[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271185]To be honest most Scandinavian countries have rather low populations and can thus afford that[/QUOTE]
it's all relative, less population means less income from taxes in the first place
Canada has a low population too and we still manage to fuck up a lot of things by doing them the American way
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271076]Do you know why most manual labour is done in countries like china and india? Because there is no minimum wage over there and people have no choice but to work for 50p an hour otherwise they'll get undercut by someone desperate enough to take a low wage.[/QUOTE]
This basically. I'd lose my job because someone from Poland would accept a job here for less pay than I earn now, because they are used to less pay anyways in Poland.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32271204]it's all relative, less population means less income from taxes in the first place[/QUOTE]
It does mean the distribution of wealth is higher per person making them an overall richer country.
I'm going to put it this way, if there was competition for unskilled labor, we would have wages above $7.31.
FYI for those of you who haven't aced Poly-Sci 101 as the OP clearly has: A trust is basically a conspiracy between corporate interests to manipulate the market in their favor.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271076]Do you know why most manual labour is done in countries like china and india? Because there is no minimum wage over there and people have no choice but to work for 50p an hour otherwise they'll get undercut by someone desperate enough to take a low wage.[/QUOTE]
China does have a minimum wage. India does as well, but it is a bit more confusing in that it is state set and occupation based. But ignoring that, minimum wage jobs in sweatshops actually pay far more than the national average. This is to say that they are seen as very good jobs compared to the alternatives because not only do they pay far more, but they sure beat farming in the hot sun. Most third world nations adhere pretty well to this. China in recent times does not, and this is because they are modernizing and are moving past the sweatshop stage of development that all currently developed nations went through at some point in the past. A good article about this is found below.
[url]http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369[/url]
I'm also unaware of who sweatshop labor hurts. It gives third world nations an opportunity to move forward economically and modernize just as China is doing, as I've shown, it benefits the worker as sweatshop jobs are in high demand in many third world countries, and it also benefits us because we receive low cost goods.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32271192]No, companies do not invariably compete. Corporations are in it for profit. If there is more opportunity for profit in establishing a trust than competition (i.e. artificial scarcity, universally low wages, localized monopolies, status-quo unsafe work environments, etc.) they will act in a unified interest.
You know very little about the free market if you do not understand the dangers of trusts. They are one of the biggest reasons why unions were established. Competing companies will work together if it is in their interests, and everybody who isn't a billionaire loses when they do.
The idea that competition rules supreme in a Laissez-faire market is a myth. That's why we abandoned it over a century ago.[/QUOTE]
I could debate you on this, but the subject is minimum wage, and your argument makes no sense because if Company A has the option of eliminating its competition, it would prefer to do so rather than making a trust. If you want to play the scenario out, Company B goes out of business, Company A buys the land and takes over, and now there is a monopoly that minimum wage just enabled.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32271200]Minimum wage protects unskilled laborers.[/QUOTE]
What, by ensuring they are unemployed?
i got a B+ in political science
my teacher was a marxist
And yes, making the minimum wage lower would allow employers to hire more people, but this doesn't change the amount of work there is to be done. People get sent home early all the time because business is slow and the company is NOT going to pay people to stand around, whether it's for $7.31 an hour or $1 an hour.
Yeah, the company can afford to hire 75 people now instead of 50, but that still doesn't change the fact that they only need 20 at any given time.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32271325]China does have a minimum wage.[/QUOTE]
yeah their minimum wage pays for enough money to buy a nice suit and a briefcase before you go stand in front of a tank
you aren't really using China as an example of good worker representation, are you? The same China that crushed several thousand people beneath tank-treads when they had the audacity to protest the status-quo?
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32271341]And yes, making the minimum wage lower would allow employers to hire more people, but this doesn't change the amount of work there is to be done. People get sent home early all the time because business is slow and the company is NOT going to pay people to stand around, whether it's for $7.31 an hour or $1 an hour.
Yeah, the company can afford to hire 75 people now instead of 50, but that still doesn't change the fact that they only need 20 at any given time.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32271325]China does have a minimum wage. India does as well, but it is a bit more confusing in that it is state set and occupation based. But ignoring that, minimum wage jobs in sweatshops actually pay far more than the national average. This is to say that they are seen as very good jobs compared to the alternatives because not only do they pay far more, but they sure beat farming in the hot sun. Most third world nations adhere pretty well to this. China in recent times does not, and this is because they are modernizing and are moving past the sweatshop stage of development that all currently developed nations went through at some point in the past. A good article about this is found below.
[url]http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369[/url]
I'm also unaware of who sweatshop labor hurts. It gives third world nations an opportunity to move forward economically and modernize just as China is doing, as I've shown, it benefits the worker as sweatshop jobs are in high demand in many third world countries, and it also benefits us because we receive low cost goods.[/QUOTE]
The terrible wages and long hours people are forced to work there is why many unskilled laborers there commit suicide. The economy is booming, but the condition of the common man is not getting any better. All that's happening are the CEOs and owners are opening more sweatshops and hiring more people for the same shitty wages and working conditions.
I swear I'll go back and read your probably well-thought out and intelligent opening, but first I'd like to say something. If we can't trust companies to not use child labor overseas, or even illegal labor back here in "the states," then how can we trust them with our lives? People depend on money from their jobs to live. I don't think allowing corporations to make more of a profit would fix anything.
