So what benefit can you possibly get from removing minimum wage? You're telling me it's a myth that minimum wage boosts current wages, yet you're not even arguing the opposite?
Besides, I wasn't even referring to you, I was talking about Pepin. Who's argument consists of saying competition will generate negotiation of wages, which is a pipe dream in itself.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411645]I really like this OP because Pepin is trying to convince us to allow people like me with low wages to accept even lower wages.[/QUOTE]
You are free to negotiate for any wage you want. I want you to be allowed to work for a penny if that is your desire. I shouldn't have any role in the contract you make with your employer, and that includes stipulating the minimum that the employer pays out. If you think about it, I did have such control I could make the minimum $1,000,000 and make you unemployable. Why would that make you unemployable? Because your marginal revenue product doesn't come close to that.
All you should really need is this post.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1125010?p=32343571&viewfull=1#post32343571[/url]
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32411928]So what benefit can you possibly get from removing minimum wage? You're telling me it's a myth that minimum wage boosts current wages, yet you're not even arguing the opposite?[/quote]
Right, I'm not arguing that it will lower wages, I'm not arguing that it will raise them.
[quote]Most students of Principles of Microeconomics should have heard the argument against the minimum wage. The real story goes like this:
Demand for labor is downward sloping. The supply of labor is upward sloping. This establishes an equilibrium wage where the quantity demanded and supplied are equal. A minimum wage, if it does anything at all, pushes the wage above this level, so that there is a greater quantity supplied than demanded. We call this surplus supply “unemployment”.[/quote]
In simple terms, people who still exist in an industry will be paid more to the detriment of their unemployed co-workers. The people who don't exist in an industry are unemployed.
Usually, the first people to go are the low-skilled laborers, teenagers, people with a low education and things of that nature. They're automatically assumed to be the less productive.
If the minimum wage were to raise to such a degree that there is no way to recover from the losses, the industry would go under. Politicians try their best to not make this happen, but if everyone were paid 50 dollars an hour you could easily understand how this would be possible.
Do you really think, for example, that raising the minimum wage to 50 dollars an hour would push wages higher? Or do you think, correctly, that the people who aren't outputting 50 dollars worth of labor would be fired?
[editline]e[/editline]
In the most simple terms, the side-effects of the minimum wage would be making less people do more work to earn their increase in wages (less people would be hired to fulfill the job of many), lower skilled people, immigrants, students, the uneducated would see a rise in unemployment as well as anybody not outputting more than the minimum wage floor (we don't see many gas station attendants or bellhops anymore, that's basically why. Obviously, there are other examples, but those are jobs that are long dead and gone)
[QUOTE=s0beit;32411611]No such thing[/QUOTE]
We could go back and fourth with this all day and just say no there isnt yes there is no there isnt, thats not what this forum is about though. Technology makes human labor inferior to machines in certain areas, and those areas are continually expanding. Is what your saying that new jobs will always emerge? Why is it that lack of jobs is a problem today, isnt it proof that this system as a whole is stupid?
[QUOTE]Nope. Have any proof people are being paid less in the United States? Or paid less over time in the third world, even?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Have any proof people arent being paid less in the united states? Or arent being paid in the third world, even?
[QUOTE]Are you just here to make a bunch of statements?[/QUOTE]
At least its better than your shit flinging eh? You arent a very good debater, you just say you are good at it then blather on about bullshit and use straw men
[QUOTE]Nope, that's not how technology replacing jobs works. This is why I hate the venus project people, so very much. First year economics students can explode all of your arguments.[/QUOTE]
yes, yes it is, i understand how much you hate things, no need to elaborate on how you hate everything that doesn't agree with you. But please, don't let me stop you spewing your silly rhetoric. Im sure those economic students could actually form an argument which is why you are "citing" them instead of making that argument yourself.
[QUOTE]When the motor vehicle assembly line was invented, were all the jobs created by it to service cars? Work the assembly line? No, hundreds if not thousands of separate industries stemmed from being able to transport people and goods more easily.[/QUOTE]
I see you like your anecdotal evidence. i think we both agree that the assembly line DIDNT cause a massive economic collapse, why? because it didn't replace tons of people. Please, find me an example where tons of people suddenly lost their jobs and everything was fine.
