
In the end, it's a catch-22, and the only solutions are to overregulate states in their efforts to provide these means of living or to expand (federal) government so it can properly determine the needs of specific areas effectively.
I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them.
How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed.
The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
Ok lets imagine a scenario: You own a company. You sell food to customers. You produce the food your self. It cost you 2$ to produce 1 food. You can sell 1 food for 5$. Since you want at least 1$ for your self for each food sold you and you cant sell the food your self (your busy running the company) you need to hire someone to sell the food for you. You are willing to pay him 2$ for each food sold. Based on his qualifications you estimate that he is able to sell 5 food an hour, and hence you are willing to pay him on an hourly basis of 10$. He thinks he isn't paid sufficiently. So he tries to get another job. But he doesn't have any other kind of skill. And every other company in the world is in similar situation to yours, and they dont value him any higher than what you do.
Then why should he receive a higher wage? 2$ is (given your estimations are correct) what he is worth. THis is the correct wage. If minimum wage =4$, this guy will be unemployed for the rest of his life.
Is he needs to buy food and have a place to live, then he gotta work his butt of. THen maybe 8 hours/day isn't enough. He gotta work 14-15 hours a day. Or perhaps he should take an educaiton with a positive expected value.
But he should not be paid more than what he is worth.
Name me a low level job that pays 2:1 over the initial investor (owner). The guy would be lucky to be paid $5/hr (1:2) in that scenario in today's working environment.
I know it irks Hider that the "brain-dead" in Denmark earn too much, but it doesn't change the fact that youth unemployment is still way below the OECD-average (and US-level) despite this.
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
So...when are you going to make the "bachman quotes" website? PLEASE!
I'm not going to pretend to know how the situation is in Denmark, but in the US we have ALOT of monopolies. So much so that the government has been physically forced to break up companies in the past. Removing minimum wage would these companies such power, and would hurt lower income families even more
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them.
How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed.
The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
Ok lets imagine a scenario: You own a company. You sell food to customers. You produce the food your self. It cost you 2$ to produce 1 food. You can sell 1 food for 5$. Since you want at least 1$ for your self for each food sold you and you cant sell the food your self (your busy running the company) you need to hire someone to sell the food for you. You are willing to pay him 2$ for each food sold. Based on his qualifications you estimate that he is able to sell 5 food an hour, and hence you are willing to pay him on an hourly basis of 10$. He thinks he isn't paid sufficiently. So he tries to get another job. But he doesn't have any other kind of skill. And every other company in the world is in similar situation to yours, and they dont value him any higher than what you do.
Then why should he receive a higher wage? 2$ is (given your estimations are correct) what he is worth. THis is the correct wage. If minimum wage =4$, this guy will be unemployed for the rest of his life.
Is he needs to buy food and have a place to live, then he gotta work his butt of. THen maybe 8 hours/day isn't enough. He gotta work 14-15 hours a day. Or perhaps he should take an educaiton with a positive expected value.
But he should not be paid more than what he is worth.
Let us imagine another scenario: Your home is on fire. Inside is your 5 year old daughter. A fireman shows up; how much is he worth? I'm pretty sure people would throw thousands if not milions at him to get their daughter out of a bender, if they were helpless. This is what he is worth. No more, no less.
Your scenario puts a limitation on the employer and the employee. An employer who can only pay 10 bucks an hour, no more, because their product sucks is no reason to have jobs with bad pay^^. More than likely the business does not suck, but the employer cares not to pay more cause he can get away with less which will be the case whenever there is unemployment about, and there will always be unemployment. Also the employee could net the business more than 5 bucks per hour he works (50% of his pay), and so should be given more, only he isn't cause he's got no say.
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
So...when are you going to make the "bachman quotes" website? PLEASE!
That video is missing one thing about "Uncle Sam's debt." The rate at which the U.S. is borrowing money is at EXTREMELY low interest rates (sub 2.5%). In this case, inflation can easily get a country out of debt with very few drawbacks. With a small enough interest rate, a healthy amount of inflation (usually between 2-5%) will begin to erode that debt. Of course, balancing a budget helps a lot as well, but it's by no means as dreary as many people portray. A global financial meltdown is very far from an inevitability right now, and unless EU collectively crashes, it will remain a very distant threat.
