|
 monoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)
Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 9 days
|
 Re: The young are becoming less liberal  [Re: Phred]
#2092826 - 11/11/03 02:05 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Correct. Believe it or not, there are many who would prefer to work for less than minimum wage than not work at all. These people are by law forcibly prevented from doing so.
I don't know how things are in the DR,but fast food and other assorted shit jobs aren't exactly in short supply here.
Minimum wages don't kill jobs,greedy ass people do.
--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
#2092968 - 11/11/03 02:49 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It seems your philosophy has alot to do with the rights of individuals...
If individuals have no rights, then groups don't either. Groups are comprised of individuals.
Well we are off to a good start because I wholeheartedly agree with you...I think we are heading down hill from here on in though.
Quote:
Which individuals?
The people who decide the policy and strategy of major companies. They are in a minority. As Mushmaster himself conceded, if you take away government intervention you weaken the posistion of a larger part of society i.e the employed when negotiating.
Quote:
Empower" them to do what? To violate the rights of others? Nope. To provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort? Yep.
Wouldnt it be great if the world was actually that cut and dry! Large companies are not in existence to "provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort" I mean come on! Large companies are in existence to make a nice fat profit margin. I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely. The government makes it possible for the employed to represent themselves more equally in any negotiations that take place with the employer. They do this by legitamising unions and acting as a third party with influence over both parties. Undoubtedly the government overstep the mark but I think that is preferable to removing the middle man entirely.
Quote:
And what do you mean by "at the expense of"? If someone feels he is being taken advantage of by accepting a job offer, he is free not to accept it, and to support himself in some other manner.
People feel they are being taken advantage of all the time! Many of them dont have the luxury of simply supporting themselves in some other manner.
Quote:
What "shotgun" are you describing? If a company cannot force someone to work for them, cannot force someone to sell to them, and cannot force someone to buy from them, exactly what "shotgun" is the company wielding?
Well actually it was Mush who brought up the analogy of the shotgun not me. I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.
Quote:
Irrelevant. What matters is that it is voluntary.
It matters to me if somebody is exploiting another person. Voluntary exploitation might run rife.
Quote:
So what? There are freeloaders in every system.
So how is this a fair system? I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.
Quote:
Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else?
Quote:
As for the idea that you dont owe any responsibility to those worse off in society, I would say the only way you could fairly claim it to be true would be if the society we lived in could be proven to have the capability of providing work for every single member. If this cannot be proven then the system which we are all a part of is at fault. Since those in employment are benefitting from the system surely they should be required to pass on some of this benefit to those who are not?
There is no way that every single person currently unemployed in the west is a lazy bum who doesnt want to work. If it could be proven that there was work for everyone and all those who were unemployed were so because of their own choice then your arguement might be a little stronger.
Quote:
Theose who produce are not benefitting from any "system",
Of course they are! We live in a society where rules are agreed upon which govern the way we can and cant behave. This is called a system. Another system quite pertinent to this discussion is the monetary system. If it cannot be proven beyond doubt that these systems are capable of providing work for every member of society then welfare should be seen as a necessity not a choice.
Quote:
WHY should anyone be required to work for anyone other than himself? In every case, the response boils down to the same 'answer' -- "Because there is more than one human on earth". Well, yeah, there is. So what?
Well perhaps because it is the way humans have always done business. Humans have always worked for others. Its in our nature. We have always survived in groups where some do more for others. If the cavemen had decided the weak scrawny kid who was messing about with two stones didnt deserve any food because he hadnt caught any of it they might never have discovered fire.
Quote:
But that's just it -- they are not all unemployed by their own choice. The government prevents them from working for what it deems is less than an acceptable amount, even if that amount may be acceptable to the jobseeker himself.
So we abolish the minimum wage and end unemployment at a stroke? How much is the minimum wage? Im guessing its not too great..wouldnt be a walk in the park supporting a family on it I bet. But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!
How about the obscenely overpaid higher management distribute their wages more evenly through the entire workforce so more gain is felt by more people. This influx of money into the "middle classes" could possibly stimulate the economy to the point where companies need to employ more people and when the last man is employed we can scrap the welfare system! I wouldnt be keen on that scenario myself, as it would require an orgy of consumption but im sure theres another way 
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2093003 - 11/11/03 03:02 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"And actually, absent a minimum wage floor, virtually everyone other than the profoundly disabled could find some kind of work at some kind of wage, so the capability already exists."
this is true. whether that wage was actually enough to support someone on would be the question. it might not be if there are far too many unskilled laborers in the market. i don't believe we have yet reached that point.
That is far from proven as far as Im concerned! The minimum wage was introduced in 1938 if the site I just googled has its facts straight. Prior to the minimum wage unemployment still existed. What has changed so much that in these far less labour intensive times, simply removing the minimum wage will end unemployment?
Quote:
it might not be if there are far too many unskilled laborers in the market.
It is irrelevant whether someone is skilled or not. Those unskilled jobs still need to be done. If you employ a phd to pack boxes you wont pay him more simply because he is skilled. And if all the people in the factory get phds and go off to better themselves, someone has still got to pack the boxes.
Quote:
2. without welfare, the population of the lowest paid groups in society can never grow so large that some people cannot make enough money to survive.
Could you explain how that one works?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
monoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)
Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 9 days
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2093015 - 11/11/03 03:09 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!
Seriously.Look at the countries without minimum wages-there is virtually no middle class.
If you want to see crime skyrocket,abolish the minimum wage.
--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2093631 - 11/11/03 06:04 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That is far from proven as far as Im concerned! The minimum wage was introduced in 1938 if the site I just googled has its facts straight. Prior to the minimum wage unemployment still existed. What has changed so much that in these far less labour intensive times, simply removing the minimum wage will end unemployment?
it's about supply and demand. here's how it works:
at each price for a good, there will be a certain amount of it consumed by consumers. the relationship is somewhat inversely proportional; there is less of a good demanded by consumers as prices increase. if you were to graph this relationship, with price along the Y axis and quantity along the X axis, the line would be downward sloping. the line is the demand curve.
there is also a supply curve. at each price, there will be a certain amount supplied by suppliers. this relationship is somewhat proportional; there will be more of a good provided if the price of the good is higher. if you were to plot this line, it would be upward sloping.
if you superimpose the supply and demand curves for any given good on the same graph, there will be a point at which they intersect. this point represents a price and a quantity. this is the market clearing price. at this price, the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded, and there will be no shortage or surplus of the good.
that is how supply and demand interact to set market prices. at the market price, there will be neither a shortage or excess of a good.
now, let's first look at what happens when the government legislates an effective price ceiling. the amount supplied by producers will be equal to the quantity supplied at that price, and the amount demanded by consumers will be equal to the quantity demanded at that same price. the trouble is, this is not the market clearing price, and these quantities will not be equal. the quantity supplied will be less than the quantity demanded. there will be a shortage.
in the case of the minimum wage, we are looking at a price floor. a price floor has the opposite effect. when a price floor is established, if this price floor is set above the market clearing price, the quantity demanded will be less than the quantity supplied. in labor terms, this surplus is a surplus of labor. the result is unemployment.
without price floors and ceilings, prices will reach an equilibrium where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded. this is how the market works.
this is where the great majority of unemployment is born, but not all of it. a very small amount of unemployment, called frictional unemployment, results mostly because of changes in technology. this represents workers laid off because they are obsolete. however, frictional unemployment is very limited in scale and does not last very long for each individual affected. there can also be problems caused by things like economic crashes, natural disasters, and warfare, but these are devastating to everyone, not simply the lowest paid.
It is irrelevant whether someone is skilled or not. Those unskilled jobs still need to be done. If you employ a phd to pack boxes you wont pay him more simply because he is skilled. And if all the people in the factory get phds and go off to better themselves, someone has still got to pack the boxes.
yes, but remember that a very large quantity supplied goes along with a low price. if the quantity of unskilled labor goes high enough, the price for this labor can get very low...
Could you explain how that one works?
i already did, but i'll repeat. without welfare and the minimum wage, if a person can barely support themself, they certainly won't be able to support any children. if the number of unskilled laborerers in the market is so high that this is the case, the market obviously doesn't need any more.
if there are so many unskilled laborers that wages are so low that they cannot raise children, gradually, the population of unskilled laborers will very likely decline; the vast majority of unskilled laborers are born of parents of similar background. if it were to continue to increase, wages would only drop until they were so low they weren't even enough to live on... but unless the growth of the population of unskilled workers is artificially supported, it cannot grow to be so large that this becomes a problem.
the problem with minimum wages and welfare is that you are not only causing unemployment, not only driving up prices, not only giving a certain segment of the population more from the market than they contribute... you are also causing this segment to continue to grow and grow. eventually this reaches the point that you've created a permanent segment of society that, if you're enforcing a minimum wage, cannot find work at all, and if you're not, cannot find work that pays enough to live on... and it just keeps growing. this is not good policy at all.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: monoamine]
#2093843 - 11/11/03 07:11 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
monoamine writes:
I don't know how things are in the DR,but fast food and other assorted shit jobs aren't exactly in short supply here.
So where you live there is no unemployment? Which state is that?
Minimum wages don't kill jobs,greedy ass people do.
If there is no shortage of fast food jobs, but a shortage of people to fill those jobs, then the only way to fill the jobs is to keep raising the salary offered until those too greedy to work for minimum wage will accept them, true.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2093981 - 11/11/03 07:48 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Large companies are not in existence to "provide a way for other individuals to support themselves by paying them for the effort" I mean come on! Large companies are in existence to make a nice fat profit margin.
Correct. Yet in order to make profit, they must hire workers. In order to hire workers, they must offer something in exchange for the effort the workers expend. Normally this is currency.
I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely.
Why not?
The government makes it possible for the employed to represent themselves more equally in any negotiations that take place with the employer. They do this by legitamising unions and acting as a third party with influence over both parties.
Unions need no third party to legitimize them, nor do they need a third party to influence anyone. If the union members agree not to sell their labor for less than a certain amount, then the company has no choice but to meet their price or do without unionized workers.
People feel they are being taken advantage of all the time!
So what? If the feeling is strong enough, they will remove themselves from the situation.
Many of them dont have the luxury of simply supporting themselves in some other manner.
Then it's a damn good thing they have the option of supporting themselves in a manner less than their ideal, no?
I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.
How? Give me specifics.
I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.
So you are opposed to social programs, too, huh? You surprise me. Or maybe you mean you favor a flat tax, in which case you still surprise me.
It matters to me if somebody is exploiting another person. Voluntary exploitation might run rife.
And it matters to me if someone is forcibly preventing someone from completing a voluntary transaction. Force might run rife. Oh, wait a minute.... it already has.
Why does your distaste for what you perceive as "exploitation" give you or anyone else the right to intrude into voluntary transactions with force?
I had asked: "Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else? " You then dodged the question by repeating your incorrect and totally off-topic screed.
Let me try again -- please explain why someone must support someone else. For what reason. What is the rationale behind it. What logical steps are you building on, from what original premise, in order to reach that conclusion.
Of course they are! We live in a society where rules are agreed upon which govern the way we can and cant behave. This is called a system.
You miss the point. Regardless of what socioeconomic system may be in place in a given society at a given time, the fact remains that human effort supports human existence. That is not a law of man or of any particular system devised by man, that is a law of nature. Those who work and support themselves are not benefiting from any manmade "system", they are acknowledging physical laws of reality.
If it cannot be proven beyond doubt that these systems are capable of providing work for every member of society then welfare should be seen as a necessity not a choice.
Why?
Well perhaps because it is the way humans have always done business. Humans have always worked for others. Its in our nature.
Since man is a social animal, and acquires knowledge throughout his life, it is generally of more benefit for him to exist in the company of other men than it is for him to wrest from nature unaided everything he needs for his survival -- division of labor, passing down of acquired survival techniques, etc. This doesn't mean he needs other men in order to survive, just that it is generally advantageous.
We have always survived in groups where some do more for others. If the cavemen had decided the weak scrawny kid who was messing about with two stones didnt deserve any food because he hadnt caught any of it they might never have discovered fire.
Many societies abandoned their weak and infirm rather than have them become a drain on the resources of others. Look it up.
So we abolish the minimum wage and end unemployment at a stroke? How much is the minimum wage?
There is none.
Im guessing its not too great..wouldnt be a walk in the park supporting a family on it I bet.
Might be tough, yes.
But you are advocating tempting the unemployed back to work with the mouthwatering prospect of earning even less than the minimum wage!
You seem to believe everyone would rather be unemployed than work for less than an arbitrarily-set government number. You are wrong. Many would work for less than the current minimum.
How about the obscenely overpaid higher management distribute their wages more evenly through the entire workforce so more gain is felt by more people.
Did you see my post re: the Wal-Mart CEO's salary and the effect it would have if he were to distribute all of it equally amongst Wal-Mart's employees as a Christmas bonus?
If you feel a company's CEO is overpaid, feel free to offer your services to the company for less. I'm certain the shareholders (being greedy capitalists interested solely in fattening their own bank accounts) would leap at the chance to pocket more money.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2095872 - 11/12/03 05:16 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact. Where have these theories ever been put into practice? Text book theory is one thing the real world is quite another.
You speak about price ceiling and price floors and say that their influence would be removed if government interference was ended. That doesnt seem quite right. If high level management are
constanly giving themselves pay rises far above inflation and well out of proportion with the wage rises of their average employees (which they are) arent they creating a far more potent price floor than simply applying a minimum wage? If they are taking out far more than the real worth of their labour this will cause far more problems than simply making sure every worker gets paid a minimum wage.
