On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
Are advocating is slavery? In how you explain we get a society were you can keep decreasing the wages because higher wages would increase cost of production right!?
So why do McDonalds and other Corporations keep paying their CEO`S incredible amount of wages? Why don't they lower those than they can lower the cost too right according to your logic?
Anyway i do need see how your views reflects reality.
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
No It was meant as an argument for free wages.
The people of the country in unison will determine the minimum wage to an amount that makes sense, If McDonalds cannot stay competitive and earn money within the boundaries set by the people then they can go away or find a method of making it work.
Because then by majority vote the people have determined that flipping burgers is a giant waste of human potential.
I understand outsourcing and import / export is a problem, but it`s only a problem so long as taxes on it remain as low as they are.
Are advocating is slavery? In how you explain we get a society were you can keep decreasing the wages because higher wages would increase cost of production right!?
So why do McDonalds and other Corporations keep paying their CEO`S incredible amount of wages? Why don't they lower those than they can lower the cost too right according to your logic?
No, I don't advocate slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't slavery the actual ownership of people who aren't even being paid for their work and are sold / traded by their "owners" ? You think that is the other side of the argument ? Really ?
Wages should be set by what a willing employer and a willing employee agree upon, just like any market price. If you want to purchase a car, you see some cars that are too expensive, so you don't buy them. You negotiate with the dealer and if you agree on a price, you buy the car. If not, you don't. Labor is no different. Wages are set at what the market will bear. If the labor costs to produce a product are higher than that product can be sold for, the product is not made and there is no wage created. That is the effect of the minimum wage on low value items.
McDonald's and other corporations pay their CEOs the wages they do because there are only a very select few people in the world capable of doing that job. It's competition. If you only pay $100 per hour for that job, you will not get the best people in that position. That position is considered worth that amount because the shareholders (owners) are the ones making the decision through electing the Board of Directors, who hires and pays that CEO. It's not anyone's business how much the CEO of McDonald's is paid, unless they own stock in McDonald's, in which case, they vote.
Btw, there is no such a thing as an "artificial minimum wage" opposed to "natural laws of market". you think as if economy was a completely separate sphere in social life... But market itself is something constructed and organized by men and laws. Especially it supposes a state capable to guarantee private property (which means police and violence). Actually it is as "natural" for workers to ask for some labor protection than it is for owners to contest it; they have opposed interests, pretty obviously.
Now does labour law means the individuals are not completely free? yes for sure, it's a law! But I think that you lose a small part of your personnal freedom, just to get a great collective reward which is worth it for the large majority of the population. It's actually very short sighted to complain about the State, taxes, etc. without considering what you get back. You may prefer to have the freedom to absolutely decide what you want, but then if you can't do anything in reality, because you have only very littly money for instance, then I think pretty obviously nobody is really interested...
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
No It was meant as an argument against free wages.
The people of the country in unison will determine the minimum wage to an amount that makes sense, If McDonalds cannot stay competitive and earn money within the boundaries set by the people then they can go away or find a method of making it work.
Because then by majority vote the people have determined that flipping burgers is a giant waste of human potential.
The result is that all those people employed by McDonalds are now unemployed. Great idea.
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
I am not defending a minimumpay longer than I can throw it and the way it is today is not a good deal.
However, it can be a very good mechanism: In raving uptime, you can impose a higher and higher minimumwage on the employers untill the search for labour is low. As soon as a recession hits, reducing it, will stimulate growth. Thereby it becomes a mechanism for cutting excessive jobs noone in U.S. wants to do anyway, so you don't have to import workers from Mexico i certain states in good times.
Restriction on work is not always good, but helping the market by regulationg it is not in itself a problem. Never having a minimum-wage is exposing the country a lot more in a recession than what is necessary.
Libertarians should be aware that if a recession hits in a zero-state environment, it will get ugly very fast, since there is nothing to mitigate the effects.
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
No It was meant as an argument against free wages.
The people of the country in unison will determine the minimum wage to an amount that makes sense, If McDonalds cannot stay competitive and earn money within the boundaries set by the people then they can go away or find a method of making it work.