They are monopolies because they are more efficient as monopolies. Yet if they become too inefficient and gives too low wages, new companies can challenge them.
How? Sure a new company can say hey I'll pay my employees X+5 dollars per hour compared to WalMcPetroleum over there, but there is no way he can afford to. A monopoly can afford to literally have it's prices so freaking low (because they control nearly all of the product) that no other company will be able to sell at the same level and thus they won't have the ability to outpay the wages of WalMcPetroleum.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
That's just semantics. Being employed without being paid sufficiently is not an acceptable alternative, let alone the inevitable consequence of many current $20 jobs becoming $10 or $5 jobs with minimum wage removed.
The point of being employed is earning enough money to make a living worthy of a human being. Without that, employment means nothing. At least having high unemployment actually puts some stress on the government to deal with the problem and fix it.
Ok lets imagine a scenario: You own a company. You sell food to customers. You produce the food your self. It cost you 2$ to produce 1 food. You can sell 1 food for 5$. Since you want at least 1$ for your self for each food sold you and you cant sell the food your self (your busy running the company) you need to hire someone to sell the food for you. You are willing to pay him 2$ for each food sold. Based on his qualifications you estimate that he is able to sell 5 food an hour, and hence you are willing to pay him on an hourly basis of 10$. He thinks he isn't paid sufficiently. So he tries to get another job. But he doesn't have any other kind of skill. And every other company in the world is in similar situation to yours, and they dont value him any higher than what you do.
Then why should he receive a higher wage? 2$ is (given your estimations are correct) what he is worth. THis is the correct wage. If minimum wage =4$, this guy will be unemployed for the rest of his life.
Is he needs to buy food and have a place to live, then he gotta work his butt of. THen maybe 8 hours/day isn't enough. He gotta work 14-15 hours a day. Or perhaps he should take an educaiton with a positive expected value.
But he should not be paid more than what he is worth.
What if every company refuses to pay the man 2$? What if there is a monopoly or more realistically an unfair competitive environment influenced by a country that utilizes child slave labor and traps and controls it's population far more rigorously than your own free loving libertarian nation. How does the man compete at 30cents an hour?
What if the world isn't ideal and your libertarian ideology does not properly reflect the real world (no matter how hard it tries to explain societies present problems)?
What if active governments provide unfair monopolistic advantages that make it impossible for a libertarian society to compete? For example, what if the United States suffers a shortage of energy and wealth but Canada decides to sell their energy to China because China is offering a better price (by subsidizing it's national interests with tax money) with the intention of hindering US interests and ultimately leading to the collapse of the worlds first truely free governement?
What if what is actually needed to prevent global disaster, by lets say... global warming or nuclear war, is an inefficient by highly aggressive plan that takes money from those who have it, in order to save those who can't afford massive biodomes or secret underground bunkers?
What if social security and welfare programs are the ideal way to prevent unskilled labourers from rising up against the elite and taking what they believe is rightfully theirs?
What if corrupt corporations take hundreds of years before competition finally beats them out? What if corrupt corporations are actually the ideal corporation in a truely free-market society?
What if racism isn't magically solved by competitive forces? And irrational behaviour actually provides economic incentives?
What if poorly regulated corporations actually BENEFIT from boom/bust cycles that the rich can use to consolidate their power (since those with wealth are best suited to survive boom/bust scenarios)
What if money isn't the end all be all motivator, and that once people have a few million bucks in the bank they no longer act rationally in the market?
What if current life-spans support short term investments over long term investments and an unregulated free-market society has no way of compensating for this approach?
What if the will of the people actually overrides the priviledge of wealth, and the first free society, without reasonable government intervention, crumbles as a result of riots and rebellion or simply the absolute domination of a NEW form of government ruled by corporatism?
What if a centralized universal healthcare system is actually the most efficient and effective form of healthcare (you would posit this would develop naturally in a freemarket system, but how is that guaranteed? and why should we sit and wait while hundreds of thousands of citizens go bankrupt or die largely from bad luck when it is easily within our means to prevent this from happening?)
