Political Crossfire Forums

[Logician]

First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

[Gnostic]

Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

[Spider]

Federal minimum wage is too low. In my state its about 7.50 an hour, which, if you're a college student or just a kid outa high school is perfectly fine...its pretty much impossible to raise a family on a couple of minimum wage incomes though...

The trick is this...if you have not yet educated/trained/experienced enough to get youself into the higher wage job, DONT HAVE A FAMILY!!!
And don't expect to be able to drop outa high school and be one of those lucky ones who work on a crab boat, or setting chokers, or pipe fitting, and do alright anyways...especially the way the world is pushing the worker more and more into specialization...because the statistics don't support your odds.

And another thing...The world is globalizing...and these sky-high wages americans earn are going to become a thing of the past as we are forcced to compete with nations where cost of living is much lower...the vast majority of humanity would be *thrilled* to get our measly minumum wage.

The problem is not so much the wages, its the consumerism. Do you really need that nice a car? Do you really need a car at all? Do you really need a 3000 square foot house? Or that big ass tv? These are the questions.

When I was in college I lived on $650 a month from a part time 7-11 job, perfectly fine. And it was ony about 2 years ago that I graduated.

And its a sticky situation indeed about whether or not american workers are "worth" those wages, considering that in places all over the world, workers do 3 times as much for 1/4 the money. And its not just "their problem" anymore. We are globalizing. Like it or not :)

The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why is our cost of living so damn high?

[David]

Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.



The why didn't you post this in the Economics Forum where I just moved it?

[Logician]

Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them? As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

[Free Thinkr]

Gnostic wrote: No. It does'nt work like that.
It kinda does, actually. There's some elasticity, sure, but overall that's true. It makes perfect sense, too: you're not generally going to bother hiring someone who amounts to a net cost to your business.

Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Quote: If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.
How is that? Please stay on topic. Minimum wage and laws prohibiting child labor are not the same thing.

Quote: But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.
Mmmhmm. And how do higher minimum wages fix that? All that does is make out-sourcing more attractive.

[Gnostic]

Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them?

Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have.

[Gnostic]

Free Thinkr wrote: Gnostic wrote: No. It does'nt work like that.
It kinda does, actually. There's some elasticity, sure, but overall that's true. It makes perfect sense, too: you're not generally going to bother hiring someone who amounts to a net cost to your business.

You are'nt responding to the proper context of my comment, so I'll leave it at that, except to point out again that workers simply would'nt be able to strike or walk out in protest for higher pay if no other protections existed for them through government. History shows this, reference my above response. Why is it everytime I debate the RW here I have to give mini-lessons in history each time? Is there a way I can get paid for this or what?

Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?

Quote: If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.
Free Thinkr wrote: How is that? Please stay on topic. Minimum wage and laws prohibiting child labor are not the same thing.

I was talking about the proposed elimination of governmental regulation in the workplace. That is what was being proposed here. So, we are just picking and choosing which regulations suit us now in order to not completely look like heartless corporate drones? The facts are once again borne out by history...without regulation, business would return to those days when workers, including children, were exploited and used in the most eggregious ways imaginable. The child labor point was meant to show it in the harshest possible light as a mere example of what de-regulation and lack of governmental oversight inevitably leads to.

Quote: But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.
Free Thinkr wrote: Mmmhmm. And how do higher minimum wages fix that? All that does is make out-sourcing more attractive.

Ever think we need to curtail outsourcing and globalism? All the so-called college business grads I see hear sing the same song....globalism is inevitable, deal with it, blah blah. That must be what they are actually teaching people in business school these days. I knew that in places like Harvard biz school, they teach people that workers are expendable commodities, but this is taking it to the next level, whereby I guess our universities are teaching the new crop of corporate bots to simply accept the selling out of America and to merely find ways to exploit that as well.

[Logician]

Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them?

Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have.

The problem in the early years of the industrial revolution was, as you said, that businesses and the government used violence to repress collective bargaining. That is not capitalism. The government was right to step in to end the use of force against workers, but once the violence had been stopped there was no need for the State to take over the role of the union. All the government has to do is ensure that businesses can't force an end to bargaining, and then the workers can decide for themselves whether demanding a higher wage is likely to work to their benefit.

[98MustGT]

Here in San Diego, you don't see teenagers working fast food instead grown hispanics have these positions. Its hard for a teen to get a job at Taco Bell or Mickey Dees. How do I know I have three daughters 17, 20, 21. However the movie theatre still employees teens. Flower stand or any agricultural job forget it.

Illegal Immigration changes the whole dynamic. They will work for lower than minimum wage. How do they do it?