Because then by majority vote the people have determined that flipping burgers is a giant waste of human potential.
The result is that all those people employed by McDonalds are now unemployed. Great idea.
I think its a great idea. Because they would find a solution, rather than help a problem.
That problem being wasting of people`s time with jobs that are not relevant to an ideal society. Jobs that exploit their situation wont inherently solve anything.
On October 09 2011 05:09 Madkipz wrote: Im not saying All labour is worth the same amount. Im saying humans in a free world should be able to determine a minimum price for their hourly work that makes it worth doing.
Congratulations. You've just made the argument against the minimum wage.
In the chase of No minimum wage they pick someone desperate enough to accept shit for money to do it and that`s exploitation. Either the system should be automated or it should be worth a human`s time. There should not be a middle ground.
Here's where we differ. You impose your judgment on what is "enough" compensation, whereas in a "free world", that decision is made between the employer and employee. If I am willing to do a job for a certain pay, you have no right to tell me I can't. If I "really" need money, I am more willing to accept a job at McDonald's then I would be if I had $1 million in the bank. Does that mean McDonald's has to pay me more than I am worth to them ? It shouldn't. Is McDonald's "exploiting" me because I "really" need money ? No.
Keep raising this artificially imposed minimum wage to the point that employers like McDonald's can't justify charging $20 for a cheeseburger because of the extreme labor costs, and that company goes out of business because it can't produce it's product with the cost structure imposed by some elitist assholes, instead of what the market dictates.
edit: I understand you're not in the U.S., but we have issues with employers getting work done outside the country because it's cheaper than using American labor. The minimum wage is but one of these factors, as well as other regulations, such as environmental stuff, etc. The more you impose restrictions on employers inside the U.S., the more jobs that "could" be done by Americans are done outside the country.
No It was meant as an argument against free wages.
The people of the country in unison will determine the minimum wage to an amount that makes sense, If McDonalds cannot stay competitive and earn money within the boundaries set by the people then they can go away or find a method of making it work.
Because then by majority vote the people have determined that flipping burgers is a giant waste of human potential.
The result is that all those people employed by McDonalds are now unemployed. Great idea.
I think its a great idea. Because they would find a solution, rather than help a problem.
That problem being wasting of people`s time with jobs that are not relevant to an ideal society. Jobs that exploit people in unemployment that wont inherently solve their situation.
So then what is in your opinion a better job for an uneducated person?
I really don't get why the assemblies that are allowed to use megaphones also use the human mic. It makes sense for the crowd who don't have one, but it's just creepy for the facilitator. Then again it absolutely ensures that there's no real side conversations or people not paying attention.
It sounds like he was trying to speak while the people there were there trying to organize themselves and perform logistical duties / figure out what the hell they're doing (what the General Assemblies are for). It kind of undermines the whole movement if they stop their process just to cater to someone.
Are advocating is slavery? In how you explain we get a society were you can keep decreasing the wages because higher wages would increase cost of production right!?
So why do McDonalds and other Corporations keep paying their CEO`S incredible amount of wages? Why don't they lower those than they can lower the cost too right according to your logic?
No, I don't advocate slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't slavery the actual ownership of people who aren't even being paid for their work and are sold / traded by their "owners" ? You think that is the other side of the argument ? Really ?
Wages should be set by what a willing employer and a willing employee agree upon, just like any market price. If you want to purchase a car, you see some cars that are too expensive, so you don't buy them. You negotiate with the dealer and if you agree on a price, you buy the car. If not, you don't. Labor is no different. Wages are set at what the market will bear. If the labor costs to produce a product are higher than that product can be sold for, the product is not made and there is no wage created. That is the effect of the minimum wage on low value items.
McDonald's and other corporations pay their CEOs the wages they do because there are only a very select few people in the world capable of doing that job. It's competition. If you only pay $100 per hour for that job, you will not get the best people in that position. That position is considered worth that amount because the shareholders (owners) are the ones making the decision through electing the Board of Directors, who hires and pays that CEO. It's not anyone's business how much the CEO of McDonald's is paid, unless they own stock in McDonald's, in which case, they vote.
