Azalin Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 So you want to starve people, that's the economy you want. Most Americans are not cruel and stupid enough to want that type of society. And it wouldn't work anyway this says it all right here. gatorman 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 this says it all right here. gatorman 101. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 So you want to starve people, that's the economy you want. Most Americans are not cruel and stupid enough to want that type of society. And it wouldn't work anyway Can you provide data on how many people were systematically starved to death in the United States before the advent of the minimum wage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Can you provide data on how many people were systematically starved to death in the United States before the advent of the minimum wage? No, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Yes you can tell because it has 'duh' in the thread title. Edited August 12, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Can you provide data on how many people were systematically starved to death in the United States before the advent of the minimum wage? Liberals can't face the fact that virtually the same percentage of the population lives in poverty as did before all the federal wealth redistribution apparatus got put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 No, why? Then stop asserting that people who are opposed to the minimum wage want people to starve to death. The minimum wage is a job killer, and harms the poor far more than it helps them. Jobs are created to perform functions valuable only when compared to the relative cost of performing a task, indexed to the available supply of individuals holding the required set of skill to perform the necessary work. An individual flipping a burger on a grill does not generate a high enough return on labor to justify a salary much above $10.00/hour (some variance depending on localized labor markets). That individual may generate (hypothetically) $150 gross revenue per productive hour, but that does not equate to profit. Profit is assumed only after many costs have been deducted: Location Energy Regulation and Compliance Licencing Insurance Training Materials Maintainence Taxes Lawyers This list is in no way exhaustive. In a restaurant, for example, owners of very well run restaurants can expect a maximized return of about 10% annualy (before a 35% corporate tax; and their own state, local, and federal taxes dependant on how the business is organized and how they pay themselves). There is no room for an increase in labor costs without destroying jobs. That's how supply, demand, and price points work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Then stop asserting that people who are opposed to the minimum wage want people to starve to death. The minimum wage is a job killer, and harms the poor far more than it helps them. Jobs are created to perform functions valuable only when compared to the relative cost of performing a task, indexed to the available supply of individuals holding the required set of skill to perform the necessary work. An individual flipping a burger on a grill does not generate a high enough return on labor to justify a salary much above $10.00/hour (some variance depending on localized labor markets). That individual may generate (hypothetically) $150 gross revenue per productive hour, but that does not equate to profit. Profit is assumed only after many costs have been deducted: Location Energy Regulation and Compliance Licencing Insurance Training Materials Maintainence Taxes Lawyers This list is in no way exhaustive. In a restaurant, for example, owners of very well run restaurants can expect a maximized return of about 10% annualy (before a 35% corporate tax; and their own state, local, and federal taxes dependant on how the business is organized and how they pay themselves). There is no room for an increase in labor costs without destroying jobs. That's how supply, demand, and price points work. I was not arguing the economics of it all. I was arguing the morality of having a system in place that pays such low wages it forces people to also seek government assistance for food. Chef was stating that the world would be better just cutting them off of food stamps. I think that's crazy. And if you had your way of simply getting rid of minimum wage there would be more jobs that people would have to get even more assistance from the government or churches or where ever just to stay afloat. Brave new world! You would get rid of government assistance too, though, right? Liberals can't face the fact that virtually the same percentage of the population lives in poverty as did before all the federal wealth redistribution apparatus got put in place. Oh come on, it's way better to be an old poor person today than it was before social security and medicare. All that government care and the pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) I was not arguing the economics of it all. I was arguing the morality of having a system in place that pays such low wages it forces people to also seek government assistance for food. Chef was stating that the world would be better just cutting them off of food stamps. I think that's crazy. The "system" is called "reality". Supply and demand exists organically, and has developed over the entire course of human history. Further, it's the only thing that has ever worked, as evidenced many times throughout history by the starvation that has occurred at every attempt of repeal. The fact that you advocate systems which are not based in reality says everything we need to know about them. And if you had your way of simply getting rid of minimum wage there would be more jobs that people would have to get even more assistance from the government or churches or where ever just to stay afloat. Brave new world! Incorrect. The overwhelming majority of jobs are already paid more