"Clown Houses"
A typical 4 bedroom home will accomedate 5 families, one family per bedroom and one in the living room. When rent is spread out over 5 famlies now rent can be afforded.

Health Care
Just go to the ER

Driving
No need for drivers liceanse or car insurance. Save big money here

IRS
No need to pay that FICA dude however if you do manage to get a job that requires taxation (after you stole someones SSN) you get EIC. You may get a refund that exceeds what you paid in.

Education
Free thanks to the taxpayers of the USA

Utilities
You can qualify for reduced paymets due to your lower income.

[gavnook]

Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them?

Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

This is a very interesting perspective. A group of employees quit work and offer to return to work for higher wages. Then, they trespass on the employer's property, block entrances to the workplace, and threaten violence against anyone who would choose to work for this employer before their demands are met. The employer highers private security guards to protect himself, management, and replacement workers and possibly to rid his property of the trespassers. And you view the employer as the one to blame for the violence?


Gnostic wrote:
Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have.

History shows none of this. You're confusing correlation with causation. Improvements in working conditions overall are only made possible through increased production, leading to an overall increase in wealth. This is something that government has not and cannot cause. Parents had their children work because they deemed the wages they earned to be worth the risks to their health and safety. Being a parent, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the additional income made a significant difference in their lives. If it were the difference between having one child survive into adult-hood versus dying from malnutrition, how could the state help by prohibiting child labor? It is really only a very recent thing that children are not expected to work until adulthood, and it is only the case because we can now afford to go without their labor. Government only stepped on when it was economically feasible, otherwise people would ignore the law and continue putting children to work.



Gnostic wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Gnostic wrote: No. It does'nt work like that.
It kinda does, actually. There's some elasticity, sure, but overall that's true. It makes perfect sense, too: you're not generally going to bother hiring someone who amounts to a net cost to your business.

You are'nt responding to the proper context of my comment, so I'll leave it at that, except to point out again that workers simply would'nt be able to strike or walk out in protest for higher pay if no other protections existed for them through government. History shows this, reference my above response. Why is it everytime I debate the RW here I have to give mini-lessons in history each time?

Oh goody, today I get to be right-wing. You really don't have to give your history lessons. I can speak for everyone else, but I know I've heard this BS many times before.


Gnostic wrote:
Is there a way I can get paid for this or what?

Maybe you should go on strike?


Gnostic wrote:
Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?


How many people are you paying an above-poverty wage to?

[Gnostic]

Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them?

Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have.

The problem in the early years of the industrial revolution was, as you said, that businesses and the government used violence to repress collective bargaining. That is not capitalism. The government was right to step in to end the use of force against workers, but once the violence had been stopped there was no need for the State to take over the role of the union. All the government has to do is ensure that businesses can't force an end to bargaining, and then the workers can decide for themselves whether demanding a higher wage is likely to work to their benefit.

This is a reasonable response, and I agree in the most part.

But we are overlooking something else here. A few things actually. But the primary one would be workplace safety. Without governmental regulation and oversight of that as well, millions of otherwise uneducated or ill-informed employees can be subjected to dangerous and deadly workplace environments and not ever even know about it, since industry obviously would be loathe to tell them in many cases, and examples abound, such as the the asbestos issue and the countless lawsuits now pending in the courts over the fact the makers of the product knew for years it held major health concerns but hid it from public view.

Workplace safety is the same as wage and worker's rights enforcements by government....if it did'nt exist, industry and corporations would have legions of lawyers and "efficiency experts" to work around all the "obstacles and impediments" to furthering their bottom lines at the expense of the minions under them.

[Gnostic]

[quote="gavnook"] Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: Gnostic wrote: Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?

No. It does'nt work like that. Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.

If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.

But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.

And why couldn't the newly risen labor unions get better wages/conditions without government forcing it upon them?

Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

gavnook wrote: This is a very interesting perspective. A group of employees quit work and offer to return to work for higher wages. Then, they trespass on the employer's property, block entrances to the workplace, and threaten violence against anyone who would choose to work for this employer before their demands are met. The employer highers private security guards to protect himself, management, and replacement workers and possibly to rid his property of the trespassers. And you view the employer as the one to blame for the violence?