[QUOTE]That. Is. Not. How. It. Works.[/QUOTE]
This isnt debating. I could just reply yes it is, and we wouldn't get anywhere. Just stop doing this, okay? Its not good for me, its not good for you. If you actually tried to explain the processes and not just hurr this didnt happen an durrr this would happen if this happened.
[QUOTE]If somehow, magically 75% of jobs were replaced by machines, the price of goods would drop so dramatically poverty as we know it now wouldn't exist, and thousands upon thousands of sectors of jobs would be created totally unrelated to the jobs that the machines do. Oh, and people would be paid more in real terms to do less work.[/QUOTE]
It is physically impossible for poverty not to exist in a debt oriented society. You imply that you have at minimum impossible for people not to be going bankrupt. I like how you claim to know basic economics but dont realize this fact. I guess the 7 MILLION children that starve to death yearly aren't a concern.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32407385]This doesn't really work in the real world, people who would work below minimum would be people already working below minimum now (think, immigrants who are already used to a lower standing of living and illegally work below the minimum wage) or people who would like a temporary job (students, people just wanting to supplement their income with a lax job) etc. Would there be some people working below minimum who would prefer a job that pays higher? Sure, don't we all. However, if their labor cannot command that much capital they aren't going to find a job anywhere. The homeless, the people with virtually no education to speak of and things of that nature, you have to understand, those people are already unemployed and virtually unemployable, not only that but you're also only thinking of people who work for a wage for a larger existing company.[/QUOTE]
For this to work you'd have to make some serious changes to the rest of society, lest you damn everyone below middle class to eternal poverty. For one, you will need to provide everyone with a chance to get a solid education. As it is now, it is already damned expensive and nigh-impossible for some. Dropping the minimum wage would make it completely impossible for anyone that is already in a poor family to ever get out. The poor would stay poor forever, and not necessarily through fault of their own either.
How many of you americans don't have higher education, or even healthcare? Oh yeah, a shit load. No minimum wage would bring that problem to a whole new level.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]We could go back and fourth with this all day and just say no there isnt yes there is no there isnt, thats not what this forum is about though. Technology makes human labor inferior to machines in certain areas, and those areas are continually expanding. Is what your saying that new jobs will always emerge? Why is it that lack of jobs is a problem today, isnt it proof that this system as a whole is stupid?[/quote]
There has always been a lack of jobs and unemployed, there can't be a job for every human at all times. Is there unemployment in non-capitalist countries? Yes, there is, and there will be for a very long time. There is no way to achieve 100% unemployment, even if for an hour, or even a day you achieved this, it would be smashed the next day. It is an impossible goal.
However, yes, jobs do emerge from things being made cheaply by machines. This is a historical fact, I don't even know how you can turn it into a debate.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]Nope. Have any proof people arent being paid less in the united states? Or arent being paid in the third world, even?[/quote]
You made the assertion, you back it up.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]At least its better than your shit flinging eh? You arent a very good debater, you just say you are good at it then blather on about bullshit and use straw men[/quote]
Straw men? Where?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]yes, yes it is, i understand how much you hate things, no need to elaborate on how you hate everything that doesn't agree with you. But please, don't let me stop you spewing your silly rhetoric. Im sure those economic students could actually form an argument which is why you are "citing" them instead of making that argument yourself.[/quote]
What? I guess scientists should get flak for quoting Einstein? lol
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]I see you like your anecdotal evidence. i think we both agree that the assembly line DIDNT cause a massive economic collapse, why? because it didn't replace tons of people. Please, find me an example where tons of people suddenly lost their jobs and everything was fine.[/quote]
"find me an example where tons of people suddenly lost their jobs and everything was fine", uh, this occurs at least once a year every year since industrialization. Thousands of people lose their jobs and not all of them remain unemployed for over a year.