That being said, I'll actually go back and read what you said now.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271240]It does mean the distribution of wealth is higher per person making them an overall richer country.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I'm just being dense here, but I really don't follow your argument, could you elaborate?
I have conservative economic views, but even I think no minimum wage is terrible. I honestly think it is sick you want to put your fellow country men in that position.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32270488][B]Intro[/B]
I'll start this off with a fictional scenario. There are only two mining companies in South Africa, one that pays well above minimum wage: Company A; and the other that pays minimum wage: Company B. Both companies are pretty equal in performance and both of course want to come out ahead. Although Company B has managed to compete with Company A by hiring low skilled labor, Company B does not really have any options to gain an edge that Company A would not have. Company A does not have the choice of cutting its workers salaries as its workers are highly skilled and demanding, but Company A does have one trick up their sleeve... To raise the minimum wage.
What effect would this have? Simple, it would force Company B to pay their employees a higher wage which in turn would raise the prices of Company B's product making them less competitive. It would have no ill effects on Company A because everyone within Company A makes well above the minimum wage. In effect, Company B will eventually be put out of business, and these low skilled workers will be out of a job.[/QUOTE]
Surely if Compnay A pays above minimum wage for "Highly skilled workers" then they aren't not in direct competition with Company B as their have differentiated products.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;32271419]I don't know if I'm just being dense here, but I really don't follow your argument, could you elaborate?[/QUOTE]
I think I got my terminology a bit wrong to be honest.
What I'm saying is that in a country with a good economy and a low population, each person has a larger percentage of the wealth in comparison to a country that has a good economy and a high population.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32271325]
I'm also unaware of who sweatshop labor hurts. It gives third world nations an opportunity to move forward economically and modernize just as China is doing, as I've shown, it benefits the worker as sweatshop jobs are in high demand in many third world countries, and it also benefits us because we receive low cost goods.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't benefit the worker, especially when the worker is a nine year old child forced to be there
It benefits the government and the economy of the country, just not the ordinary people of said nation.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271539]It benefits the government and the economy of the country, just not the ordinary people of said nation.[/QUOTE]
It benefits nobody but the CEOs.
It will benefit the government very little if any at all as the unskilled laborers will not earn enough money to pay income taxes. The economy will not be any better because even though there are more workers, they aren't making enough money to buy anything.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271539]It benefits the government and the economy of the country, just not the ordinary people of said nation.[/QUOTE]
Good for ecomomy, good for emerybody! :downs:
Everything will remain stagnant.
[QUOTE=StealthArcher;32271557]Good for ecomomy, good for emerybody! :downs:[/QUOTE]
I wasn't saying I agreed with the idea, just stating the reason they allow it to happen
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271607]I wasn't saying I agreed with the idea, just stating the reason they allow it to happen[/QUOTE]
Except those reasons aren't true at all.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32271618]Except those reasons aren't true at all.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, india and china seem to have become economic super powers, I assumed that it was one of the reasons why as it brought a lot of industry to their country.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32271643]I don't know, india and china seem to have become economic super powers, I assumed that it was one of the reasons why as it brought a lot of industry to their country.[/QUOTE]
Read my earlier comments.
The terrible wages and long hours people are forced to work there is why many unskilled laborers there commit suicide. The economy is booming, but the condition of the common man is not getting any better. All that's happening are the CEOs and owners are opening more sweatshops and hiring more people for the same shitty wages and working conditions.
This sounds like a problem for game theory.
I'll bring it up with my professor one day and we can create a game for it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32271152]People making more money = people paying more taxes
People paying more taxes = the ability to fund more social services like healthcare and education
Public healthcare = employers no longer need to pay for health insurance for their employees
Better education = employees are more educated and more deserving of a higher wage
Notice how it all falls into place
But zeke this is a utopia it can't possibly exist
well it does exist, it's called scandinavia[/QUOTE]
This is a lie, I'm dirt poor and socialism is ruining the country. Everyone is covered by this stupid social safety net, ugh, it's total Bolshevism.
Looks like my joke didn't go through. Remember Mr.Burns? He keeps saying everything is bolshevism :v:
[QUOTE=Pepin;32271325]I could debate you on this, but the subject is minimum wage, and your argument makes no sense because if Company A has the option of eliminating its competition, it would prefer to do so rather than making a trust. If you want to play the scenario out, Company B goes out of business, Company A buys the land and takes over, and now there is a monopoly that minimum wage just enabled.[/QUOTE]
Company A is only going to compete if competition is beneficial to Company A.
If the cost of competition is greater than the cost of coexistence or cooperation, Company A won't do shit.
You need to understand that competition is not a given in a free market economy. Competition is not inevitable. You are talking about this as though it were Natural Selection, in defiance of the fact that Natural Selection includes the possibilities of symbiotic and parasitic behaviors.
No minimum wage, we've already SEEN this in America, and let me tell you, it was hell.
I don't know what psychopathic Bachmann-esque world you live in OP, but boy, are you ignorant.
[QUOTE=J!NX;32271893]No minimum wage, we've already SEEN this in America, and let me tell you, it was hell.
I don't know what psychopathic Bachmann-esque world you live in OP, but boy, are you ignorant.[/QUOTE]
That hardly ever works in a discussion, stop that. Provide examples, facts, data, do something other than rhetoric.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