Yes. If things got that bad to begin with, there's something dreadfully amiss with the responsibilities the employer has towards it's employees. Such as brutal working hours, conditions, and low pay, while the employees see the business growing and the owners getting rich while they are still barely able to put food on the table for their children every night. That is exploitation in it's most vile form, and it's potential for ruining and destroying entire communities, families and lives is great, and it shows a complete and utter disregard for the human being who works under them and upon whom the business could'nt operate without. I see though that you would have us return to the days when robber barons simply called in Pinkerton to club, beat and even kill workers who DARE go on strike against their Gilded Age sweatshops. But unfortunately for you, Americans long ago saw fit to end such brutal, un-regulated capitalistic repression and give the country some semblance of decency and respect for human rights, though I guess that meant an end to robber baron supremacy...


Gnostic wrote:
Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have.

gavnook wrote: History shows none of this.

Yea, the conditions which existed during America's industrial revolution and Britain's Victorian era are just figments of historian's imaginations.

gavnook wrote: You're confusing correlation with causation.

Huh?

gavnook wrote: Improvements in working conditions overall are only made possible through increased production,

Ah, so long as the employers crack the whip hard enough maybe things will eventually improve for the minion's lot, once they toil, bleed and sweat hard enough for you. Excellent business model! Why was it we ever got rid of indentured servitude again, I forgot...

gavnook wrote: leading to an overall increase in wealth.

For the investors? :lol:

gavnook wrote: This is something that government has not and cannot cause.

Yea, government never helped arbitrate between workers and employers to prevent violence and chaos....government never has been the catalyst for workplace safety and it's enforcement, preventing millions of workers from becoming industrial victims. Go on...

gavnook wrote: Parents had their children work because they deemed the wages they earned to be worth the risks to their health and safety.

LOL!!! You are'nt serious, are you? 8 year old children working in filthy factories, working on dangerous machinery, toiling 12 hour days for pennies while they go without any formal education at all? Parents forced to make their children work just so the family can EAT??? Unbelievable. Here, I'll tell you what....you tell me if the children in these pictures look like they are happy, and in safe, secure environments, with proper protections and gear and clothing...but most important of all, I want you to tell me if just LOOKING at these pictures at all breaks your heart into pieces;









Cute, is'nt it? Now tell me you think that's acceptable. I can post hundreds more if you like, some showing hurt and maimed children as well from industrial accidents and unsafe conditions, but I'm sure you can imagine it just as well, can't you?

gavnook wrote: Being a parent, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the additional income made a significant difference in their lives.

Yea, I'm sure it did. LOL. "significant difference". Nice. Translated, that means they did'nt STARVE TO DEATH OR GET EVICTED INTO THE STREETS if their children were FORCED to work. :x

gavnook wrote: If it were the difference between having one child survive into adult-hood versus dying from malnutrition, how could the state help by prohibiting child labor? It is really only a very recent thing that children are not expected to work until adulthood, and it is only the case because we can now afford to go without their labor. Government only stepped on when it was economically feasible, otherwise people would ignore the law and continue putting children to work.

Maybe you would. I think the rest of society has become more civilized than that now.



Gnostic wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Gnostic wrote: No. It does'nt work like that.
It kinda does, actually. There's some elasticity, sure, but overall that's true. It makes perfect sense, too: you're not generally going to bother hiring someone who amounts to a net cost to your business.

You are'nt responding to the proper context of my comment, so I'll leave it at that, except to point out again that workers simply would'nt be able to strike or walk out in protest for higher pay if no other protections existed for them through government. History shows this, reference my above response. Why is it everytime I debate the RW here I have to give mini-lessons in history each time?

gavnook wrote: Oh goody, today I get to be right-wing. You really don't have to give your history lessons. I can speak for everyone else, but I know I've heard this BS many times before.

And I yours.


Gnostic wrote:
Is there a way I can get paid for this or what?

gavnook wrote: Maybe you should go on strike?

Maybe you should find a little humanity. Compassion for your fellow human being is what differentiates us from brute animals.


Gnostic wrote:
Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?


gavnook wrote: How many people are you paying an above-poverty wage to?

Currently, just one. Why?

I'm not running a globalist corporation whose business model depends on exploiting the cheapest labor obtainable, even if that means treating my fellow countrymen like dogs or traitorously moving my ops to some third world corrupt dictatorship while I wave my wittle american flag around. And I started my own business after toiling for 20 years for other schmuck companies and corporations who could'nt have cared less if I dropped dead, long as I could be replaced tomorrow, ya dig? But I'm one of the lucky ones who can. Millions can't, either because of the industry they're in and skills they possess, or simply because they can't afford to miss a single paycheck for fear of losing everything. Corporations love using the fear tactic to keep their employees in line and loyal....it works especially well whenever another one of those republican-induced recessions hits and shrinks up the job market for those hapless employees who may want to look for something better. Too bad we just can't call out the thugs and get the belts and tire irons swingin, like in the good ole days. eh, Mr. Captain of Industry? :wink:

[Logician]

Gnostic wrote:
Yes. If things got that bad to begin with, there's something dreadfully amiss with the responsibilities the employer has towards it's employees. Such as brutal working hours, conditions, and low pay, while the employees see the business growing and the owners getting rich while they are still barely able to put food on the table for their children every night. That is exploitation in it's most vile form, and it's potential for ruining and destroying entire communities, families and lives is great, and it shows a complete and utter disregard for the human being who works under them and upon whom the business could'nt operate without.

How is offering low pay violating the employer's responsibilities when the employer never had to open a business, or offer jobs, at all? The fact is, in a system where the worker is free to take or leave any job, the worker will only take a job if it benefits him/her. The problem around the turn of the century wasn't the lack of a minimum wage, it was the lack of the worker's choice in the matter. Companies were using violence to force employees to stay, which left employees no say in wages. All the State has to do is prevent businesses from using violence or forced labor, and then the workers can decide their own "minimum wage" by threatening to quit en masse if they are paid below a certain level.



Gnostic wrote:
I see though that you would have us return to the days when robber barons simply called in Pinkerton to club, beat and even kill workers who DARE go on strike against their Gilded Age sweatshops. But unfortunately for you, Americans long ago saw fit to end such brutal, un-regulated capitalistic repression and give the country some semblance of decency and respect for human rights, though I guess that meant an end to robber baron supremacy...

The topic we're discussing isn't violence by employers against strikers. Nobody supports that, as it is slavery, and the cause of the conditions in the industrial revolution. The question is, in a system of non-violent negotiation over wages like we have today, why is it necessary for the state to prohibit pay below a certain level when the workers can now do that themselves?


Gnostic wrote:

Yea, the conditions which existed during America's industrial revolution and Britain's Victorian era are just figments of historian's imaginations.


No, but the causes were the lack of protection against violence, not the lack of a minimum wage.


Gnostic wrote:

Ah, so long as the employers crack the whip hard enough maybe things will eventually improve for the minion's lot, once they toil, bleed and sweat hard enough for you. Excellent business model! Why was it we ever got rid of indentured servitude again, I forgot...


We got rid of indentured servitude because the workers weren't free to leave. That is slavery. We ended the violence used by businesses to stop strikes because the workers weren't free to leave. That is slavery. However, nowadays workers always have the right to strike or outright quit. This is why we don't need a government-enforced minimum wage, because the workers are free to leave if they feel the pay is too low.



Gnostic wrote:
Yea, government never helped arbitrate between workers and employers to prevent violence and chaos....government never has been the catalyst for workplace safety and it's enforcement, preventing millions of workers from becoming industrial victims. Go on...

Government had to do these things because the workers were not free to decide for themselves whether the benefits of a certain job were worth the risks. The workers now have the right to decide this for themselves, so it is no longer necesary for the government to make the decision for them.


Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Parents had their children work because they deemed the wages they earned to be worth the risks to their health and safety.

LOL!!! You are'nt serious, are you? 8 year old children working in filthy factories, working on dangerous machinery, toiling 12 hour days for pennies while they go without any formal education at all? Parents forced to make their children work just so the family can EAT??? Unbelievable. Here, I'll tell you what....you tell me if the children in these pictures look like they are happy, and in safe, secure environments, with proper protections and gear and clothing...but most important of all, I want you to tell me if just LOOKING at these pictures at all breaks your heart into pieces;









Cute, is'nt it? Now tell me you think that's acceptable. I can post hundreds more if you like, some showing hurt and maimed children as well from industrial accidents and unsafe conditions, but I'm sure you can imagine it just as well, can't you?


There were two main reasons child labor happened.

1. The parents were forced, through violence, to stay at their low-paying jobs and therefore couldn't support their children themselves. This is unacceptable and is the reason the state stepped in to ensure workers were free to negotiate for higher wages, or strike in protest if necessary.

2. The family would have starved otherwise. This is obviously very unfortunate, but getting paid a low wage is still a (small) improvement over starving. Keep in mind that an employer never has to open a business - If they had wanted, they could have remained in whatever line of business they were before, and then this unfortunate family would have starved. Instead they were offered an opportunity, not a pleasant or good-smelling opportunity, but still an improvement over what their lives would've been otherwise. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth - if the government had stepped in and said they weren't allowed to work for that small a wage, they might not have been given the opportunity to work at all.


Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Being a parent, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the additional income made a significant difference in their lives.

Yea, I'm sure it did. LOL. "significant difference". Nice. Translated, that means they did'nt STARVE TO DEATH OR GET EVICTED INTO THE STREETS if their children were FORCED to work. :x


Forcing the children to work is wrong, nobody is denying that. But in the few cases where a family was starving, and the children were genuinely eager to help earn some money, how is it ethical to say "no, you can't work for that low a wage, that's exploitation", when that's the only opportunity the family has? If they had a better opportunity (i.e. a higher-paying job), they would already have taken it.



Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: If it were the difference between having one child survive into adult-hood versus dying from malnutrition, how could the state help by prohibiting child labor? It is really only a very recent thing that children are not expected to work until adulthood, and it is only the case because we can now afford to go without their labor. Government only stepped on when it was economically feasible, otherwise people would ignore the law and continue putting children to work.

Maybe you would. I think the rest of society has become more civilized than that now.


Which is why we don't need to have the government preventing child labor: families don't need it anymore, the only families that would have their children working are those who genuinely need it to help their situation. Nowadays that is hardly anyone.

Ideally, in the precious few cases nowadays where the parents can't support a family, a benefactor would come along (for example, a church, or just anyone who happens to see their plight) who would help them get financially on their feet. However, in the absence of such a benefactor, why should we put a minimum on the wages they have to make in order to work? If they could find an employer willing to pay that much, wouldn't they already have taken that job? The minimum wage just limits their options for sustenance.




Gnostic wrote:
Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?


That's just the reason you can't profitably pay them that much to perform a job. Anyone is still free to give them money out of the goodness of their hearts, it's called charity. The disadvantaged can always get money from charity, the point is that the minimum wage limits their ability to make money through jobs.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: How many people are you paying an above-poverty wage to?

Currently, just one. Why?

I'm not running a globalist corporation whose business model depends on exploiting the cheapest labor obtainable, even if that means treating my fellow countrymen like dogs or traitorously moving my ops to some third world corrupt dictatorship while I wave my wittle american flag around. And I started my own business after toiling for 20 years for other schmuck companies and corporations who could'nt have cared less if I dropped dead, long as I could be replaced tomorrow, ya dig? But I'm one of the lucky ones who can. Millions can't, either because of the industry they're in and skills they possess, or simply because they can't afford to miss a single paycheck for fear of losing everything. Corporations love using the fear tactic to keep their employees in line and loyal....it works especially well whenever another one of those republican-induced recessions hits and shrinks up the job market for those hapless employees who may want to look for something better. Too bad we just can't call out the thugs and get the belts and tire irons swingin, like in the good ole days. eh, Mr. Captain of Industry? :wink:

Once again, nobody wants to return to the days when businesses used force, rather than decent wages, to keep their employees. That was slavery. What we're talking about here is whether it's necessary for the state to say "No, Mr. Captain of Industry, you can't hire this worker for that little! It's exploitation!" When the worker is now able to speak for himself and say "No, Mr. Captain of Industry, you can't hire me for that little! It's exploitation!". Now that the workers can speak for themselves, why do we need the government to speak for them?


Suppose there are two teenagers named Kyle and Hannah looking for summer jobs. Suppose some guy, let's call him Jim, is planning to build a garden house in his backyard. Would it be reprehensible for Jim to offer Kyle and Hannah $5 an hour to help him build it? That's below the minimum wage, but consider these facts:

- Kyle and Hannah are perfectly capable of saying "no" if they don't like the offer.
-Jim could, likewise, have gone without Kyle and Hannah. It would just take him longer to build it.

Jim has not done any physical, emotional, or financial harm to anyone, so why should this be prohibited?

[LeopardPM]

One of the reasons child labor existed (exists) at all was/is due to the economic conditions of the area in general. Mostly poor, underdeveloped areas with little or no capital accumulation. Children have been working for the family since the beginning of time as a necessity and it is only very recently (coinciding interestingly with the rise of the free market and capitalism) that the young have been afforded as much leisure time as today. It is not morally wrong for children to work to help support themselves and the family - why do you think 100 years ago the average farm family size was over twice as many as the avergage family today? So that there were enough workers to make the endeavor profitable! Looking at third world nations, we see alot of similarities compared to western history when child labor existed: little wealth accumulation, labor (low skilled) jobs in demand (little technology), and exposure to the elements. These folks, by employing their children, are doing exactly what everyone does to lift themselves out of the muck of poverty - pull together, combine resources, and everyone pitch in.

[gavnook]

Gnostic wrote: gavnook wrote: Gnostic wrote:
Because if you read your history, you will see that in the early days, workers and unions tried, but employers would hire private armies of thugs to break up strikes and usher in scabs en-masse, thereby creating riots, civil unrest and even real violence outside the picket lines. and yes, some unions employed violent tactics of their own in retaliation. Government had to step in to enforce order.

This is a very interesting perspective. A group of employees quit work and offer to return to work for higher wages. Then, they trespass on the employer's property, block entrances to the workplace, and threaten violence against anyone who would choose to work for this employer before their demands are met. The employer highers private security guards to protect himself, management, and replacement workers and possibly to rid his property of the trespassers. And you view the employer as the one to blame for the violence?

Yes. If things got that bad to begin with, there's something dreadfully amiss with the responsibilities the employer has towards it's employees. Such as brutal working hours, conditions, and low pay, while the employees see the business growing and the owners getting rich while they are still barely able to put food on the table for their children every night. That is exploitation in it's most vile form, and it's potential for ruining and destroying entire communities, families and lives is great, and it shows a complete and utter disregard for the human being who works under them and upon whom the business could'nt operate without.

What on Earth are you talking about? You seem to be saying that if things are bad enough to go on strike, their violence is excusable. But what moral standard is this? How could it possibly be okay to beat, threaten, or even just intimidate non-striking workers? And just how bad do you think conditions have to be before workers go on strike? Were the children of baseball players going to bed hungry when their fathers went on strike in 1994?

Gnostic wrote:
I see though that you would have us return to the days when robber barons simply called in Pinkerton to club, beat and even kill workers who DARE go on strike against their Gilded Age sweatshops. But unfortunately for you, Americans long ago saw fit to end such brutal, un-regulated capitalistic repression and give the country some semblance of decency and respect for human rights, though I guess that meant an end to robber baron supremacy...


You see only what you want to see. Now familiarize yourself with the non-aggression principle.
It is a position that I hold. I would not support violence against workers simply for going on strike or threatening to strike. However, I do support the use of whatever force necessary to clear out trespassers, prevent the destruction and theft of property, and to protect the business owners, non-striking workers, and associates.



Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Gnostic wrote:
Logician wrote: As I said, the workers can, either individually or as a group, threaten to quit if conditions aren't improved. Why do they need the state to make this demand when they can do it on their own?

History shows they can't in a repressively totalitarian hard-core capitalistic system. Business will even justify violence to meet their ends and agendas against workers demanding increased pay, and stockholders would'nt bat an eyelash long as it protected their investments. Americans would be fighting Americans in the streets as they did during the early days of labor representation. Our own historu CLEARLY shows workers can't achieve respect and fair labor practise without the State stepping in to ensure that workplace codes, safety and proper compensation are given to workers, or we WILL have 8 year olds slaving in sweatshops until they drop again, and people crammed in filthy rundown tenements living in pure squalor and disease, and that's not something most Americans really want to return to, regardless of how much you would wish to see that again for whatever corporate agenda you may have. History shows none of this.

Yea, the conditions which existed during America's industrial revolution and Britain's Victorian era are just figments of historian's imaginations.



See below.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: You're confusing correlation with causation.

Huh?

The timing of the enactment of labor laws, to some extent, correlates to improvements in working conditions. You interpret this correlation to mean that the laws caused the improvements. You're saying, "conditions were worse before, laws were passed, conditions improved since, therefore the laws improved conditions." The Latin for this logical fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Improvements in working conditions overall are only made possible through increased production,

Ah, so long as the employers crack the whip hard enough maybe things will eventually improve for the minion's lot, once they toil, bleed and sweat hard enough for you. Excellent business model! Why was it we ever got rid of indentured servitude again, I forgot...

Production is not increased by "cracking the whip", but by increased capital investment, which allow a single worker to do what would previously take several or to accomplish a single task in a fraction of the time it would otherwise take. If overall, more goods can be produced for the same hours worked, overall wealth is improved.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: leading to an overall increase in wealth.

For the investors? :lol:

No, by overall increase, I mean that the total wealth in an economy is increased. If increased production causes the price of a good to fall, the people who demand that good are more wealthy (ceretis paribus) since they can now buy more.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: This is something that government has not and cannot cause.

Yea, government never helped arbitrate between workers and employers to prevent violence and chaos....government never has been the catalyst for workplace safety and it's enforcement, preventing millions of workers from becoming industrial victims. Go on...

You have a nasty habit of reading what you want to read versus what people are actually trying to say. I'm saying that government has not and cannot cause an increase in overall wealth, which is what makes improvements in working conditions possible.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Parents had their children work because they deemed the wages they earned to be worth the risks to their health and safety.

LOL!!! You are'nt serious, are you? 8 year old children working in filthy factories, working on dangerous machinery, toiling 12 hour days for pennies while they go without any formal education at all? Parents forced to make their children work just so the family can EAT??? Unbelievable. Here, I'll tell you what....you tell me if the children in these pictures look like they are happy, and in safe, secure environments, with proper protections and gear and clothing...but most important of all, I want you to tell me if just LOOKING at these pictures at all breaks your heart into pieces;

[pictures]



You've posted these before. You will go nowhere trying to appeal to my emotions. If you disagree with my above statement, it's not clear how.


Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: Being a parent, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the additional income made a significant difference in their lives.

Yea, I'm sure it did. LOL. "significant difference". Nice. Translated, that means they did'nt STARVE TO DEATH OR GET EVICTED INTO THE STREETS if their children were FORCED to work. :x

That's basically what I was saying. There is no need for translation.

Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: If it were the difference between having one child survive into adult-hood versus dying from malnutrition, how could the state help by prohibiting child labor? It is really only a very recent thing that children are not expected to work until adulthood, and it is only the case because we can now afford to go without their labor. Government only stepped on when it was economically feasible, otherwise people would ignore the law and continue putting children to work.

Maybe you would. I think the rest of society has become more civilized than that now.

If children must work for a family to survive, to prohibit child labor is to sentence the family to death. If it were that important, I would ignore the law and put my son to work. Anybody would.


Gnostic wrote: gavnook wrote: Maybe you should go on strike?

Maybe you should find a little humanity. Compassion for your fellow human being is what differentiates us from brute animals.

And maybe you should learn something about economics. I am not the heartless bastard you believe me to be and get very tired of such accusations. Please try and absorb and think about the ideas you are presented with, instead of just lashing out with an emotional reaction. If you understood the things I say better, you might still disagree, but you wouldn't judge me so harshly. It is not a lack of compassion that leads me to different conclusions, but a better understanding of economic principles.

Gnostic wrote:
Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?


Gnostic wrote:
gavnook wrote: How many people are you paying an above-poverty wage to?

Currently, just one. Why?

Well, if you're only paying one person an above-poverty wage, you have decided that it is not worth it to hire another.

Gnostic wrote:
I'm not running a globalist corporation whose business model depends on exploiting the cheapest labor obtainable, even if that means treating my fellow countrymen like dogs or traitorously moving my ops to some third world corrupt dictatorship while I wave my wittle american flag around. And I started my own business after toiling for 20 years for other schmuck companies and corporations who could'nt have cared less if I dropped dead, long as I could be replaced tomorrow, ya dig? But I'm one of the lucky ones who can. Millions can't, either because of the industry they're in and skills they possess, or simply because they can't afford to miss a single paycheck for fear of losing everything. Corporations love using the fear tactic to keep their employees in line and loyal....it works especially well whenever another one of those republican-induced recessions hits and shrinks up the job market for those hapless employees who may want to look for something better. Too bad we just can't call out the thugs and get the belts and tire irons swingin, like in the good ole days. eh, Mr. Captain of Industry? :wink:

You have a way with pointless rhetoric. Have you ever considered writing speeches for political candidates?

[Free Thinkr]

Gnostic wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Gnostic wrote: No. It does'nt work like that.
It kinda does, actually. There's some elasticity, sure, but overall that's true. It makes perfect sense, too: you're not generally going to bother hiring someone who amounts to a net cost to your business.
You are'nt responding to the proper context of my comment, so I'll leave it at that, except to point out again that workers simply would'nt be able to strike or walk out in protest for higher pay if no other protections existed for them through government. History shows this, reference my above response. Why is it everytime I debate the RW here I have to give mini-lessons in history each time? Is there a way I can get paid for this or what?
I agree that the government should enforce general order. Why is it you can't stay on topic and discuss minimum wage, Gnostic? Oh, that's right: because you have no case.

Quote: Quote: Slowly, over time, inflation and other economic hurdles chain and manacle people to their jobs. You quit, or strike, you don't pay the rent or put food on the table. That's the reality for millions who live from paycheck to paycheck.
Free Thinkr wrote: That may be true, but minimum wage does little to help matters. As the OP points out, raising it just makes people whose worth is below minimum wage unemployable.

Nice justification for paying people below-poverty level remuneration. "They are'nt worth it". As long as the profit margin says so, right?
Would you have employers pay employees at a loss? How long would such a system work? Consider the value added to a Walmart by the greeter they hire at the door; forcefully raise the wage, and what will happen? Walmart will do without the greeter.

Quote: Quote: If what you say was true, then conditions such as those which existed during the industrial revolution, when children worked 14 hour days in dangerous and filthy sweatshops and the average life expectancy for a common worker was around 35 years due to extreme poverty and disease would never have lasted as long as they did before government stepped in on their behalf, forced to in part by the inevitable rise of labor unions.
Free Thinkr wrote: How is that? Please stay on topic. Minimum wage and laws prohibiting child labor are not the same thing.
I was talking about the proposed elimination of governmental regulation in the workplace. That is what was being proposed here. So, we are just picking and choosing which regulations suit us now in order to not completely look like heartless corporate drones? The facts are once again borne out by history...without regulation, business would return to those days when workers, including children, were exploited and used in the most eggregious ways imaginable. The child labor point was meant to show it in the harshest possible light as a mere example of what de-regulation and lack of governmental oversight inevitably leads to.
Not allowing minors, who are regarded as dependants of their parents, to work is a far cry from arbitrarily setting a wage that all businesses must pay their employees.

Quote: Quote: But new ways to jump over these hurdles to cheap, unrepresented labor have been found. That is, outsourcing jobs to third world dictatorships whose governments are too corrupt to "step in for the worker", and in-sourcing those that can't to un-represented illegal aliens.
Free Thinkr wrote: Mmmhmm. And how do higher minimum wages fix that? All that does is make out-sourcing more attractive.
Ever think we need to curtail outsourcing and globalism?
I've thought about it, but found it to be without merit. Our economy is not built on masses of unskilled labor; therefore it makes perfect sense that companies that require masses of unskilled labor locate to areas that have them.

Quote: All the so-called college business grads I see hear sing the same song....globalism is inevitable, deal with it, blah blah. That must be what they are actually teaching people in business school these days. I knew that in places like Harvard biz school, they teach people that workers are expendable commodities, but this is taking it to the next level, whereby I guess our universities are teaching the new crop of corporate bots to simply accept the selling out of America and to merely find ways to exploit that as well.
Well, at least they're not endorsing regulations that have been debunked for over 200 years.

[Nathyn]

Logician wrote: First post, and I feel like talking economics.

I don't see how there's any real difference between the minimum wage and forcing low-end workers to go on strike. Both have the same effect. The employer has to decide between two choices: Either decide that the workers are worth a higher wage and give them a raise, or decide that their work isn't worth the increased wage and just do without their services. The only difference is the messenger: In one case, it's the government making demands on the employer; in the other, it's the employee.

This, of course, brings up the question: If employees are just as capable of demanding a higher wage for themselves as the government is, then why should the State ever have to do it on their behalf? If such a demand was likely to be met, wouldn't the workers have gone on strike or threatened to quit of their own volition?
I don't follow that logic at all and I'm sure others here will debunk it.

However, a minimum wage still is bad, for a number of reasons:

The majority of empirical evidence suggests that minimum wages hurt both the economy and the work, either causing no change in wages or even pushing wages down over time.
Most corporations pay above minimum wage even for the lowest of their employees. Wal-Mart, here, pays $7.75/hour and Home Depot pays $10/hour. People do live off of this wage because most people receiving it are immigrants (live with lots of relatives), married couples (twice as much income), teenagers (don't need the money), and retired people (already got social security -- job is supplementary income). Very, very few people working at low-wage jobs actually need a high enough wage so that they could support themselves as an individual.
Giving a minimum wage to those mentioned above is wasteful and harms the economy, leading to less jobs for those that actually need them.
Often, however, minimum wages push wages down. In many cases, companies may offer higher wages, but the official minimum wage acts as a "target wage." (See Muzafer Sherif's light-dot experiment on conformity). So, any estimates will begin from that minimum wage. If it's too high, it drives all wages up more than necessary. But on the other hand, if it's too low, it drives all wages down, to the point that a minimum wage could keep wages lower than in a free market.
Small businesses are primarily the ones who pay minimum wages and so, minimum wages hurt them the most, which is why companies like Wal-Mart support the minimum wage.
A negative income tax would solve the problem of a "livable wage," without crushing small businesses or having an adverse effect on the economy.

[FinnMacCool]

I think everyone on this board should watch the movie Matewan.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: This is a very interesting perspective. A group of employees quit work and offer to return to work for higher wages. Then, they trespass on the employer's property, block entrances to the workplace, and threaten violence against anyone who would choose to work for this employer before their demands are met. The employer highers private security guards to protect himself, management, and replacement workers and possibly to rid his property of the trespassers. And you view the employer as the one to blame for the violence?

This is the first time I've ever actually seen someone try to rationalize those brutal thugs.