Quote:
without price floors and ceilings, prices will reach an equilibrium where the quantity
supplied equals the quantity demanded. this is how the market works.
Nice theory but that is all it is. When has this theory been tested in the real world?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Phred]
#2095905 - 11/12/03 05:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Correct. Yet in order to make profit, they must hire workers. In order to hire workers, they must offer something in exchange for the effort the workers expend. Normally this is currency.
Obviously being employed myself, I am fairly familiar with the concept. What is your point?
Quote:
I dont agree with the current level of government intervention on the market but I definitely dont think we should do away with it entirely.
Why not?
I have already answered that.
Quote:
Unions need no third party to legitimize them, nor do they need a third party to influence anyone. If the union members agree not to sell their labor for less than a certain amount, then the company has no choice but to meet their price or do without unionized workers.
You seriously believe that unions would have as much chance of influencing corporations if government didnt have any effect on the market? You are a little naive and havent really thought it through.
Quote:
I was simply saying that unions ability to negotiate with companies is weakened without the government acting as a third party.
How? Give me specifics.
Answer these simple questions a) Do unions lobby governments?
b) Do they do this for fun or because they think they can possibly achieve their aims through lobbying?
c) If this option is removed will the unions retain the same level of influence to achieve their aims?
Quote:
I would rather pay the same as everyone else, not subsidise greedy bastards who dont pay a thing.
So you are opposed to social programs, too, huh? You surprise me. Or maybe you mean you favor a flat tax, in which case you still surprise me.
You are being wilfully obtuse. You still didnt explain how a system of voluntary contribution is actually fair. I favour equal contributions to welfare i.e a percentage of income.
Quote:
Why does your distaste for what you perceive as "exploitation" give you or anyone else the right to intrude into voluntary transactions with force?
Perhaps if those who are being exploited want somebody to step in and end said exploitation.
Quote:
I had asked: "Explain your reasoning. Why must anyone support anyone else? " You then dodged the question by repeating your incorrect and totally off-topic screed.
Let me try again -- please explain why someone must support someone else. For what reason. What is the rationale behind it. What logical steps are you building on, from what original premise, in order to reach that conclusion.
It is not my problem you cant understand my "off topic screed". Reread it as it amply explains why I think we should support others through a welfare system.
Answer these questions: Can our society provide work for every single member?
If it cannot, who should support those who the system has failed to provide work for?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2096812 - 11/12/03 11:02 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact.
they are.
Where have these theories ever been put into practice?
any place a market is functioning.
Text book theory is one thing the real world is quite another.
i can only conclude that you do not understand the laws i'm talking about or the scope of their effects. this is not a set policy to be "put into practice"... it's just a set of laws that very nicely explain what we can see happens in the market.
show me what is flawed about them and show me why they do not describe real-world economics. if you can provide an alternate theory of how the market operates, other than through supply and demand, you'll be the first. if you can show how what i've said is faulted, and suggest an alternate explanation for the functioning of the market, you'd be lined up pretty nicely for a nobel prize in economics...
reading a book on elementary economics would be a good place to start.
You speak about price ceiling and price floors and say that their influence would be removed if government interference was ended.
by definition, price floors and ceilings are set by the government. of course their influence would be eliminated if governmet interference in the market were ended... price controls ARE government interference in the market.
If high level management are constanly giving themselves pay rises far above inflation and well out of proportion with the wage rises of their average employees (which they are) arent they creating a far more potent price floor than simply applying a minimum wage?
no. a price floor is a minimum set by government above the market clearing price. individual firms, independent of what they're paying their managers, pay their workers the market clearing price if they wish to remain competitive and efficient. (unless of course, doing so would be illegal, in which case they pay the minimum wage allowed by law).
Nice theory but that is all it is. When has this theory been tested in the real world?
again... yes. absolutely.
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2097162 - 11/12/03 12:43 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Certainly an interesting insight into the libertarian mindset - their feeling for their fellow man is akin to that of a Dachau camp guard.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
#2097372 - 11/12/03 01:23 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Certainly an interesting insight into the libertarian mindset - their feeling for their fellow man is akin to that of a Dachau camp guard.
and saying that a mindset which merely believes that the only justifiable use of force is in response to force is "akin" to that of a concentration camp guard surely gives us some insight as to what's going on in your own mind... 
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2097412 - 11/12/03 01:31 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you refer to these ideas as if they are proven fact.
they are.
Where have these theories ever been put into practice?
any place a market is functioning.
So where has the scrapping of the minimum wage been proven to stop all unemployment?