It did replace a ton of people, how can you even say that assembling cars by hand didn't require a lot of labor? It isn't anecdotal evidence, since technology was first invented it's been replacing labor, yet somehow, some way, we get by just fine.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]This isnt debating. I could just reply yes it is, and we wouldn't get anywhere. Just stop doing this, okay? Its not good for me, its not good for you. If you actually tried to explain the processes and not just hurr this didnt happen an durrr this would happen if this happened.[/quote]
...
[QUOTE=Mattk50;32423551]It is physically impossible for poverty not to exist in a debt oriented society. You imply that you have at minimum impossible for people not to be going bankrupt. I like how you claim to know basic economics but dont realize this fact. I guess the 7 MILLION children that starve to death yearly aren't a concern.[/QUOTE]
First, I agree not everyone should be in debt. The banking system which the venus project hates I also hate, I'm not advocating for everyone to be in debt.
I replied to your "7 MILLION" children example in the other thread, let's not do this in two threads, your argument can be made in the other topic. This topic has nothing to do with the venus project, please use the other one.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32423766]For this to work you'd have to make some serious changes to the rest of society, lest you damn everyone below middle class to eternal poverty. For one, you will need to provide everyone with a chance to get a solid education. As it is now, it is already damned expensive and nigh-impossible for some. Dropping the minimum wage would make it completely impossible for anyone that is already in a poor family to ever get out. The poor would stay poor forever, and not necessarily through fault of their own either.
How many of you americans don't have higher education, or even healthcare? Oh yeah, a shit load. No minimum wage would bring that problem to a whole new level.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that people are just replying to one excerpt of one thing I've said and declare victory? It is rather infuriating.
In fact, I don't think you've even replied to what you've quoted, so i see no reason to reply to you now.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32423797]In fact, I don't think you've even replied to what you've quoted, so i see no reason to reply to you now.[/QUOTE]Yeah I went off on a tangent there actually, you're right about that.
That said, my point still stands. How would you possibly plan to help the poor get an education? I hope whatever you've got in mind is better than what America has now, because that's a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32423907]That said, my point still stands. How would you possibly plan to help the poor get an education? I hope whatever you've got in mind is better than what America has now, because that's a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of things to be said about education, I've said them in other topics. As it stands now though, education is free.
Unless you're talking about higher education, in which case taking jobs to cover tuition costs below minimum would seem advantageous.
You're not talking about the students though, you're probably talking about the parents.
First, there's a lot of factors which cause rising tuition costs in America. One huge problem is government guaranteed loans, which causes people to basically not care how much they barrow because they expect to either pay it all back in full, which is very hard and means many years of struggle, or they expect the government to pay their tuition fee when the maximum amount of time tuition can be paid if exceeded. There's plenty of other factors as well, but the bottom line is that colleges do not seem to care about how cheap their education costs are to provide in relation to the tuition they charge.
That is a distortion. Tuition shouldn't cost as much as it does now.
Now, back to the parents, the parents aren't the ones working below minimum. You have to understand that the minimum wage does not boost existing wages, it only creates a floor whereby anyone who would work under it is not employed.
Generally speaking parents have plenty of work experience able to boost them beyond any minimum wage floor, some don't, but mostly the people effected by the minimum wage are the people without jobs during a period of time.
If you don't even have a high school education, you'll have trouble finding even the most basic of jobs. If you're a youth below the age of 18, it is statistically harder for you to find a job than your older counterparts.
Statistically speaking younger blacks and latin people tend to be adversely effected more than younger whites, though they're also effected.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32423797]However, yes, jobs do emerge from things being made cheaply by machines. This is a historical fact, I don't even know how you can turn it into a debate.[/QUOTE] Well there is a difference. Before machines helped a person do there job better not completely take it away. Whole businesses are firing there work force to be replaced with machines and so far there hasn't been new jobs replacing those at the same speed. Explain what jobs can come from machines that match the ones being lost?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32433510]Well there is a difference. Before machines helped a person do there job better not completely take it away. Whole businesses are firing there work force to be replaced with machines and so far there hasn't been new jobs replacing those at the same speed. Explain what jobs can come from machines that match the ones being lost?[/QUOTE]
Just like labor is diverted to other fields so is capital saved by not paying that labor, and new opportunities for capital exist because that thing is so cheaply made.
Instead of spending extra money on widget A you can spend it on A and B, because A is no longer the same price. This works for all sorts of raw materials, computers, vehicles, anything that is used by a massive amount of people which can boost their economic productivity.
There are some things made in mass production like toys which probably isn't going to create as many jobs as would say, automation of something designed to move or create something else, but jobs are created elsewhere because money is diverted from toys into something else which would yield more profit over time. You wouldn't keep making novelty products if the price of them fell, you'd find a new field that would yield you more profit in the future.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32411611]No such thing
Nope. Have any proof people are being paid less in the United States? Or paid less over time in the third world, even?
Are you just here to make a bunch of statements?
Nope, that's not how technology replacing jobs works. This is why I hate the venus project people, so very much. First year economics students can explode all of your arguments.
When the motor vehicle assembly line was invented, were all the jobs created by it to service cars? Work the assembly line? No, hundreds if not thousands of separate industries stemmed from being able to transport people and goods more easily.
That. Is. Not. How. It. Works.
If somehow, magically 75% of jobs were replaced by machines, the price of goods would drop so dramatically poverty as we know it now wouldn't exist, and thousands upon thousands of sectors of jobs would be created totally unrelated to the jobs that the machines do. Oh, and people would be paid more in real terms to do less work.[/QUOTE]
what makes you think the prices would drop?
The price paid for the machines is going to be less paid for the price of laborers. Due to supply and demand, a most businesses will drop their price to gain more consumers. This claim is more true of areas with higher elasticity. The common rebuttal to this is "collusion" which I'd suggest isn't a rebuttal for a number of reasons, the main number it being not related, the second is that it just isn't realistic.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32672130]The price paid for the machines is going to be less paid for the price of laborers. Due to supply and demand, a most businesses will drop their price to gain more consumers. This claim is more true of areas with higher elasticity. The common rebuttal to this is "collusion" which I'd suggest isn't a rebuttal for a number of reasons, the main number it being not related, the second is that it just isn't realistic.[/QUOTE]
Companies working together to ensure they can sustain higher profits (and by extension higher prices) is unrealistic?
op, what justifies this broad amount of trust that you put in the corporation to do what's best?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32673042]Companies working together to ensure they can sustain higher profits (and by extension higher prices) is unrealistic?[/QUOTE]
The idea that no company will try to increase their profits through lowering their price is unrealistic and also contradictory to the idea that a business wants to make the most amount of profit possible. The type of collusion talked about here would require all those in the market and alternative markets, and the idea is that all these greedy capitalist pigs that have been trying to monopolize the industry are now just going to share the wealth... But even with the agreement they likely don't at all trust each other, I mean would you trust Wal-Mart not to lower its prices. If one person lowers their price, it messes everything up for obvious reasons. But it's worse than that. Let's say everyone there signs a contract in blood to ensure it is good. The contract does nothing to protect against new firms entering.
Really the argument is just the same as the monopoly one, except far worse.
[QUOTE=joes33431;32673809]op, what justifies this broad amount of trust that you put in the corporation to do what's best?[/QUOTE]
Can you bring up some quotes and be more specific because that question seems to more relate with your assumptions than with what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32673891]The idea that no company will try to increase their profits through lowering their price is unrealistic and also contradictory to the idea that a business wants to make the most amount of profit possible. The type of collusion talked about here would require all those in the market and alternative markets, and the idea is that all these greedy capitalist pigs that have been trying to monopolize the industry are now just going to share the wealth... But even with the agreement they likely don't at all trust each other, I mean would you trust Wal-Mart not to lower its prices. If one person lowers their price, it messes everything up for obvious reasons. But it's worse than that. Let's say everyone there signs a contract in blood to ensure it is good. The contract does nothing to protect against new firms entering.[/QUOTE]
In all likelihood the larger corporations would have boxed out the upstart ones because of their greater resources.
If no one has brought this up yet. This could hurt small businesses because they wouldn't be able to pay there workers that much meaning that there wont be that much competition in the end for big businesses to pay as low as they want.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32673891]Can you bring up some quotes and be more specific because that question seems to more relate with your assumptions than with what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
The free-market philosophy puts the trust in the hands of the business to do what's best for society as a whole.
As mentioned in the OP, you said that companies will be able to make a mathematical, logical risk assessment which will be the basis for employee wages. However, how can you be so sure that the company will actually use such an assessment, while they could easily make wages arbitrarily low to maximize profit?
Here's a hypothetical situation to explain my point: Company A pays 10 dollars an hour to it's employees. Company A can only afford 10 workers because of this. Meanwhile, Company B pays 1 dollar an hour to it's employees, and can hire 100 workers. Company B wins out because it has ten times the workers, and can be made ten times more productive than Company A. Eventually, Company A will follow suit to keep from being shoved underwater.
Why is such a thing significant? It proves that a business need not make an intelligent assessment, rather they can just lower wages to be more profitable. This is only assuming that Company B will even hire 100 workers, since hiring only 10 employees is still more profitable.
Which leads back to the essential question: Can businesses be trusted to do what's logically best for society vs what will turn up more profits?
[QUOTE=joes33431;32677050]As mentioned in the OP, you said that companies will be able to make a mathematical, logical risk assessment which will be the basis for employee wages. However, how can you be so sure that the company will actually use such an assessment, while they could easily make wages arbitrarily low to maximize profit?[/quote]
That's part of the point in trade. The seller is trying to sell for the highest price, while the buyer is trying to sell for the lowest price. Whatever price is determined must benefit both parties. Same idea applies to labor contracts, the employer tries to get to lowest price, while they employee tries to get the highest price. It's subject to all the same economic laws such as supply and demand.
At a wage rate of a dollar an hour, what kind of labor is a businessman going to attract? Likely none. Two dollars an hour? Still none. Five dollars? A few people. Seven dollars? A decent number of people. Ten dollars? A good number of people? Twenty? A large number of people? You could pretty easily graph out the demand and supply graph of a particular industry, and it's quite true that some though being low skilled need $10 starting wages to attract labor. Why is this? There are certain jobs that people just aren't willing to do for a low wage because the alternative jobs are much easier, so the employer needs high starting wages to entice laborers. Two examples of this are basic construction jobs and basic child care.
[QUOTE=joes33431;32677050]Here's a hypothetical situation to explain my point: Company A pays 10 dollars an hour to it's employees. Company A can only afford 10 workers because of this. Meanwhile, Company B pays 1 dollar an hour to it's employees, and can hire 100 workers. Company B wins out because it has ten times the workers, and can be made ten times more productive than Company A. Eventually, Company A will follow suit to keep from being shoved underwater.
Why is such a thing significant? It proves that a business need not make an intelligent assessment, rather they can just lower wages to be more profitable. This is only assuming that Company B will even hire 100 workers, since hiring only 10 employees is still more profitable.[/quote]
There are two small colleges that allot a garbage man fund of $1000 per hour worked. Imagine college A paid it's garbage men $100 an hour and therefore could only hire 10 of them. College B instead decides pays them $10 and hour, hire 20 of them, and use the remaining $800 and hour in the garbage man fund to hire eight qualified teachers.
[QUOTE=joes33431;32677050]Which leads back to the essential question: Can businesses be trusted to do what's logically best for society vs what will turn up more profits?[/QUOTE]
That is a false dichotomy.
I am assured that people will act in their own self interest.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32677762]I am assured that people will act in their own self interest.[/QUOTE]
Pepin's argument in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32682453]Pepin's argument in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.[/QUOTE]
Are you unable to read the thread or are you incapable of making an argument? I'm guessing both, because I'm certain you would have said something of value if were able to.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32683276]Are you unable to read the thread or are you incapable of making an argument? I'm guessing both, because I'm certain you would have said something of value if were able to.[/QUOTE]
Yes, his point is that he believes that axiom is false.
Minimum wages were an important step in lowering the massive amounts of worker abuse during the industrial era. It's not a good idea to take such a step backwards unless we really want to learn the same lessons again in the future.