Most imporantly: Why do you insist that your ideology is blatantly correct when you refuse to use empirical evidence, but also make all of your arguments rely on a magical chain of non-empirical truths which you can't reasonably cannot provide? It makes your arguments appear more like religious evangelism rather than ideological truths. Even if your arguments are true, you cannot convince anyone unless you provide some chain of evidence or support for your ideas, of which a few opinions and a few youtube videos aren't really substantial. After a certain point, with the amount that you've been spamming the forums (100+ posts in a week), you just begin derailing thread topics and hinder all rational discussion with nothing more than ideological dribble based loosely on a 1st year philosophy course and the adorable belief that humans are inherently rational and that that rationally can reasonably be predicted.
1) I have previously dealt with the monopoly issue (not actually relevant for wages, more for prices of product, unless you make extreme assumptions).
2) Libertarians dont assume anything about the world. We only want humans to do what they want to do, e.g. maximising their freedom, as long as they dont take away other peoples freedom.
3) If governments are making prices of some companies (from other countries) prices unnaturally low. Thats actualyl fantastic from the libertarian nation, as this effecively mean that the foreign government is giving money to the libertarian country. Its true that noone in the libertarian world is gonna get a job in that sector. However there is always a shitton of other jobs. Since the foreign government is giving wealth to the libertarian country, this means that they are able to afford more stuff, and hence other jobs. Now you may say: What if all other government is doing this, and then there are actually no industries where the libertarian nation has an competitive edge. But this is assuming that the value of the currencies dont change. Of course they do, the currency will make it so that export = import (assuming equal leverage).
4) I dont want to deal with enviromental issues, as this is too off topic. But private property right genereally do a much better job dealing with these issues than government.
5) Dont understand your question.
6) Makes no sense from an economical perspective. I could just as well ask you this: What if US military decided to torture every man on eath. Its just nonsense, because at least this example isn't even a concern. Right now it seems you are making this kind of assumption about free market: What if people wanted to buy expensive bad products instread of cheap ones? Well so what? Its their choice. Its only a mnopoly because the consumer like it that way, and because its optimal from a financial perspective.
7) Racism isn't solved. I dont want to make it illegal for private companies or citizens to be racist, and again this debate is compltely off topic from the financial debate.
8) Poorly run companies go bankrupt. Well run companies dont. There isn't really gonna be any boom/bust btw anymore if markets are deciding interest rates and not central banks.
9) I never assumed anything about people acting financial rationale in the real world. I made a few examples however showing what would happen if people acted financial rationale. But if some people want to waste their money doing stupid shit, thats their problem. Not mine. This is actually a problem in welfare states, as people doing stupid shit affects other peoples financially.
10) The time value of money is decided by interest rates, which again is decided by the saving rate. Again this is a problem today since FED is manipulating interest rates, and hence they are artifially low which make people do to much "short-term" stuff, which they cant actually afford. If they have the savings for these kind of actions, its not gonna be a problem. If eveyrone decided (in a free market) that they would want to spend a shitton of money today, demand for money would increase forcing interest rate up, and hence making it more costly for people to act short-termish.
11) Im not going into a anarcho-capitalistic debate.
12) What if communism actually actually is the system from a financial persepctive, and if everyone in Sovjet in 1970 was richer than Bill gates is today?
Well short answer is that government cant estimate demand, customer needs, optimal production, prices, whatever. THey have no incenteive of being creative, working hard and hence creatign wealth. Private companies are just much better at creating wealth than government.
If wages are too low why do you wanna work there if you feel you are more qualified.
Now if you are more qualified a new competitors could open up and give you better wages. Obv. this would interest everyone who works at lower wages and is more qualified. Obv. WAl mart will (given no binding contracts) will have to increase their own wages..... And you know the rest of the story. (btw actually this wal mart examples of oyurs assumes that the employee can only work for that company. And its really really care that employees are that specialized. Anyone working at wal mart could probably get another job at another industry).
Obv. the above is no new stuff. The typical argument argainst private monopolies is that some times it requires a lot of capital to upon a new competitors to the monopoly. This is true, and this will allow monopolies to charge up high prices on products as competition isn't low. Now again assuming that their employees are very specialized and cant change industry they will be able to give out relatively low wages. And hence shareholders will be making an insane profit.