Are advocating is slavery? In how you explain we get a society were you can keep decreasing the wages because higher wages would increase cost of production right!?
So why do McDonalds and other Corporations keep paying their CEO`S incredible amount of wages? Why don't they lower those than they can lower the cost too right according to your logic?
No, I don't advocate slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't slavery the actual ownership of people who aren't even being paid for their work and are sold / traded by their "owners" ? You think that is the other side of the argument ? Really ?
Wages should be set by what a willing employer and a willing employee agree upon, just like any market price. If you want to purchase a car, you see some cars that are too expensive, so you don't buy them. You negotiate with the dealer and if you agree on a price, you buy the car. If not, you don't. Labor is no different. Wages are set at what the market will bear. If the labor costs to produce a product are higher than that product can be sold for, the product is not made and there is no wage created. That is the effect of the minimum wage on low value items.
McDonald's and other corporations pay their CEOs the wages they do because there are only a very select few people in the world capable of doing that job. It's competition. If you only pay $100 per hour for that job, you will not get the best people in that position. That position is considered worth that amount because the shareholders (owners) are the ones making the decision through electing the Board of Directors, who hires and pays that CEO. It's not anyone's business how much the CEO of McDonald's is paid, unless they own stock in McDonald's, in which case, they vote.
no. just no
Just saying no isn't a very good argument. I think it's also a sign of somebody that doesn't have anything to contribute. Do you think there are a lot of people that could fill Steve Job's shoes? Even liberal wet dream companies like Ben & Jerry's had to abandon their pledge to not pay executives super high wages.
Once in trimester I fill in a report for my company, that shows what I did to help the company fire an American and take an Indian instead. Actually it is called "to make process simple and cost effective". We can hire 4 unskilled Indians in place of 1 skilled American. So I have to rebuild the process in the way that it requires few skilled and many unskilled workers. I guess about 50% already replaced in the company. I can see potential to cut another 25%. Sorry my American colleagues, but you are too expensive. You know that profit come first and it's free global market. I must say however that quality has dropped and reaction times increased. And it is a bad strategy long term. But who cares, we need to make money now. Frankly, I am surprised why many Americans protect the system that takes their jobs, outsourcing. For me personally it does not matter because I will have a job in any system. But are you brainwashed or something?
On October 09 2011 07:07 GeyzeR wrote: Once in trimester I fill in a report for my company, that shows what I did to help the company fire an American and take an Indian instead. Actually it is called "to make process simple and cost effective". We can hire 4 unskilled Indians in place of 1 skilled American. So I have to rebuild the process in the way that it requires few skilled and many unskilled workers. I guess about 50% already replaced in the company. I can see potential to cut another 25%. Sorry my American colleagues, but you are too expensive. You know that profit come first and it's free global market. I must say however that quality has dropped and reaction times increased. And it is a bad strategy long term. But who cares, we need to make money now. Frankly, I am surprised why many Americans protect the system that takes their jobs, outsourcing. For me personally it does not matter because I will have a job in any system. But are you brainwashed or something?
Not brainwashed at all. We live in a global economy now. That's not up for debate. It's a fact of life. If my job can be done by someone living in a shack on the other side of the world, then I need to rethink my career choice. Because my employer will eventually go out of business as his competitors can get my job done much more cheaply and provide their product or service cheaper than my employer. So, I'm out of a job either way. This is why putting in regulations and requiring American employers to do things and jump through hoops that foreign competitors do not have to deal with, results in these American jobs being lost to employers who don't have to deal with those government regulations.
If your quality has dropped, and reaction times increased, then anyone can jump in the market providing a product that focuses on quality and short reaction times. If that is what the market wants, instead of cheap, then you will have success and employers making cheap products will go out of business.
We're not "protecting the system that takes our jobs", we're acknowledging the reality of the world economy we live in. It has nothing to do with "the system", although a system imposing additional government regulations certainly expedites the process, for sure, but that is what Obama and the liberals support, not me.
still very little coverage over this event. also I think they are going about it wrong. GE and Proctor and Gamble really haven't done anything wrong since they are firms making money of things with value whereas banks just bet on the markets and lost.
EPT