Quote:
show me what is flawed about them and show me why they do not describe real-world economics.
I am not querying the theory of supply and demand. I just dont think it is a proven fact that a minimum wage is responsible for the majority of unemployment.
Quote:
by definition, price floors and ceilings are set by the government. of course their influence would be eliminated if governmet interference in the market were ended... price controls ARE government interference in the market.
And what Im saying is that overpaid higher management will create a "virtual price ceiling" no matter the level of government intererence in the market.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
#2097426 - 11/12/03 01:33 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It does seem a bit cold doesnt it?!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2097590 - 11/12/03 02:09 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So where has the scrapping of the minimum wage been proven to stop all unemployment?
i'll try to make this simple:
if there are enough workers in the market, after enough are hired, the point will come when hiring additional ones at a cost greater than $5.15 an hour is not profitable. these workers will not be hired. they will be unemployed. absent a minimum wage, there will always be work available at some wage. now, before alex jumps on me, i'll remind you that unless thanks to our social programs, the situation already exists, then even absent a minimum wage, wages cannot drop so far that they are not enough to survive on.
there is such a thing as frictional unemployment. this means workers temporarily unemployed due to things like downsizing, mergers, and new technology. this is limited in scale and longevity.
I just dont think it is a proven fact that a minimum wage is responsible for the majority of unemployment.
how would it be that absent a minimum wage there would be people who could not find work at any wage?
minimum wage sets a minimum price on labor. it does not set a minimum value on labor. such a thing would be impossible. without coercion, the price generally equals the value. when the government steps in and sets the price above (or below) the value, there will problems (shortages or surplusses). it's fairly straightforward stuff.
And what Im saying is that overpaid higher management will create a "virtual price ceiling" no matter the level of government intererence in the market.
what?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2097944 - 11/12/03 04:08 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why did unemployment exist prior to the introduction of the minimum wage? What were the factors causing unemployment then? Have they been removed now?
Where can it be shown as an example that simply removing a minimum wage restriction has cured unemployment?
When I refered to a virtual price ceiling, I think I should have said floor! I was talking about the same effect with a different cause. If I understand you correctly, a price floor is an artificial constraint placed upon how a company can price their product i.e a minimum wage. So, if a company chooses to pay their directors and managers etc a wage which is above the market clearing price (would that be the correct term?!) then surely the same effect is achieved as if you artificially boost the market clearing price through a minimum wage?
To offset this the company would need to make cuts elsewhere...hmmm lucky we scrapped that minimum wage nonsense.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: GazzBut]
#2098233 - 11/12/03 05:39 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why did unemployment exist prior to the introduction of the minimum wage? What were the factors causing unemployment then? Have they been removed now? Where can it be shown as an example that simply removing a minimum wage restriction has cured unemployment?
the minimum wage is not the sole cause of unemployment. there is frictional unemployment, there are shifts in demographics, critical drops in aggregate demand; all of these are also causes.
getting rid of the minimum wage would not entirely eliminate unemployment, but it would reduce it to the level where it was absolutely minimized and shortest in longevity for the individuals affected.
here's the relationship i was talking about before, just for clarification:
when the wage is set at the higher of the two prices, the unemployment caused will be the quantity between A and B.
the price floor on labor (minimum wage) is definitely the primary contribute to labor surplusses (unemployment), but it isn't the sole contributer.
there will still be a few unemployed left. how they are supported until they are able to obtain new employment is where i think our differences will start to become more ideological than the economics we've been dealing with so far...
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2099775 - 11/13/03 12:23 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
and saying that a mindset which merely believes that the only justifiable use of force is in response to force is "akin" to that of a concentration camp guard
Nothing to do with that, it's more to do with the bizarre Nazi lunacy of your "let them die off" ideas. Read about concentration camp guards - you'll find very similar philosophies amongst them.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 5 days, 8 hours
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: ]
#2100041 - 11/13/03 02:02 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Do you agree that overpaid management etc could cause a similar problem as the minimum wage?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The young are becoming less liberal [Re: Xlea321]
#2101001 - 11/13/03 09:31 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Nothing to do with that, it's more to do with the bizarre Nazi lunacy of your "let them die off" ideas. Read about concentration camp guards - you'll find very similar philosophies amongst them.
alex... i don't believe that people who cannot support themselves have a RIGHT to steal from those who can. if that sounds cruel to you, fine, but it's a far shot from how the camps were run.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Premium Wild White Borneo 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds
Edit 
Reply 
Baby_Hitler
1 2 3 all )
Tao
Learyfan
Ellis Dee
Anonymous
silversoul7