than minimum wage because that's what the economics dictate. Further, individuals who require more money that a single job brings in should look to take second jobs. You would get rid of government assistance too, though, right? A terrible mischaricterization of my position. I would end Federal assistance programs, but not cold turkey, as their existance has made individuals dependant on them, and we need to honor our promises to those people. I would implement reforms that phased those programs out over generations. At the state and local level, I am not opposed to assistance programs, as the individuals living in those states and communities should have the ability to decide what they are willing to provide, and evaluate the ROI's. Personally, I prefer states and communities that offer less assistance, as it incentivizes better outcomes for individuals; however I am not at all opposed to aid for the truely disabled. Edited August 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 carl icahn, that well known socialist, leftist sees this issue as a problem: http://finance.yahoo.com/tumblr/blog-the-bottom-line-by-carl-icahn-144555632.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 The "system" is called "reality". Supply and demand exists organically, and has developed over the entire course of human history. Further, it's the only thing that has ever worked, as evidenced many times throughout history by the starvation that has occurred at every attempt of repeal. The fact that you advocate systems which are not based in reality says everything we need to know about them. That's funny. We have an organic system? I think you are a little mixed up. I thought minimum wages and food stamps and government were part of reality and your "organic system" is the one you want to turn us towards. So which is it? Is the system we have now reality or organic? Incorrect. The overwhelming majority of jobs are already paid more than minimum wage because that's what the economics dictate. Further, individuals who require more money that a single job brings in should look to take second jobs. Getting rid of the minimum wage would change what the market dictates for those making more than it, though I would end Federal assistance programs, but not cold turkey, as their existance has made individuals dependant on them, and we need to honor our promises to those people. I would implement reforms that phased those programs out over generations. At the state and local level, I am not opposed to assistance programs, as the individuals living in those states and communities should have the ability to decide what they are willing to provide, and evaluate the ROI's. Personally, I prefer states and communities that offer less assistance, as it incentivizes better outcomes for individuals; however I am not at all opposed to aid for the truely disabled. But what if technology continues to eliminate jobs and there is more need for government assistance. If you look at the overall employment categories the government now accounts for a 1/5 of all workers. How will money get redistributed if there isn't enough work to keep cash flowing through the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 That's funny. We have an organic system? I think you are a little mixed up. I thought minimum wages and food stamps and government were part of reality and your "organic system" is the one you want to turn us towards. So which is it? Is the system we have now reality or organic? Getting rid of the minimum wage would change what the market dictates for those making more than it, though But what if technology continues to eliminate jobs and there is more need for government assistance. If you look at the overall employment categories the government now accounts for a 1/5 of all workers. How will money get redistributed if there isn't enough work to keep cash flowing through the system? Good God, you're a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 carl icahn, that well known socialist, leftist sees this issue as a problem: http://finance.yahoo...-144555632.html Our current system of corporate governance protects mediocre CEOs and boards that are mismanaging companies and this must be changed. Doesn't sound very organic to me! Good God, you're a moron. No, you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 That's funny. We have an organic system? I think you are a little mixed up. I thought minimum wages and food stamps and government were part of reality and your "organic system" is the one you want to turn us towards. So which is it? Is the system we have now reality or organic? My response was a reply to this statement, in which you argued against the morality of supply and demand.: I was not arguing the economics of it all. I was arguing the morality of having a system in place that pays such low wages it forces people to also seek government assistance for food. Chef was stating that the world would be better just cutting them off of food stamps. I think that's crazy. Further, I'll note that it does not "force them onto governemnt assistence for food". The availablility of government assistance disincentivizes other, more productive and economically beneficial solutions, such as getting a second job, creating and strictly adhereing to houshold budgets, and demanding that all memebers of the household of working age contribute to household expenses. Getting rid of the minimum wage would change what the market dictates for those making more than it, though Horseshit. The minimum wage has zero impact on those whose wages are more than equal to it (outside of those receiving tenure raises stacked on top of the minimum). The minimum wage is nothing more than an artificial value floor for unskill labor. It does not impact wages for labor the market values higher than that, as those values have already exceeded that artificial floor as the market dictates. But what if technology continues to eliminate jobs and there is more need for government