Edit: Actually the unskilled factory workers back in the day WERE the ones who suffered from no minimum wages.
[QUOTE=Falchion;32685391]Minimum wages were an important step[/quote]
In ushering further failed attempts to control prices such as rent control?
[QUOTE=Falchion;32685391]in lowering the massive amounts of worker abuse during the industrial era.[/quote]
By abuse you mean low pay, and I've already provided a case above for this as there is no doubt the standard of living increased significantly for everyone. When making this claims, nobody ever takes into consideration the societal structure, the smiths would Smiths smiths would smith and Bakers would bake, the Farmers would farm, and that these factory jobs paid far more than the typical family roles ever could. Please don't even get into child labor, there isn't even an argument to be had there, because the children would have been working no matter what. Families were large as to create a large labor force, so if the child wasn't working in the factory, they would have been working on the farm. To go further with this, industrialization stopped child labor in that families became rich enough to stop investing in children as a means of labor and survival. Families stopped having so many kids and started sending them off to school. This can be seen as a different kind of investment, but it wouldn't have been possible if there was not some means to improve the family's standard of living.
[QUOTE=Falchion;32685391]It's not a good idea to take such a step backwards unless we really want to learn the same lessons again in the future.[/quote]
"Let's not think rationally". I don't understand this argument as it could apply to so many bad policies. What about the Patriot Act? Or prior to its repeal, the Jim Crow laws. The issue with the logic is that it doesn't address whether a law is good or bad, rather it just makes an appeal to the present. It avoids talking about the issue.
[QUOTE=Falchion;32685391]Edit: Actually the unskilled factory workers back in the day WERE the ones who suffered from no minimum wages.[/QUOTE]
And it's good that there was no minimum wage back then. It's bad that there is one today.
You just admitted that it was good that there was no minimum wage and that workers suffered because of it.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32685730]
And it's good that there was no minimum wage back then. It's bad that there is one today.[/QUOTE]
well I really don't think this is worth arguing anymore if you seriously believe that
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32688062]You just admitted that it was good that there was no minimum wage and that workers suffered because of it.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if I said
[quote]Actually the unskilled factory workers back in the day were the ones who suffered from no minimum wages. And it's good that there was no minimum wage back then.[/quote]
Much of my argument in that post revolves around rebutting that the claim that the low class worker suffered during the industrial revolution, and much of this thread has centered around the claim that eliminating the minimum wage would not cause the low class worker to suffer. My view on that is pretty clear.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;32688396]well I really don't think this is worth arguing anymore if you seriously believe that[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't you be open to debate on this subject? Surely being open minded to different ideas is beneficial. Debate surely brings about a better understand of the own ideas that you support.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32688454]Perhaps if I said
Much of my argument in that post revolves around rebutting that the claim that the low class worker suffered during the industrial revolution, and much of this thread has centered around the claim that eliminating the minimum wage would not cause the low class worker to suffer. My view on that is pretty clear.[/QUOTE]
but you're still saying people suffered, so how is that any better? It's not as easy as just getting a skill, that took years of usually unpaid apprenticeship, and many people had families to feed. You're whole concept is based largely around assumptions completely unproven as of yet.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;32688498]but you're still saying people suffered, so how is that any better? It's not as easy as just getting a skill, that took years of usually unpaid apprenticeship, and many people had families to feed. You're whole concept is based largely around assumptions completely unproven as of yet.[/QUOTE]
The person I'm replying to said that and I didn't feel the need to be redundant and say that they didn't as I had already shown that in the same post. Working in the factories has a huge step up in pay and in working conditions for most. If needed, I can link to a lot of places. The idea of industrialization taking the nation out of poverty isn't new and isn't unproven. Also, it did more to help out the trade industries by taking much of the competition out of them.
My claim is of course not that bad events didn't happen, bad events happen all throughout history, but my claim is that minimum wage would have been detrimental to low class worker. Without understanding the argument against it, this claim makes little sense, but this is why it is key to under the argument against minimum wage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