Now assuming you could identify this scenario and be 100% sure of it (with you working as a regulator) you could with the use of minimum wages shift the wealth from the shareholders to the employees.
However how can the above be the case? In what industry cant the employee get another job with their current qualifications. Assuming they are highly specialized, then its most likely that took a long education and probably has a lot of knowledge that lof of other people dont have. And they always have the option of taking a "brain-dead" (which just requires discipline) so their wages will most likely be pretty high.
Most likely specialized people receives high wages, but faces a pretty high unemployment risk.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take.
For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by."
I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before).
I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$.
Except the concept of "brain dead" work, or how much it is worth is completely alterable by larger corporations if they have enough power, which is why the government put minimum wage in place, and continually increases it as we go forward.
I dont think you have been reading what I wrote. Governement minimum wages doesn't change anything for the better: It gives those people who are valuable the same wage, and lets people who are not valuable be unemployed. But I guess i cant convince you over night. Just reflect about it, and eventually you might change your mind if your open minded.
And I don't think you're reading what I'm posting. Lets say X job is woth 10 bucks an hour and Y job is worth 5 bucks an hour (this being the general opinion, not just the deeming of a specific individual like ourselves), and the minimum wage is 5 bucks an hour. Obviously anyone working the X job doesn't really care about minimum wage, but someone working the Y job has to because...
If we remove minimum wage, than a corporation can suddenly say the Y job is only worth 2 dollars an hour. (Obviously we don't know exactly what a job is worth, but lets assume here that most people would agree it's worth 5)
Your arguement is that if they did this someone else would just come along and say "Hey F that business, I'll still pay 5 bucks for job Y" and then all the people getting paid 2 bucks would run over to that new business.
My arguement is that, if the business who is installing Y=2 dollars is powerful enough, they can basically block any of their competition whatsoever. (They can do this by refusing the manufacturers if they sell to the other business, or slashing their prices so far that business number two can't keep up) So business number two, that is offering the job at 5 dollars an hour becomes unable to support itself, and thus has to drop down to Y=2 if they want to keep themselves afloat. (And realistically, they'd actually have to drop even lower)
And thus, with Y=2, people are much worse off, and it's very possible they won't even be able to support themselves to the point of living, and then they have to sell their homes/cars/etc.
No your still not understandign me. BEcause you keep assuming that these kind of workers only can work at that specific company and have no other choice. And as I have previosuly said, that is an absurd asumption. Even today non eduacated people can work in a shitton of industries, or do a shitton of work that requires no skill (just time).
But let me play the game, assuming your absurd assumption is true: Every non educated guy only can get a job at one company (lol). Then they would still have the option to take an education. And assming that people are soemwhat weahlthy in average in that country, having an education is going to pay off big time.
It might help if i put up a few numbers:
Amount of people in country: 100,000 Amount of people working in monopoly: 10,000
Monopoly paying you: 10$/hour. Average income with an av. education = 100. Average education costs is unknown.
Amount of houurs you expect to work after having finished education till you die (300*30*10) = 90,000. That pays you: 90,000 *100 = 9,000,000$.
Assume the present value of the future income is 4.000,000$ Nominal value of monopoly job: 10*90.000 = 900,000$. Present value = 400,000$.
Differenence = 3,6000,000$.
This means that the present value cost of an educaiton actually could be as high as 3.600.000$ for the education to be worth it.
To be fair though my example ignored the fact that you could work for the monopoly in more years, since you aren't using time taking an education.
The above illustrates that if there is a huge difference between being non educated and educated it pays of big time to take a loan and get an education.
So even giving your absurd assumption this isn't even a problem, as long as you are willing to workd hard and take an education.
Fraud ? In voting ? No no... Conspiracy ! /sarcasm ?
Seriously now, if you have the power to fraud why shouldn't you ? I mean it's not like your actions are moral or anything.]
You know it's so sad actually.. On one side there are the people who flame you for being sheep, on the other hand you have the people who call you a crazy guy ----- That, for being a moderate, or at least proclaiming myself a moderate, you know...for borrowing ideas from both ends.. And fraud in votes... Since I first heard of votes I was thinking that people must be cheating here ... Here's a fun fact : In our parliament in Romania there was this vote for a law , 90 guys in the hall ... the chick who counted how many votes were For said there were 180 votes for passing the law. The sad fact is actually that the law past and the attorney general spew some moronic nonsense like there is a lot of missunderstandings and stuff so he can't throw that reptilian woman in jail.( from now on, every politician who proves to have no empathy is called a reptilian by myself yes )
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style.
Fraud ? In voting ? No no... Conspiracy ! /sarcasm ?
Seriously now, if you have the power to fraud why shouldn't you ? I mean it's not like your actions are moral or anything.]
You know it's so sad actually.. On one side there are the people who flame you for being sheep, on the other hand you have the people who call you a crazy guy ----- That, for being a moderate, or at least proclaiming myself a moderate, you know...for borrowing ideas from both ends.. And fraud in votes... Since I first heard of votes I was thinking that people must be cheating here ... Here's a fun fact : In our parliament in Romania there was this vote for a law , 90 guys in the hall ... the chick who counted how many votes were For said there were 180 votes for passing the law. The sad fact is actually that the law past and the attorney general spew some moronic nonsense like there is a lot of missunderstandings and stuff so he can't throw that reptilian woman in jail.( from now on, every politician who proves to have no empathy is called a reptilian by myself yes )
Just stop and think for a moment. This is the start of the article:
It’s official, or is it? Once again the establishment is showing it’s cards in an obvious attempt to defraud Ron Paul from the nomination, as Iowa GOP ‘officials’ purposely disrupt and permanently invalidate the 2012 Iowa Caucus.
So many people aren't capable of evaluating sources anymore.
I'm not arguing based on a qualified person. I'm arguing based on someone who can barely scrape by, someone who hasn't been to college, who needs any job they can get. These guys aren't going to be getting Financial Advisor positions at JP Morgan or something, instead they're the forty year olds that are still working the bagging lines in grocery stores.
And if grocery store/group of grocery stores gets a monopoly on the food selling business, they can literally afford to reduce their wages to next to nothing. That's why we need minimum wage, it keeps massive corporations in line so they can't completely fuck over the lower class.
A qualified person isn't going to be working at a job that pays minimum wage anyways. (Atleast I hope not, but this economy is changing that considerably.)
We have a huge poverty problem in America, which is why minimum wage is necessary for us. In a country where the overal wealth of a person is more balanced, then I don't think minimum wage would be as important.
Then they can get another job at another industry. Its not like you only can work at one kind of industry. So yeh I kinda think your confusing the problem with monopolies. Most people kinda think its a price of product problem. Low wages isn't really a problem with monopolies.
Depends. If they aren't very qualified, their options are limited to a specific few set of areas, and as it happens those areas are where a huge portion of monopolies take place. And no, I don't think it's one or the other, I think it's both. A big corporation can sustain incredibly low prices by basically paying their workers next to nothing.
No, there are shitton of jobs for people with no qualificans (clean stuff up, the garden, easy administration work etc., or perhaps take an eduction combined with a loan. The problem with minimum wage is actualyl that it creates unemployment, since employees wont give them a job if they require 20$, yet is only worth 10$ for the employee. However if they are worth, 10$ then they can get that job. Unemployment in a free market is voluntary. If you think your too good or if your demands are too high, then you might be unemploymed. But if your willing to accept what the company thinks your worht you will get the job.
L
Except theres also such as "You need X amount of money to survive", which is pretty much around the level of minimum wage for 40 hours a week, etc. Obviously that is not a specific or guranteed number, but it is accurate.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're also overrating just how many oppurtunities there are for some people. Some people do not have cars, some people have to take care of kids. They have specific limitations on what to exactly they can do, or what jobs they can take.
For example, my summer job is assisting kids that take summer school basically (it actually pays 3 bucks over minimum wage and I'm only 17, holyyyyyyyyyyy shit), and plenty of them have told me "My mom has to take me and my brother to different programs at X, Y during the day, well maintaining Z, and thus only has period P to work. And during period P there are very very few oppurtunties in regards to jobs, and all of the them are minimum wage level, so she has to take them, and just barely gets by."
I'm not sure exactly how much you know about US standard of living, but we have a FUCK ton of people who barely scrape by as it is, and removing minimum wage would destroy and hope they have.
Removing minimum wage wouldn't destroy them. They would be paid what they are worth. As US minmum wage is relatively low (compared to danish) the current minimum wage most likely doesn't change anything for 99.9% of all people, as the minimum wage is probably close to the value the "brain-dead" workers are worth. Removal of minimum wage however would make it possible for the upper "unqualified" people to get a job (which they couldn't before).
I think the current minimum wage in US is mostly a pshycological thing. It doesn't really change anything if its removed or not. But I guess that you can see the problem with us danes. When your 18 year old, you get fired from your job, as your employee dont want to pay you 20$.
Except the concept of "brain dead" work, or how much it is worth is completely alterable by larger corporations if they have enough power, which is why the government put minimum wage in place, and continually increases it as we go forward.
I dont think you have been reading what I wrote. Governement minimum wages doesn't change anything for the better: It gives those people who are valuable the same wage, and lets people who are not valuable be unemployed. But I guess i cant convince you over night. Just reflect about it, and eventually you might change your mind if your open minded.
And I don't think you're reading what I'm posting. Lets say X job is woth 10 bucks an hour and Y job is worth 5 bucks an hour (this being the general opinion, not just the deeming of a specific individual like ourselves), and the minimum wage is 5 bucks an hour. Obviously anyone working the X job doesn't really care about minimum wage, but someone working the Y job has to because...
If we remove minimum wage, than a corporation can suddenly say the Y job is only worth 2 dollars an hour. (Obviously we don't know exactly what a job is worth, but lets assume here that most people would agree it's worth 5)
Your arguement is that if they did this someone else would just come along and say "Hey F that business, I'll still pay 5 bucks for job Y" and then all the people getting paid 2 bucks would run over to that new business.
My arguement is that, if the business who is installing Y=2 dollars is powerful enough, they can basically block any of their competition whatsoever. (They can do this by refusing the manufacturers if they sell to the other business, or slashing their prices so far that business number two can't keep up) So business number two, that is offering the job at 5 dollars an hour becomes unable to support itself, and thus has to drop down to Y=2 if they want to keep themselves afloat. (And realistically, they'd actually have to drop even lower)
And thus, with Y=2, people are much worse off, and it's very possible they won't even be able to support themselves to the point of living, and then they have to sell their homes/cars/etc.
No your still not understandign me. BEcause you keep assuming that these kind of workers only can work at that specific company and have no other choice. And as I have previosuly said, that is an absurd asumption. Even today non eduacated people can work in a shitton of industries, or do a shitton of work that requires no skill (just time).
But let me play the game, assuming your absurd assumption is true: Every non educated guy only can get a job at one company (lol). Then they would still have the option to take an education. And assming that people are soemwhat weahlthy in average in that country, having an education is going to pay off big time.
It might help if i put up a few numbers:
Amount of people in country: 100,000 Amount of people working in monopoly: 10,000
Monopoly paying you: 10$/hour. Average income with an av. education = 100. Average education costs is unknown.
Amount of houurs you expect to work after having finished education till you die (300*30*10) = 90,000. That pays you: 90,000 *100 = 9,000,000$.
Assume the present value of the future income is 4.000,000$ Nominal value of monopoly job: 10*90.000 = 900,000$. Present value = 400,000$.
Differenence = 3,6000,000$.
This means that the present value cost of an educaiton actually could be as high as 3.600.000$ for the education to be worth it.
To be fair though my example ignored the fact that you could work for the monopoly in more years, since you aren't using time taking an education.
The above illustrates that if there is a huge difference between being non educated and educated it pays of big time to take a loan and get an education.
So even giving your absurd assumption this isn't even a problem, as long as you are willing to workd hard and take an education.
Absurd assumption? It's true for millions of freaking Americans. I would know, BECAUSE I WORK AND GO TO SCHOOL WITH SOME OF THEM.
I'm done arguing with you. Just try to remember this. Not every country is like Denmark, and this thread isn't about candidates from there that are trying to deal with the problems there.
EPT
which will be the case whenever there is unemployment about, and there will always be unemployment. Also the employee could net the business more than 5 bucks per hour he works (50% of his pay), and so should be given more, only he isn't cause he's got no say.
, the debates just aren't the same