assistance. If you look at the overall employment categories the government now accounts for a 1/5 of all workers. How will money get redistributed if there isn't enough work to keep cash flowing through the system? Technological advances have always eliminated the need for certain types of labor, but they always replaced it with other types of labor. There is zero reason to believe this trend will not continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Technological advances have always eliminated the need for certain types of labor, but they always replaced it with other types of labor. There is zero reason to believe this trend will not continue. And in it's current form its replaced high paying jobs with low paying ones. That trend could continue as well. As to the point of "always" creating new jobs. Always isn't forever. Technology is better, smarter and more adapable than ever and its trend is upward. There is no reason to think technology can replace most jobs in the not too distant future, My response was a reply to this statement, in which you argued against the morality of supply and demand.: And my question was, which is the "organic"/real system, the one now with minimum wages, food stamps and Medicare, Or what you want to do almost totally free market, purely supply and demand driven? You brought up the terms organic and reality. Is not the current system the reality? Horseshit. The minimum wage has zero impact on those whose wages are more than equal to it (outside of those receiving tenure raises stacked on top of the minimum). The minimum wage is nothing more than an artificial value floor for unskill labor. It does not impact wages for labor the market values higher than that, as those values have already exceeded that artificial floor as the market dictates. Wrong. If you abolished minimum wage, food stamps, social security and all that i said to workers "Work or starve!" There would be a race to wage scale bottom that would drag down wages that are currently higher than minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 And in it's current form its replaced high paying jobs with low paying ones. That trend could continue as well. As to the point of "always" creating new jobs. Always isn't forever. Technology is better, smarter and more adapable than ever and its trend is upward. There is no reason to think technology can replace most jobs in the not too distant future, It has replaced some high paying jobs with jobs that pay less, and some low paying jobs with jobs that pay more. The dynamic is fluid, and is not pinned in any one direction or another; however, what is undeniable, is that technology always creates the opportunity for mobility. Further, wages are not on the decline. And my question was, which is the "organic"/real system, the one now with minimum wages, food stamps and Medicare, Or what you want to do almost totally free market, purely supply and demand driven? You brought up the terms organic and reality. Is not the current system the reality? Organic, as in formed naturally without external intervention or systemic force. That organic system is based on the reality of non-coersive human interactions, wants, needs, supply and demand. The system you advocate seeks to buck that reality, as if it can abolish supply and demand. It can't. When you force money from one business focus into another, you modify demand curves from elsewhere. When you force wages to rise against market forces, markets react in one of two ways. Either the costs of goods will rise, which is likely to result in lower demand, which ultimately leads to fewer jobs; or skiping price increases , will lead directly to a decrease in jobs, as available resources allocated towards labor are now more concentrated than they were, with greater productivity demanded of the remaining work force. Your mantra, when the economics of it are broken down, is litterally: "Higher wages for some; with a greater chance of unemployment, higher prices, and increased workloads for all!" Wrong. If you abolished minimum wage, food stamps, social security and all that i said to workers "Work or starve!" There would be a race to wage scale bottom that would drag down wages that are currently higher than minimum wage. This might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Why wasn't this the case before the advent of the minimum wage, social security, and food stamps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Organic, as in formed naturally without external intervention or systemic force. That organic system is based on the reality of non-coersive human interactions, wants, needs, supply and demand. The system you advocate seeks to buck that reality, as if it can abolish supply and demand. I don't advocate anything. I'm just pointing out the reality of how it is now. The current system in place today. YOU are the one advocating for a change to pure supply and demand. We have always had something interfering in the markets, like tariffs, and since the 1930's massive government regulation of economy. And we have had the highest standard of living in world history in that time This might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Why wasn't this the case before the advent of the minimum wage, social security, and food stamps? Who says it wasn't? When was the middle class the largest, before or after the New Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Wealth inequality is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Wealth inequality is a myth. novel approach. deny basic, well documented truths that don't fit your belief system. seems a nearly unique characteristic of the far right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 novel approach. deny basic, well documented truths that don't fit your belief system. seems a nearly unique characteristic of the far right. No really novel. You and gatorbag do it all the time. You deny reality in your way, I in mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts