A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » General Discussion » Constitutional Discussion » Minimum Wage Hurts Those It Was Designed to Help (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Minimum Wage Hurts Those It Was Designed to Help
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee, who could have guessed this would happen? Only somebody who knows a little something about economics.

quote:
... Minimum-wage proponents argue that a higher wage floor will improve the standard of living for poor families. The reality is that higher labor costs reduce employment, especially for younger workers, and the greatest amount of pain is felt by black men. The Even and Macpherson study finds that among whites males ages 16-24, each 10% increase in a federal or state minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5%. For Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2%. "But among black males in this group, each 10% increase in the minimum wage has decreased employment by 6.5%."

The effect on the black community is so pronounced, write the authors, that "employment losses for 16-to-24 year-old black males between 2007 and 2010 could have been nearly 50% lower had the federal and state minimum wages remained at the January 2007 level."

It gets worse. Not all states were fully affected by the federal minimum wage increases because some already mandated a minimum wage above the federal requirement. But in the 21 states that were fully affected, about 13,200 black young adults lost their job as a direct result of the recession, versus 18,500 who lost their job as a result of the minimum-wage mandates. "In other words," write Messrs. Even and Macpherson, "the consequences of the minimum wage for this subgroup were more harmful than the consequences of the recession." (...)

Read the whole thing.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see the argument here and there, and while I don't like the government dictating to business, some business get so big that they can manipulate labor markets and peoples living situations with bad labor policy, so regulation has to be what happens to them.

Personally, I do a lot of work off the books and I hire people off the books, but over the last three years, when dealing with a government related situation where they were breathing down my neck over damn near everything, I was getting stuck through other peoples legal maneuvers into working below minimum wage on a bunch of jobs.

It usually worked like this:
Get lied to about the business volume, have a happy interview, sign contracts which include a 1099 statement, everything being reported to the IRS even though I am told that I have to be responsible for doing the math on what taxes get owed.

Paycheck #1 comes in really really short of expectations, my balls get busted over work speed or sales volume ect ect.

Paycheck #2 comes in, I notice half the people who I was hired with no longer work for the outfit. Still short of expectations, lots of pep talk about keeping the chin up ect ect.

Paycheck # comes in, I don't give notice, I am down the road.

In my own business, I hire people from time to time for cash, and I don't care how desperate someone is, I don't play desperation as a negotiating tool to get people to work on a below par wage. If they really do below par work, then the solution is they go down the road. Sometimes I even hire homeless people and welfare bums, and surprise surprise, when given an actual respectable amount of money, and some respect, they do their best work for me.

I will not pay a Black man minimum wage or below, so whatever arguments someone wants to make about how that is "black wages" loses my attention right there. The Black guy who helps me with moving jobs gets $15 per hour or better, is over 40, and reality is that whatever time he may have spent lifting weights on a prison yard or neighborhood gym makes him more employable than someone who looks better in person or on paper but can't lift the other end of a piano.

Inferior schooling is not it either. It doesn't take a degree in anything to move couches or pianos. It does not even take a whole lot of literacy. Now hours in the gym, yeah. Healthy eating and keeping in shape, yep.

What really locks a lot of these people out of jobs are unrealistic expectations and demands of squeaky clean criminal records. Half the guys who work for me in the building trades on the remodel jobs I have done are ex-convicts. Wood and nails don't do background checks. Most of the work we did last summer was for a real estate developer whose son got set up and busted for selling exstacy in college, so he understood the concept of giving people an honest wage instead of pulling their options out from under them to the point where they have to go into the dope fetching jobs. Now working inside of occupied homes, that's another matter, and requires very high levels of supervision, but I just got word from another developer that Bank Of America is mandating a "No Felons" rule not just for their own employees, but anyone who contracts for them in any way. No joke, on the bare bones refurbishing work done on empty homes they get government money to foreclose on, they are saying that a contractor cannot even have a felon employee mow the lawn.

Pile that on with the fact that B of A is a major stakeholder in a lot of neighborhoods, including those minority neighborhoods hit by the recession, and they are mandating that felons can't be employed, then on the other side we are supposed to be supporting some idea that minimum wage is too much? What's next? Re-Legalize slavery?

There are so many ways to sneak around minimum wage laws and rules anyway that what is really at stake on that is the federal witholding for social security and bare minimum insurance for full time employed people.

I think championing some sort of "lets pay below minimum wage and make it legal" platform among the patriot movement is not at all a smart choice at this point in history when we are trying to gain a reputation as champions of social justice.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Breacher:
I think championing some sort of "lets pay below minimum wage and make it legal" platform among the patriot movement is not at all a smart choice at this point in history when we are trying to gain a reputation as champions of social justice.

Well, it may not be a smart choice from a public relations point of view. I mean, who doesn't want $7 per hour instead of $5? But we/re not talking public relations here. It's the science of economics. You should ask the government of the Soviet Union what happens when you ignore the basic principals of economics.

Oops, you can't. The Soviet Union ain't around anymore.

The truth is, the minimum wage is the most racist law still on the books. The only reason the minimum wage came about in the first place was to keep blacks out of factory jobs. And they're still keeping young black men unemployed.

Want to stop illegal immigration? Want to know what will do that, a whole lot cheaper and more effectively than building fences and stationing tens of thousands of armed men on the border? End minimum wage laws. It really is that simple. Let blacks and legal immigrants have the same jobs the illegal immigrants are taking now.

People will say that the minimum wage is a "living wage," and people can't live on anything less that that. Well, I'll call bullshit on that. Illegal immigrants live on less than that all the time. No, they probably don't have cable television, and they probably have more than roommates other folks. Well, I lived in the barracks for a number of years, and it took hostile fire pay to put me above the minimum wage. So I just don't buy that argument.

When government ignore the laws of economics, bad things happen. Ask Greece, Spain, and Portugal. And you're seeing a lot of those bad things happen here, and they're getting worse. If we want to fix some of those things, we're going to have to end the minimum wage. Yes, we'll have to educate a lot of people about it. It won't be easy. But it has to be done.

Edited to fix a link.

Onward and upward,
airforce

[ 05-10-2011, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: airforce ]

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
SBL
Senior Member
Member # 3900

Icon 1 posted      Profile for SBL   Author's Homepage   Email SBL   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What if every morning a crowd of a bunch of underemployed or unemployed CITIZENS stood out front of Home Depot and Lowes along with all the illegals?

A guy in a truck rolls up and the citizens rush to the front of the crowd. Immediately the citizens say to the potential employer "I'll work for the same pay as these guys (pointing to the illegals), I speak English, I have no criminal record (he shows his concealed carry permit), and I'm a citizen." He and his friend Jimmy get the job. Another truck pulls up. Same thing. And another. Etc.

Finally the illegals give up and walk home. This happens every day for six months. Finally, they leave town, only to find the same situation every where the go.


Yeah, this scenario is not very likely to happen right now, but it is possible. People WANT to hire citizens. But illegals are willing to work for so much less. To out-compete them, we have to do the same. Gentlemen, this is the free market, like it or not.

So, you may only be getting $6/hour but at least you are getting paid in cash AND (this is the best part) it is 100% under the table, Uncle Sam gets none of it. So yeah, you could probably work somewhere for $8/hour, but you might as well be getting paid only $6, since you'll never see any of those tax dollars come back to you in any meaningful way.

--------------------
On equipment: You get what you inspect, not what you expect.
On training: Our drills are bloodless battles so that our battles are bloody drills.
On tactics: Cheating just means you're serious about winning.

Posts: 4316 | From: Central Virginia; VIM | Registered: Jan 2008  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SBL:
Yeah, this scenario is not very likely to happen right now, but it is possible.

Actually, it isn't. A citizen could eventually get angry with the employer and complain to the Wage and Labor Board, or whatever government entity is tasked with enforcing the minimum wage. An illegal, however, doesn't have that option. That puts the illegal alien at the head of the line.

I know a lot of black teenagers who would be happy to work for $4 or $5 an hour. But they can't, for that very reason. When I say minimum wage laws are racist, I'm not kidding.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Racist or not, I am not in a position to support the concept of financial desperation setting the pace on what US employers are going to pay in order to be legally protected as employers. It would be a step back 100 years in that regard, and the response from the population that gets it put on them would be to embrace socialism, maybe even communism.

Bad platform to run with, I don't care what some jerk on talk radio says about it being "conservative".

The reason minimum wage laws came into effect was the labor movement of the early 1900s, and some battles over coal mining and timber that rivaled body counts from WW1.

Anyone can play the cash labor game and write off all labor rules, including minimum wage and witholding taxes. If someone wants to "get away" with it, then fine, that's them. In fact, in a lot of places $10 per hour is actually below minimum wage when you consider that a person is not accumulating unemployment benefits. Now for the kid mowing lawns, or the ex-convict who probably can't get hired elsewhere and is collecting welfare, people do it and I don't begrudge them that, but when we are talking legalized business using worker desperation as a negotiating tool for labor rates then going into the business market with that as a "competitive edge", that's when things have the potential for getting ugly and toppling entire market sectors.

Anybody putting the illegal alien at the head of the line in a particular job market or market sector needs to be looked at very closely over other workplace requirements and business legal requirements. Yeah, I hate nitpicking stuff too, but there are a lot of business sectors purposefully encouraging and hiring the illegal aliens which displaces the lower rungs of our society into crime or welfare, so those of us who strive to pay our own way do just that: pay, cheat the system or maybe get lucky and get above it. What I am not going to do is use any political influence I have in any way whatsoever to give a legalized competitive advantage to those who would run their labor situation that way. If they want to pay below minimum wage, then they do it without legal protections and that's that. I think we need to make sure they are doing it without political protections either.

Like I said, I have been on that side of the fence, conned and manipulated by circumstances into those "1099 positions" which are functionally legalized subminimum wage jobs. I climbed out of it, but so many people locally resented the hell of me for the way I climbed out of it that they put several government agencies after me that by the time the feds heard about it (and don't forget they tend to lean left), they were actually backing off on the whole "he's a terrorist" thing.

Another way to somewhat legalize subminimum wage which is already done in much of the independent side of the film industry is subminimum wage "daily stipend" payment, which is done with nonunion extras who get around $25 to $50 per day to be "background actors" in a lot of independent productions. Usually it is right around $30 plus meals. Charities and non-profits also can do that sort of thing, IF the project is in some way charitable. I'll work below minimum wage on charitable construction projects, that is IF they are charitable, and I get a receipt for the difference between what I actually got paid and what my regular rate is, and that receipt shows the difference as being a charitable contribution.

I have heard of the crowds of Mexicans at Home Depot and Lowes but not seen it myself. What we have in Portland is Craigslist, which is in English, with the job market getting set and haggled for short term jobs between the gigs and services offered section. There are a couple of streetcorners on the east side of the downtown river where a bunch of the Mexicans and other Latins hang out hoping for work, and yes, it is not at all unusual to see some white people there doing the exact same thing. In fact, several of those areas have had that happen, and if you want to hire Americans, you can. Now in what passes for a black neighborhood here (Portland has few percentage of blacks than most other major cities), the "streetcorner business areas" are more likely to have blacks looking for somewhat legitimate paid work than pushing dope. They wash cars, the run food stands, maybe sell their own independent production CDs. The dope pushers not only have cops to deal with, but armed vigilantes who tend to keep things fairly tidy.

What has been happening here is the Mexicans got smart and have legalized as much as they can, getting legit contractor's licenses and then massing the green cards for friends and family members, but get this, they are also not that cheap. I got pushed off a painting job by a homeowner who thought she was getting a better deal just because the workers were Mexican, and in reality, they were at $15 per hour.

That's when I was running about half my guys being black, so maybe she had some other issue on that, but we were painting a rooming house, not her mansion. The other guy they booted was queer as a three dollar bill, but could swing a paint roller and paint brush as well as anybody (don't let the queer pick colors though), so maybe there was some social judgement on their business choice.

The thing about actual employment, it implies that someone is making a profit, and unlike military service, there is no post-service honor or benefit from it. What sucks more than being paid shit wages, shot at and living in a barracks with some asshole high school dropout E5 bossing you around? Being paid shit wages, living in a neighborhood with a higher homicide rate than some combat units have, and being kicked around by people who know they can get away with it because you are broke, disarmed, desperate and hungry. Oh, and no honorable benefits when it is "over" either. So no, I am not going to compare voluntary military service to shit poor jobs as a straight accross comparison. In fact, anyone even coming close to treating me the way I got treated as a skinny naive young enlisted Marine is quite likely to be checking into a hospital, morgue, witness protection or any combination of the above the first time they spit in my face and pronounce my name like it is a swear word.

Any political decision to make that a reality for any segment of the legal working population is political suicide.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Croft
Senior Member
Member # 3405

Icon 1 posted      Profile for J. Croft   Author's Homepage   Email J. Croft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Every time I read someone who should know better advocate cutting the minimum wage for the sake of the market I want to fucking pummel them.

Wage controls were a bone thrown to working Americans to forestall rebellion. That is the real reason. When you have people with no other legal option but to work for a corp. for wages, with a expanding labor pool and decreasing purchasing power of issued federal debt notes, you hand the corp. employer all the power they need on a silver platter.

And the millions of Americans stuck having to go through background checks once reserved for guarding intercontinental missile silos-you don't think they're fucking pissed?

You don't think they don't see things for what they are?

And you blithly write about dropping the fucking minimum wage when the enemy is printing more money, letting in more desperate Mexicans, exporting what corporate jobs there are left to be had to China?

Sirs, do you want to win in your minds on some theoretical principle, or win the war? Because when you fucking push bullshit out like this you ALIENATE POTENTIAL ALLIES AND CONVERTS!!!!!!!

Millions of Americans have had the potempkin village of their illusions cruelly ripped from them. Facing unemployment, homelessness, likely starvation whether they know it or not, do you think you will win them over by being the asshole brand of libertarian?

Yes I include ex-convicts and illegals; most of the incarcerated were in the drug trade, right? Likely had no choice and know firsthand how the beast operates, so there's one huge pool of converts right there. The illegals have had the shaft thrust up their asses all their lives by Mexico's ruling elite, the drug cartels, the cops, then come over here and are ruthlessly exploited by the local members of the Lodge in their businesses... ever think THEY might have common cause with us... with you against a common enemy?

Who in the fuck can survive in $5/hour in 2011-before taxes? Who among them will listen to some asshole telling them that the already paltry minimum wage ought to be lowered on some principle? I don't.

Excuse me for using some fucking common sense.

--------------------
Be your own leader

freedomguide.blogspot.com
freedomguide.wordpress.com
youtube.com/user/freedomguide

Posts: 1535 | From: somewhere-where am I? | Registered: Feb 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
J Croft:

Agreed, we need to shut that stupid shit down right here right now, right along with that idiot notion that a resistance unit should engage in cannibalism of wounded or "slower" members rather than obtain necessary supplies from recalcitrant "supporters" or enemy sympathizers.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Breacher, J Croft:
I agree with both of you 100%

Anyone who advocates lowering the Minimum Wage is doing a very large disservice to the cause of Freedom and is also ignorant of some very important facts.

airforce needs to fully understand and comprehend Three Words:

First word is Living and the second is Survival and the third is Existing.

quote:
airforce
People will say that the minimum wage is a "living wage," and people can't live on anything less that that. Well, I'll call bullshit on that. Illegal immigrants live on less than that all the time. No, they probably don't have cable television, and they probably have more than roommates other folks. Well, I lived in the barracks for a number of years, and it took hostile fire pay to put me above the minimum wage. So I just don't buy that argument.

What you posted is incorrect, Illegal Immigrants Do Not LIVE on less then that, they Survive or Exist on less then that.

I will even state that even Minimum Wage is not enough to actually Live it is only enough to Exist or Survive.

Of course it all depends on exactly what you airforce or anyone else considers Living.

I do not consider sharing a small Apartment with Total Strangers and maybe even being forced to share a Bed with these Total Strangers to be Living.

I do not consider having a Cardboard Box as a Home to be Living.

I do not consider being in a FEMA Camp to be Living.

I do not consider being in a prison to be Living.

All those things are only Survival or Existing, like a Lion in a Small Cage is not really Living.

Living is a lot more then just having Food, Clothes, and Shelter.

There is something know as HOPE that is a requirement to be really Alive.

I also do not consider making barely enough to Survive doing hard, dangerous and sometimes demeaning work, with little chance of real Advancemt, while the Business Owner drives around in a Rolls and his wife has the most expensive jewelery, and they both look at me in contempt.

There is also something else that you seem ignorant of:

The History of Minimum wage and of the Labor and Union Movement.

If it was not for Business Owners treating Workers as expendable scum, maybe just maybe there would not be any Unions or Minimum Wage in the United States.

I am a Damn Yankee and I know about how Miners were treated by the Mine Onwers.

And how about the Triangle Shirt Factory Fire that caused the death of over 140 workers.

The Owners of that Factory only cared about Profit and didn't give a Rats Rear for the Workers.

Now that didn't have anything to do with Minimum Wage but it does go to show the attitude of Management towards Workers.

It was things like this and numerous Mining Disasters that was the reason for the Creation of OSHA, which most Business Owners hate.

If Business Owners did not try to get as much work out of there Employees for the least amount of money, regardless of the Standard of Living of their Employees, Unions and Minimum Wage would most likely not EXIST.

Business Owners are now paying for the greed shown by their Predecessors, and they only have their Predecessors to blame.

One final though for now, as far as I am concerned Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are flawed and what is needed is a totally New Economic System.

I do have some thoughts on this but that I will leave for another Topic and another Time.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Breacher
Agreed, we need to shut that stupid shit down right here right now, right along with that idiot notion that a resistance unit should engage in cannibalism of wounded or "slower" members rather than obtain necessary supplies from recalcitrant "supporters" or enemy sympathizers.

Brother I could not have stated that any better then you did.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know it's going to be a bad day when you suddenly find yourself on the wrong side of both Breacher and J. Croft. Nothing good can come from that! [Smile]

But the truth is, economics is a science, like mathematics, or physics, or--yes!--justice. Passing a law that two plus two now equals five would be absurd. Ignoring the Law of Gravity would work for a little while, until you hit the ground. Well, economics is the same way.

Look around the world. Notice how much the map has changed in the last twenty or so years? If there is one thing we can learn from this, it's that "central planning" and wage and price controls don't work.

Look who is currently failing, and look who is succeeding. China is growing because they are developing quickly at our expense. It is our wage and price controls (and other regulations) that are forcing manufacturing facilities to relocate to China and elsewhere. But China's economic growth is supported only by us. When our two economies reach equilibrium, their free ride will be over.

Then what will happen? China will no longer be able to finance U.S. debt. The U.S. will no longer finance the Chinese economy. If the crash hasn't already occurred by then, it soon will. This is not some crackpot theory. This is how the Laws of Economics work.

Look at Greece. Look at Spain and Portugal. Look at Zimbabwe, with all of its natural resources. Wage and price controls don't work. It may take years--decades, even--but sooner or later, the gravy train runs out.

I think we can all agree that teachers, police, and firefighters deserve the salaries and pensions they receive. Well, they may "deserve" them (whatever the hell that means), but that doesn't mean that cities and states can afford to pay them. And the truth is, they can't. California is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and they're hardly unique. Dozens of cities and states will soon demand a bailout from the federal government, which itself is buried under $14 trillion of debt, which is being financed by China, which is counting on us for their continued growth...

Do you really think this can go on forever? Of course not. Go back to the Law of Gravity; sooner or later, you have to hit the ground.

Wage and price controls just don't work. As long as the economy is growing fast enough, they're like a benign tumor. They're not good, but they're of no real consequence. But when the economy is no longer growing fast enough, they become disastrous. And wage and price controls make it inevitable that, sooner or later, the economy will stop growing.

I agree with both of you, this position is not politically popular right now. (That's probably proof that teachers don't deserve their high salaries and pensions!) Well, that's too bad. We'll just have to educate them. it won't be easy and, if history is any lesson, we probably won't succeed. But if we don't, the consequences are going to be disastrous.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great. Now I've got Sniper against me, too. The Apocalypse, I'm sure, is near. [Smile]

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by airforce:
Great. Now I've got Sniper against me, too. The Apocalypse, I'm sure, is near. [Smile]

Onward and upward,
airforce

Well we are still Brothers but just Brothers who look at some things a little differently.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More proof of what happens when a government ignores the laws of economics. Those are German Marks.

 -

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That "new economic system" is emerging right now and we should be making damn sure we don't end up on the bottom of it.

You could also argue that a lot of what has happened with Chinese growth has been the result of the "new economic system" and while it builds a lot of stuff, people are still stepped on. Thing is, they have a basis in Communism at least in government services, so when the people do go into the "private sector" there is not even that much expectation of freedom. The other thing we are learning as the former Communist countries have opened up a bit is that Feudalism survived there a lot more than we would have expected it to. Now whether that is good or bad is a matter of opinion, but back to our original argument, one day someone wants to do away with or lower minimum wages, next you will see decriminalization of slavery.

Oh and I met Lars Larson, yeah yeah, he plays lip service to RKBA, but not everyone can be financially lucky.

The "shrinking dollar" is only an issue for the laziest of people anyway. No wealth actually "evaporates" if you are a truly actively involved investor and business person. Now a passive investor, someone who just wants to inherit or collect some sort of private entitlement set at one period in time and measured in dollars (or whatever) gets mad when that measurement changes, but the rest of us simply adjust our requirements and renegotiate what needs to be renegotiated.

Funny how I see the same people who own and run real estate and want wages to drop never drop the rents...

A few months ago the Kenyan was in town and gave a speech which I snuck over to. It was mainly for the party faithful during a hotly contested series of local elections but he mentioned how the opposition wanted "pay cuts for waitresses" and I thought that was sort of absurd, until I saw it posted a few places, dismissed it as propaganda, and figured nobody would take it seriously. Now apparently it comes up again.

Low wage workers are not the people to pick political fights with no matter how it may appear they are easy to beat. Beating down poor people in the political arena by siding with those who want to force wages down is absolute political suicide.

What you do for cash over at the survival retreat or communal living situation is well, whatever. John Wesley Rawles in his books said that any wages at all are a bad idea within survival communities because it implies debt and economic forces which will make some people lazy and force other people to contribute more than what would be their fair share. Well, I can see a partial pseudo economy in those situations, as I never expect people to so things for me totally for free, and likewise, if I am doing something for someone, I'll volunteer a lot until I get the impression that I am being used.

So what we are talking about is using people, using them at less than a sustainable rate and on a commercial level. In the times over the last few years where I was functionally working below minimum wage, I only did it when I had other sources of income and needed to have something to report to the government as a "job", and in every case, the subminimum wage situation was so costly that it was not really worth it. Two jobs in particular I stayed at too long and contributed to several credit cards going under for me, which screwed my credit. Living on credit cards while making $150 per week full time is not a "living" either, it is a waste of time. The credit cards would have lasted longer that winter if I had just stayed home, swallowed my pride, signed up for food stamps and played WOW eight hours a day until the construction season came back.

In fact, by the time I ad up commuting costs, tools, work clothes and bare bones rent, minimum wage jobs don't cut it either.

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Breacher, nobody wants to "force wages down." We want to raise employment up. However, few would argue with the fact that some people have wages that are at an artificially high level. In most cases, it is the government that is keeping these wages at this high level. When lifeguards in California earn $100,000 a year and have million-dollar pensions, there is something wrong.

What's wrong, of course, is government interference in the free market. It's interesting that you should mention the real estate industry, since it was government intentionally distorting the market for home loans that brought about "financial crisis." And they haven't learned their lesson; subsidized "low-income" housing is distorting the rental industry. Since these low-income properties don't pay property taxes, guess who does? Yep, everybody else.

Been to the supermarket lately? Then you know government subsidies for methanol is raising food prices. What you may not realize is how government programs artificially raise food prices for just about everything else you see in the food aisles, too. proponents of these subsidies say they are helping the "family farmer."

Bullcrap. They're helping ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, and other wealthy landholders engaged in corporate farming. (For an example of how the government is really helping the family farmer, see this topic.)

Obama can talk all he wants about how we're trying to lower wages for waitresses. But it's up to us to correct him on it. That's what we should be doing--and it really isn't that difficult, because we have the facts on our side.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Croft
Senior Member
Member # 3405

Icon 1 posted      Profile for J. Croft   Author's Homepage   Email J. Croft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I've had a few days...

"Employment" is obviously passe in a disintregating economy so one must make their own money-entrepenurialship in the free economy... or something....

Government will continue to interfere in the free market, the free economy because they're at war with us all. We the People are their enemy-Our America.

To ensure you have a CHANCE of surviving the enemy's onslaught you have to protect that free market, that free economy. Another reason why I push the Battle of Athens solution-y'know, the recall elections in a selected town and such. Otherwise the enemy will use their lawyers to find whatever pretextes they can come up with to send in their Marine murdering SWAT teams to shut them down. Keep you in their slave plantation or out on your sorry ass homeless and likely to starve.

Only other way is through the militia, but are Americans-even American militiamen-ready to risk all for survival?

--------------------
Be your own leader

freedomguide.blogspot.com
freedomguide.wordpress.com
youtube.com/user/freedomguide

Posts: 1535 | From: somewhere-where am I? | Registered: Feb 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Employment is not passe--but "on the books" employment is taking a back seat to "black market" jobs and institutional unemployment.

In a free market economy, wage rates will settle at the point where all those seeking a job will find one, and where employers will hire all the workers they need. The only way to increase wages is to increase the amount of capital per worker.

Even labor unions and governments seem to be dimly aware of this fact. Historically, they have sought to exclude children, women, immigrants, and minorities from the labor markets, and have opposed the export of capital. They know that raising wages by government decree or union contract doesn't work in the long run. But then, they're not really concerned about the long run anyway.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Leo
Senior Member
Member # 4428

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Leo   Email Leo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
J.Croft, you sir are right. Your question.
Only other way is through the militia, but are Americans-even American militiamen-ready to risk all for survival?

I believe that answer is no. The militia is asleep at the wheel and ate up with apathy. Makes me sick to my stomach. All you ever hear is why they cant or should not do or say something.

Now, there are some out there that are training and are bad asses. Just need a lot more of those and fewer of the defeated cowards. This country will not and cannot fix itself. This is and will be a hands on full participation effort. I want and will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

If I have offended anyone with my comments of what I see going on. Get unoffended. Get your act together and lets fix this thing, before its way to late. Communism is not a way of life I am willing to start living.

Leo out

--------------------
Fight the fight, Endure to win!

Posts: 968 | From: A 127 Btn 10 FF | Registered: Aug 2009  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
airforce
Will you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by:
quote:

The only way to increase wages is to increase the amount of capital per worker.

I want to make sure I correctly understand that statement so I can properly reply.

Thank you.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
airforce
Will you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean by "The only way to increase wages is to increase the amount of capital per worker."

It's hard to do in a short post at AWRM--or even a long post. For a fuller discussion, I would refer you to Chapter 30 of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, "Interference with the Structure of Prices."

However, it simply has to do with the productivity of each worker. If you give each worker a hammer, he can do a certain amount of work. If you increase the capital and give each worker a hammer and a screwdriver, that worker becomes more productive and earns a higher wage.

Instituting a minimum wage distorts the free market. An employer doesn't have the capital to give every worker both a hammer and a screwdriver, so he now simply doesn't hire those who only have experience with a hammer. And those workers with no experience with a screwdriver now find themselves unemployed.

If you increase the capital, give employers more screwdrivers, employment will rise. If you decrease capital, take away the screwdrivers, employment falls.

That's a poor explanation, but it's the best I can do here.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Croft
Senior Member
Member # 3405

Icon 1 posted      Profile for J. Croft   Author's Homepage   Email J. Croft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leonidas, I'd amend that question to "what are you willing to sacrifice for a chance at victory-while there's still a chance?"

Your home?

Your family?

Your social life, your comforts?

To be able to function in a society that is rapidly becoming totalitarian, with the facade of freedom noticeably peeling off even to those hopelessly zonked out on the TV?

What if waiting for that SHTF is too late?

What if waiting for that SHTF is a scam-to keep us preoccupied with a looming crisis while the enemy always acts incrementally?

Those that signed the Declaration of Independence, those who lined up to certain death at Lexington, and chased the British Army throughout Concord back to Boston-THEY DECIDED. They did the mental math, decided and acted upon that decision.

The movement's been doing the mental math over and over... and most have made what history will prove to be the WRONG decision... but they're too afraid to man up to admit that decision. They play, pretend, to be Rebel because it's a salve for the anguish they feel in their very souls to choose the creature comforts still afforded by the beast over Freedom.

It's an understandable calculation, but it's the wrong one. I do feel however there is still time for those who have made these bad decisions to amend to God and Country.

Those that fought against the British Empire, they risked all-and a lot them gave all, even their families lives, for Freedom. Nothing less will do for us.

And Freedom does NOT involve throwing those poorer than us to the wolves, backstabbing fellow Patriots, or endlessly requoting Von Mises, Jefferson, Rand, or whoever and calling it Mission Accomplished.

Freedom involves making connections, alliances. Freedom involves getting out into one's town, finding out who does what (and to whom) and proceeding against them accordingly. Freedom involves walking the walk... how many Americans can say they do that? I mean, the enemy walks their walk-all over us-as routinely as some of us dig out a Patrick Henry quote.

Have I done enough? No. Am I trying, or at least trying to try? That I can say... I'm trying... trying to try. Sound's awful weak but I'm being truthful.

I'm gonna try to do more. I think we all can.

--------------------
Be your own leader

freedomguide.blogspot.com
freedomguide.wordpress.com
youtube.com/user/freedomguide

Posts: 1535 | From: somewhere-where am I? | Registered: Feb 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
Leo
Senior Member
Member # 4428

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Leo   Email Leo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the new question. Anyone who knows me, and there are a few here on this forum who do. Knows that I do what I say, say what I mean and mean what I say. please understand, this is not bravado.

1. Here are my personal priorities. Love God, family, country, and in that exact order. May not be the order others want to hear, but its the straight truth.

2. I still have my home and will till my death. My family has been sacrificed with a missing husband and father. When I'm not working, I'm training. I do something for my or with my team/militia every single day.

3. My social comforts are mostly nonexistent. I do enjoy some comforts even to this day. Coffee, love coffee. Back to the point. I'm not really a big needy guy for comforts. I am a outdoors guy and have dealt with discomfort most of my life.

4. I mostly agree with your post from start to finish. I do believe that waiting to the SHTF is a scam. I also believe that we the people of the country are preoccupied with anything other than what we need to be paying attention to.

5. I not a mathematical genius but, once again I agree with your assessment. One of my best friends and teammate said to me just yesterday. That most of these Militia guys are just wanna bees, and you know what. He's right.
People who join up with a Militia unit, talk about wanting to or needing to train for what is to come and then sit on there duff, does not get a pass from me. I might be firm, but I am fair.

So, I hope I answered your question and did not miss anything.

I love our Republic, and when I say that. That means I am ready, able and more than willing to break things. Everything that needs breaking! I only hope to conduct myself in accordance with my moral beliefs and Christian values to assist my fellow Americans in their second War of Independence.

I to will try to do more, lots more.

Yours truly
Sgt Leonidas of the VCM

--------------------
Fight the fight, Endure to win!

Posts: 968 | From: A 127 Btn 10 FF | Registered: Aug 2009  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sniper, now that I have a little more time, I'll try to answer your question a little more fully. I think we can both agree that no government law, rule, regulation, or decree can negate the basic economic laws of supply and demand. But that is exactly what minimum wage laws, and any other government intervention into the free market, seek to do. These government interventions not only don't work, they result in unintended consequences that usually are far worse than the original problem.

In the case of minimum wage laws, some people will indeed benefit by having a higher wage. However, others will have their hours reduced, or find themselves unemployed. Wanda Waitress may take home a higher paycheck, but Helen Housekeeper may find herself working only half a day. And David Dishwasher may find himself in the unemployment line.

And those lucky ones who do have higher wages may actually find themselves worse off, too. Wanda Waitress may find herself working twice as much, because the other waitress got laid off. The air conditioning might be turned down to save money, she might have fewer bathroom breaks, she might be required to launder her own uniforms herself, and her hours may be less flexible. And her employer can get away with this because there are one or two other people already looking to get her job.

In short, wages are determined by competition, and an employer's willingness to pay is determined by an employee's ability to produce.

So how do we increase wages? How do we increase the capital? By investment. We can invest in ourselves, by providing ourselves with a better education and more skills. Wanda Waitress' employer can invest more capital into the restaurant, paying for a better chef who prepares more dishes that people will pay a higher price for. Helen Housekeeper's employer can provide her with a new vacuum and other equipment, enabling her to do the same job better and faster. David Dishwasher could be trained to fry eggs as well, with an automatic dishwasher taking up the slack.

This explanation is still wa-a-ay incomplete, but I hope it helps.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even CNN is starting to catch on to the problem. But the only reason they can come up with is "the recession."

quote:
The brutal job market brought on by the recession has been hard on everyone, but especially devastating on the youngest members of the labor force. About 60% of recent graduates have not been able to find a full-time job in their chosen profession, according to job placement firm Adecco.
The reasons are obvious: The high costs of hiring imposed by regulatory mandates, taxes, legal liabilities, and wage floors. If you did something about those, well...

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And meanwhile, English speaking white and black Americans continue to be told lies about how the foreigners are undercutting us when in fact that is simply not true. Employers just don't want to hire Americans and don't want to deal with people who have an expectation of legal rights.

Am I reading the implication right that someone wants recent college grads with student loan payments to be working below minimum wage? Or is that recent high school grads living at home?

I figured that out in Florida years ago when I graduated high school into a job market that had a $3.35 per hour minimum, with "man work" lower end wages at $5 per hour. I worked a full time job at the $5 per hour, a part time job at minimum wage plus food and still figured out that if I was really going to move out of the house and have my own life, none of those jobs were really going to cut it, so I joined the Marines. So that's the Florida job market, and why I never moved back.

There it is not a matter of a true market determining value, but the haves freezing out the have-nots until the have-nots are in a position to accept anything in order to make minimum expenses, and then maintaining workers at that bare minimum existence so they don't get on their feet well enough to be in a better position to make other choices.

My grandpa explained to me, that any "employer" who expects another adult to pay for the living expenses of their employee is not even really being a responsible adult let alone respectable business person.

[ 05-18-2011, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Breacher:
My grandpa explained to me, that any "employer" who expects another adult to pay for the living expenses of their employee is not even really being a responsible adult let alone respectable business person.

Employment in a free market is really quite simple to explain. Let's say that with wages, insurance, taxes, and other expenses, it costs an employer $10.00 an hour to employ a worker. If that worker produces $10.01 per hour, it's profitable to the employer. If that worker produces only $9.99 per hour, it's not.

If the employer can find anyone willing to work for the wages he is willing to pay, fine. If he can't, the employer must either find a way to make a worker produce more, or not hire the worker.

Breacher, show me where in the Constitution where it says that anybody owes anybody else "living expenses." It ain't in the Bible, or in the Magna Carta either, or even in the works of Karl Marx. (Of course, slaveholders by necessity provide the "living expenses" of their "employees." But I really don't think that's what you had in mind.)

In a free market economy, wage rates will settle at the point where all those seeking a job will find one, and where employers will hire all the workers they need. That's really all the free market can guarantee. But historically, it's worked pretty well.

You mentioned your grandpa. Well, when he was a child, the wealthiest man in America could not afford the car I have sitting in my driveway. Just thirty years ago, $10 million could not buy a computer as powerful as the one I'm working on right now. Cell phones? Cell phones with cameras? Man, that was Buck Rogers stuff!

Who the heck do you think is responsible for these advancements? It sure as heck wasn't Keynesian economics, and it damn sure wasn't communism or socialism. It was the free market, working in spite of government interference.

Do we want to keep advancing, or do we want to stagnate and collapse? That's our choice, and we don't have very long to make it.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a lot more detailed post that I am still working on but I am still not feeling good enough to finish it, so I will just have this to say for now with a Question for airforce.

What good does it really do if everyone has a job if very few people earn enough to actually be able to live if even just a little.

Living is more then just having a job or having a full belly or even having a roof over your head. To live a person needs to have a realistic hope that the Future will be better and that they will have at least some of the stuff that they desire and that they themselves may actually be able to be where their boss is now.

Take away that Hope and force a Man to live like an Animal and everything that makes a Man a Man no longer exists.

airforce you have confused Living with Survival and basic Existence.

And here is a question for you my Brother.
quote:

Employment in a free market is really quite simple to explain. Let's say that with wages, insurance, taxes, and other expenses, it costs an employer $10.00 an hour to employ a worker. If that worker produces $10.01 per hour, it's profitable to the employer. If that worker produces only $9.99 per hour, it's not.

What if the Employer could get the same amount of product produced without having to hire that Employee would he still hire that Employee, and what if he didn't need any Employees, would he ever hire anyone?

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
What good does it really do if everyone has a job if very few people earn enough to actually be able to live if even just a little?

That was actually mankind's way of life for thousands of years. Pharaoh's, or kings, or barons, or commissars, owned the land and the means of production, and the people lived on subsistence wages. But that was hardly a free market.

Remember, in a free market, workers compete with each other for jobs, and employers compete with each other for workers. Helen Housekeeper's 20 years experience makes her a more productive worker than most and, if Motel 6 won't pay her a higher wage, the Hyatt Regency will. If an employer needs a welder with a certain set of skills, he is in competition with all other employers who need welders with those skills. If he wants to induce a welder to work for him, he will have to offer a higher wage than the other employers.

Ah, but what if all the hotels and motels conspire with one another to keep housekeeping wages artificially low? Well, Helen Housekeeper is not stupid. She may take a job as a waitress, or a dishwasher, or a security guard. Or she may, with other former housekeepers, advertise their services to homeowners or managers of office buildings. Faced with a labor shortage, Motel 6 and Hyatt Regency will have to offer higher wages to get Helen Housekeeper back.

(Will Helen Housekeeper really do this? Yes. Praxeology is the science of human action, and Mises has shown how man's constant effort to improve his condition works in the marketplace. It is the very foundation of the Austrian school of economics.)

quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
What if the Employer could get the same amount of product produced without having to hire that Employee would he still hire that Employee, and what if he didn't need any Employees, would he ever hire anyone?

The answer to both questions is, no. Remember, the axiom of praxeology is that all human action stems from man's effort to better himself. If nothing a man can do will better his condition, he does nothing. So, if an employer has nothing to gain from hiring an employee, he won't.

Hope this helps. [Smile]

Edited to add a link.

Onward and upward,
airforce

[ 05-18-2011, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: airforce ]

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
safetalker
Senior Member
Member # 4025

Icon 1 posted      Profile for safetalker   Email safetalker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was going to post this on a separate thread but it goes well here.
_________________________________________________
My most recent humilitating moment

I have humiliated myself regularly over the years, but Wednesday the 18th of May was I believe the worse. Perhaps though it was just that I was bested as well.
I will explain.
My wife and I and her brother stopped off in Washington DC yesterday on our way home from Vacation. My wife wanted her brother is from another country to see the Smithsonian and let him photo some of the other landmarks.
Well since the assassination of who ever was living in that house in Pakistan they raised security in the Capitol area. To enter a building, to include every car parking area, you have to show photo ID and allow a search of your bags.
We went through this with me bitching and her telling me to not ruin her brother's vacation.
Along with us were hundreds of school kids on trips arriving by buses they paid for.
The humiliation came at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We had just picked up my belt and her bags from the scanner belt when a young girl, about 12 to 14 years old wearing an "I love NY" T-shirt and shorts carrying a hand sized clasp purse was ordered to place it on the table and let the Capitol Police Officer look inside. She made me proud and wasted my personal pride in one outburst.
" Why do you want to look in my private things?"
"I am an American not some illegal Alien"
"I won't allow it in my nation's Capitol or anywhere else!"
They got very officious and told her that to see in the museum she had to allow it.
She replied:
"Then I will go sit in the rain till everyone else gets out."
Her school guide offered to keep the purse and stay outside, but the girl would have nothing to do with that idea.
When she walked out the door with about 8 of her fellow students that had probably each paid over $100.00 for the trip plus lodging and food I wanted to climb under the bench I was sitting on, and hide. I had allowed my rights to be trampled for a smile from my wives brother.
Then I watched as the Capitol Police went outside in a pair, and made her go sit in her bus till her chaperon got there.
This little Girl had made the stand that I, a professed "Patriot", had bypassed for the convenience of not being hassled, and irritating my wife.
Then I realized that the American dream was not yet dead. The young are behind us in the same ratio as we are.
Where should we start standing up for our personal rights and stop accepting their tokens of privilege in return for our obedience?

Posts: 1246 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Nov 2008  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
airforce
The answer to both questions is, no. Remember, the axiom of praxeology is that all human action stems from man's effort to better himself. If nothing a man can do will better his condition, he does nothing. So, if an employer has nothing to gain from hiring an employee, he won't.

I agree 100% that if an Employer has nothing to gain from hiring an Employee he will not hire that Employee.

So it logically follows that if an Employer does not need any Employees he will not hire anyone.

I am a Professional Photographer and I work on my own Photographing Horses so since I do not need to have any Employees I will not hire any Employees.

Further what if this Employer no longer needs the Employees that are already employed by him, and lays these Employees off.

Which leads me to the following Question.

Since an Employer will not hire any one if the Employer does not need anyone, what will happen if not only this one Employer does not need to hire anyone but the overwhelming Majority of Employers do not need to hire anyone, and further what if these Employers no longer need the Employees that are already employed by them, and lay these Employees off.

And even further what if only maybe 5% of Employers still need to have Employees so 95% of the Employers lay off all their Employees.

How will this effect the Free Market and Capitalism and effect the Economy in general.

In short will the Free Market as you envision it still be able to survive unchanged.


--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Croft
Senior Member
Member # 3405

Icon 1 posted      Profile for J. Croft   Author's Homepage   Email J. Croft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember, in a free market, workers compete with each other for jobs, and employers compete with each other for workers.
Airforce, it's NOT a free market. We are under a 200 some year old plutocracy, an oligarchy that hid behind the values and ideals we cherish. Using the strategies of gradualism, and divide and conquer, the enemy has bridled the market. Yes I mean both the government and big business.

What does that mean? It means that those who watch Fox Business News can whine it's a free market, the libertarians can whine it's a free market, but which of those two groups laugh and snicker knowing the market's rigged for those that know their own kind that have been politically active? Not a hard guess at the answer.

First the enemy made us dependent on them for jobs for sustenance after breaking the family farm and store.

Then they gradually shipped those jobs overseas while keeping us distracted with about everything else. Those jobs that remain do NOT keep up with the costs of living... really taxes.

The unions, the vehicle by which workers could combine their power into something effective, have been crushed and taken over by the enemy.

Theories are nice but if the enemy makes the market rules and taxes, and provides loopholes for their own to exploit, theories don't amount to much beyond wishful thinking and putting people off.

Workers most certainly compete with each other for jobs that half the time don't even make their bills. Employers lobby Washington to keep those borders open and immigration control lax to keep the job market bloated. Where the fuck's the free market in that?

--------------------
Be your own leader

freedomguide.blogspot.com
freedomguide.wordpress.com
youtube.com/user/freedomguide

Posts: 1535 | From: somewhere-where am I? | Registered: Feb 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by J. Croft:
Airforce, it's NOT a free market.

Exactly my point. We do not have a free market. Increasing government interference in the free market is the problem, not the solution. And one of the most destructive ways a government can interfere in the free market is with wage and price controls. See my point about how destructive the minimum wage is?

quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
Since an Employer will not hire anyone if the Employer does not need anyone, what will happen if not only this one Employer does not need to hire anyone but the overwhelming Majority of Employers do not need to hire anyone, and further what if these Employers no longer need the Employees that are already employed by them, and lay these Employees off.

Well, your grandpa might be old enough to remember the Great Depression (which, incidentally, was begun by government interference in the free market, and was later extended and exacerbated by FDR's New deal.) If he does, he remembers pretty much that same situation.

First, a little explanation of terms. I'll use the term "wages" in place of the term "cost of labor," although they're not the same. The cost of labor includes, wages, benefits, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. It does not include capital investment necessary to create the job.

With that in mind, there are two causes of unemployment:

1. Wages are too high. Employers can't hire a worker and make a profit from that worker's labor. And they are unable or unwilling to invest more capital that would make the worker more productive and, thus, profitable.

2. Wages are too low. Workers are unwilling to work for the wages offered. They find it more profitable to stay at home and raise their own food for consumption and barter. Or, thanks to government interference, they find it more profitable to remain on the dole, collecting unemployment, welfare, and food stamps.

Today, thanks to government interference, we have both situations working simultaneously. Businesses are investing their capital in China and elsewhere, where the cost of labor and government regulations are cheaper. College graduates would rather stay at home with their parents than take some factory job which only requires a high school education. And the former Wall Street broker finds it more lucrative to stay on unemployment than to go out and find a job.

Remember what I said about a free market: Wage rates will settle at the point where all those seeking a job will find one, and where employers will hire all the workers they need. It does not mean that each person will find the job they want, or the pay they want. it does not guarantee that each employer will find the worker he wants at the wage he is willing to pay.

If you want to be a crab fisherman but you have no experience and there are already too many crab fishermen, well, you're probably out of luck. You will have to look for another job. And if you want to hire an auto mechanic to fix your car but you're unwilling to pay the hourly labor charge he wants, well, too bad. You will probably have to find a cheaper and probably less skilled mechanic.

I'm not sure if this answers your question. If not, feel free to ask away. [Smile]

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by airforce:
quote:
Originally posted by J. Croft:
Airforce, it's NOT a free market.

Exactly my point. We do not have a free market. Increasing government interference in the free market is the problem, not the solution. And one of the most destructive ways a government can interfere in the free market is with wage and price controls. See my point about how destructive the minimum wage is?

quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
Since an Employer will not hire anyone if the Employer does not need anyone, what will happen if not only this one Employer does not need to hire anyone but the overwhelming Majority of Employers do not need to hire anyone, and further what if these Employers no longer need the Employees that are already employed by them, and lay these Employees off.

Well, your grandpa might be old enough to remember the Great Depression (which, incidentally, was begun by government interference in the free market, and was later extended and exacerbated by FDR's New deal.) If he does, he remembers pretty much that same situation.

First, a little explanation of terms. I'll use the term "wages" in place of the term "cost of labor," although they're not the same. The cost of labor includes, wages, benefits, insurance, payroll taxes, etc. It does not include capital investment necessary to create the job.

With that in mind, there are two causes of unemployment:

1. Wages are too high. Employers can't hire a worker and make a profit from that worker's labor. And they are unable or unwilling to invest more capital that would make the worker more productive and, thus, profitable.

2. Wages are too low. Workers are unwilling to work for the wages offered. They find it more profitable to stay at home and raise their own food for consumption and barter. Or, thanks to government interference, they find it more profitable to remain on the dole, collecting unemployment, welfare, and food stamps.

Today, thanks to government interference, we have both situations working simultaneously. Businesses are investing their capital in China and elsewhere, where the cost of labor and government regulations are cheaper. College graduates would rather stay at home with their parents than take some factory job which only requires a high school education. And the former Wall Street broker finds it more lucrative to stay on unemployment than to go out and find a job.

Remember what I said about a free market: Wage rates will settle at the point where all those seeking a job will find one, and where employers will hire all the workers they need. It does not mean that each person will find the job they want, or the pay they want. it does not guarantee that each employer will find the worker he wants at the wage he is willing to pay.

If you want to be a crab fisherman but you have no experience and there are already too many crab fishermen, well, you're probably out of luck. You will have to look for another job. And if you want to hire an auto mechanic to fix your car but you're unwilling to pay the hourly labor charge he wants, well, too bad. You will probably have to find a cheaper and probably less skilled mechanic.

I'm not sure if this answers your question. If not, feel free to ask away. [Smile]

Onward and upward,
airforce

Friend there is a Third Reason for Unemployment.

When I said the company NO LONGER NEEDS the Employees I meant exactly that. Even if the Employees were willing to work totally for Free the Employer would no longer want them since Employees are totally unnecessary and have Zero Value.

1. The Job No Longer Exists. If a Job no longer exists then no one who wants to work at that Job will be able to, and unless there is another Job that takes it's place those people who want to work will never be able to.

Take what would happen if there were no more Fish in the Sea. Would there be any need for Fishermen? I say no, Fishermen would be Extinct.

Also what if there are only Y number of Jobs Available and there are Z number of people looking for work.

One Equation of Potential Workers and Jobs Available is X = Y – Z

A Positive Number will mean that there are more Potential Employees then there are Jobs Available.

A Negative Number will mean that there are more Jobs Available then Potential Employees.

If Y is Greater then Z then all those who want a job can get one if they want it bad enough, but what if Z is Greater then Y then there will be some people who will never find a job.

Yet another way to look at this is to think of The Twilight Zone or Star Trek.

What if there is big Star Trek type Replicator that is owned by Ford and all that is needed to make a new Car is to push a single button, which the President of Ford can do all by himself.

How may Employees will Ford Hire if no one is needed or wanted to help make the Cars. Why would Ford pay money to an Employee it does not need when Ford can keep 100% of the Wholesale Selling Price of all the Cars it Replicates as profit.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
J. Croft
First the enemy made us dependent on them for jobs for sustenance after breaking the family farm and store.

Then they gradually shipped those jobs overseas while keeping us distracted with about everything else. Those jobs that remain do NOT keep up with the costs of living... really taxes.

The unions, the vehicle by which workers could combine their power into something effective, have been crushed and taken over by the enemy.

Theories are nice but if the enemy makes the market rules and taxes, and provides loopholes for their own to exploit, theories don't amount to much beyond wishful thinking and putting people off.

Workers most certainly compete with each other for jobs that half the time don't even make their bills. Employers lobby Washington to keep those borders open and immigration control lax to keep the job market bloated. Where the fuck's the free market in that?

Even though my reasons for believing the Free Market has become defunct is different then what you posted I am in total agreement with you.

As I see it the Free Market currently is only an Illusion and no longer has any relevance in the current real world.

If full Employment is to ever happen it would be necessary to bring back all the jobs that left the country and even that would not be enough to have full Employment.

All the Jobs that left due to NAFTA would need to be returned to the United States, all jobs that went to China or India would also need to be be returned to where the jobs belong. Also Everything that used to be made in the United States like Televisions, and Stereos and other Home Entertainment Equipment would have to be made once again in the United States.

All an intelligent person needs to do is think about RCA (Radio Corporation of America) and the Fact that it is now Owned by the Japanese and that all RCA products are now made in Japan or other Asian Countries and that person should be able to begin to understand what the problem is and why unemployment will not be solved by just getting rid of minimum rage.

And even if all the Jobs that left our Nation were magically to be restored that would not change the truth that having a Job and Working for a Living will become Passe.

As I see it, the truth is that Unemployment will continue to get worse and it will eventually get to the point where Unemployment may even be as high as 90% or greater. And there is nothing we realistically can do to stop it from happening.

The only thing that can be done is to have a New Economic System and maybe even a totally new Social, Economic System to deal with the Truth and Facts that people no longer have any jobs and 90% or greater Unemployment is the norm.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
1. The Job No Longer Exists. If a Job no longer exists then no one who wants to work at that Job will be able to, and unless there is another Job that takes it's place those people who want to work will never be able to.

True. There aren't too many bullwhip manufacturers around anymore. People who previously made their living by making bullwhips, slide rules, or B-38 bombers, don't make them anymore. But those jobs were replaced by other jobs.

In total, jobs haven't gone away. Our economy is probably responsible for more jobs than ever before. But those jobs have been moved to Mexico, China, and Korea, for the reasons I've stated above. Businesses are being forced to move their capital overseas, in order to compete in the global market. And with that capital goes our jobs, and our higher wages.

So, the question to ask is, why is capital moving from the United State to China? And I think you already know the answer; it's because the cost of labor, combined by the cost of government rules and regulations, make it too expensive or, in some cases even impossible, to keep the jobs here.

Let's see if I can put this another way. You mentioned that you are self-employed photographing horses, and you do not need any employees. Murray N. Rothbard would define the value of any employee of yours as the marginal value of production, or MVP, the amount of income this employee could produce. He would them discount this value.

He used interest rates to discount it; there would be some time between the time you paid this employee's wages and the time you saw any income, so there is an interest cost in this. In your specific case, I would probably include the "hassle factor." (That's a term I made up.) If you hired an employee, you would then have to work harder finding business for him. Perhaps you would have to expand your business to include photos for high school yearbooks. That has a cost, in time and effort, to you.

So, the value of an employee could be termed the DMVP, or discounted marginal value of production of that employee. If the DMVP of that employee, minus the cost of labor, is high enough, you would hire him. If the DMVP is not high enough, you won't.

Now, suppose you could control the amount of wages you can pay. Suppose you could, pay this employee $.01 per hour. My guess is that, you would then hire him. However, I doubt he would want to work for that pay. So, you start talking. Perhaps, at some point, you would arrive at a wage that would satisfy him and leave you with enough profit to make it worthwhile to you. Perhaps you won't.

Remember what I said about a free market. All those seeking a job will find one, and all employers will find all the employees they need. There is no guarantee you will find an employee at the wage you are willing to pay, and there is no guarantee a worker will find a job at the wage he wants. The only way to increase wages is to increase capital. And as long as capital continues to flow to China, well...

Onward and upward,
airforce

[ 05-19-2011, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: airforce ]

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guys, I really ain't arguing with you. We really do not have a free market. All I'm trying to do is explain how a free market works, and why government attempts to "fix" the economy are having the opposite effect. I really hope you folks aren't taking this the wrong way.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by airforce:
Guys, I really ain't arguing with you. We really do not have a free market. All I'm trying to do is explain how a free market works, and why government attempts to "fix" the economy are having the opposite effect. I really hope you folks aren't taking this the wrong way.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Brother I am not taking it the wrong way I am just trying to explain that in the very near future regardless of what the Government does or doesn't do people will not be working and there will be massive unemployment and there will have to be a Brand New Social, Economical System to deal with it.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
airforce
True. There aren't too many bullwhip manufacturers around anymore. People who previously made their living by making bullwhips, slide rules, or B-38 bombers, don't make them anymore. But those jobs were replaced by other jobs.

In total, jobs haven't gone away. Our economy is probably responsible for more jobs than ever before. But those jobs have been moved to Mexico, China, and Korea, for the reasons I've stated above. Businesses are being forced to move their capital overseas, in order to compete in the global market. And with that capital goes our jobs, and our higher wages.

Brother you don't seem to fully understand my question and the point I am trying to make.

You are completely mistaken your statements:
But those jobs were replaced by other jobs.
In total, jobs haven't gone away. Our economy is probably responsible for more jobs than ever before.
are Fallacies.

All lost jobs were not replaced by other jobs.

And your statements are also incorrect because they do not consider the type of job that was lost and the type that was created. By type I am referring to the amount of compensation meaning money that the employee earns.

Replacing 100 jobs that pay $15 per hour with 120 jobs that pay $10 per hour is not an improvement since it does not take into consideration the Employee's Purchasing Power and the change of the Employee's lifestyle.

Would you consider it being a good thing if someone took your Mercedes from you and gave you a Kia.

The type of jobs that have been created are mostly in the Service Industry and other Low Paying Jobs the Jobs that have have been lost or stolen have been most of the Good Paying Jobs.

So we no longer have Good Paying Jobs in Factories and instead you believe that we should be happy about having Low Paying Jobs in the Fast Food Industry. Yep that really really makes a lot of sense.

And here is something that you have yet to answer.

What if Factories no longer needed Employees to produce their products, like I mentioned with the Star Trek Replicators.

I believe you are old enough to maybe know of and have actually watched the Cartoon the Jetsons. George Jetson had a very interesting job at Spacelys Sprockets , he was in charge of the ON BUTTON.

So airforce what if all a business owner had to do was push one ON BUTTON to fully manufacture what ever he wanted to Manufacture, wouldn't that mess up your ideas on the Free Market since everyone would be UNEMPLOYED.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good questions, but I'll have to answer them tomorrow. Bear with me.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by airforce:
Good questions, but I'll have to answer them tomorrow. Bear with me.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I will bear with you my friend and I will try to have an answer ready for your answer.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For some of the same reasons our most libertarian concept of the right to keep and bear arms is not going to be stretched so far as to advocate credit card activated vending machines that sell loaded MAC-10s at inner city high schools, we have to approach certain aspects of civil law to a level where some things are going to be legal and some not.

And of a civil nature, that goes to things like the acceptable sizes and safety equipment on cars sold in markets we support, and in conditions and terms of labor markets we operate in.

Then there is the issue of what is politically suicidal to advocate. I say this in a situation where yesterday I worked a few hours at $20 per hour, and tomorrow I am heading out to do some volunteer work, but will probably ask for a nominal amount of expense money if I am asked to go back and help some more. Had I been doing what the "system" wants, I would be waiting in line downtown for the daily ration of "happy pills", maybe get $20 spending money and a meal ticket for the local Salvation Army kitchen, and then maybe go job begging on some part time minimum wage stuff to make a "counselor" happy.

That's reality, anyone performing work below market rate should consider it to be charitable giving, just like when lawyers "donate" their time to some of those "watchdog" organizations.

Pissing on people who are desperate and telling them it is full market participation that they work below the poverty level is an insult that I sure as hell will not advocate.

At some point, we need to occasionally depart from Libertarian theory, which is nice theory, and go into something that is economically and politically workable policy. Legalized sub poverty minimum wage, which puts part of the burden of financial support for cheapskate business on the taxpayers (minimum wage earners are often still eligible for public benefits) is problematic for the taxpayers, and a kick in the nuts to workers who are employed full time and still on various forms of welfare.

I have personally seen this, and yes, with those Blacks who the dipshit with the original idea thinks would be "glad to work below minimum wage". It was sickening, enough to make a white guy like me start taking Malcom X very very seriously. In fact, that is what I ran into at my very last "on the books" construction job at a regular construction site. I am not in a position to allow or participate in labor markets being set by the desperation of people who have been beat down so hard in life that they are willing to accept a return to slavery.

There is some shit I will do to people and some shit that I just plain won't do. Pushing for an economic model that has full time employed men sweating through the day driving a shovel and wheelbarrow then having to stop at the food bank on the way home with around $60 to show for a ten hour day (not joking, they had a 5:30 AM "check in time" for a work day where the "on the clock" time did not start until 7:00 AM, and then there was unpaid "admin time" waiting to get paid, by check of course. Now someone on the "conservative" side wants that shit legalized down to the $40 per day level.

So lets also not forget the fact that violence is a labor negotiation tool on the other side of the fence when workers decide to go independent and start bidding jobs and offering their own work at higher rates but without all of the paid up front legal requirements like bonding, insurance and contractors licenses, "crimes" like painting houses without every single relevant permit and license in California are now considered felonies. No joke, we are talking about "sting operations" with full blown gun in the face arrests over otherwise unemployed (and often unemployable" guys just trying to scratch a living painting houses. Think that style of enforcement will somehow stop happening as a "free market giveback" if minimum wages are eliminated? Nah, come on, you know exactly how that will work. Do some work for man's wages without every page of required paperwork, and get attacked by the government. Go to work for unsustainable slave wages and the "haves" may be merciful enough to keep the goons off your back, yeah, maybe, until you have the gumption to ask for more money, then get beat down as a "troublemaker".

Or maybe you are so poor that you grab some food out of the throwaway bin instead of running it through the composter, or grab a broken screwdriver and take it home to fix and keep instead of turning it in for recycle, thus the employer decides to felonize you, just to make sure his buddies have a broader pool of cheap, no-other-choices labor.

So legalizing aspects of a "free" market always get selective as we are not talking about people out in the boondocks where there is not rent, taxes or much government services either. We are talking places and circumstances where the rest of the government is fully in force and intact.

No way in hell we should be advocating a "free" market in below poverty level wage rates while all other market controlling laws and enforcement remain fully in effect.

[ 05-20-2011, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
All lost jobs were not replaced by other jobs.

And your statements are also incorrect because they do not consider the type of job that was lost and the type that was created. By type I am referring to the amount of compensation meaning money that the employee earns.

Oh, I'd be willing to bet that the jobs lost here in the U.S. were replaced by other jobs. But I never said those replacement jobs were here in the U.S. They're in China, and most of the workers there are making slave wages.

quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
The type of jobs that have been created are mostly in the Service Industry and other Low Paying Jobs the Jobs that have have been lost or stolen have been most of the Good Paying Jobs.

So we no longer have Good Paying Jobs in Factories and instead you believe that we should be happy about having Low Paying Jobs in the Fast Food Industry. Yep that really really makes a lot of sense.

Oh, I never said that I was happy about capital and jobs moving to Mexico, China, and India. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that all that capital, and all those jobs, would have stayed here were it not for government rules and regulations on businesses, and wage and price controls.

And yes, if those jobs had stayed here, many of those jobs would be low-paying ones. it would probably be hard to live on the hourly wage, working only 40 hours a week.

Well, just who the heck said that workers could only work for 40 hours? Who came up with that rule that employers had to pay time-and-a-half for any work done over 40 hours?

I would contend that the 40-hour week is a totally arbitrary invention on the part of unions, and the fact that government adopted it only compounds the mistake.

The 40-hour workweek is unrealistic. It has no basis in history. Do you think primitive man quit hunting and gathering food after 40 hours? Do you think the author Stephen King writes only 40 hours a week? Show me a farmer who works only 40 hours a week, and I'll show you a pretty broke farmer.

So, yes, it's probable that in a free market economy, the lowest-paid workers would have to work more than 40 hours a week to make ends meet. Tough. It sure as heck isn't anything I've never done before.

quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
So airforce what if all a business owner had to do was push one ON BUTTON to fully manufacture what ever he wanted to Manufacture, wouldn't that mess up your ideas on the Free Market since everyone would be UNEMPLOYED.

I don't know. I've never thought that much about it. In any event, you would still need the raw materials gathered and shipped to the production facility, and the finished product shipped out. You would still need someone to do maintenance on that magic machine. You would still need buyers to negotiate the price and terms for the raw materials, and you would still need sales people to sell the finished product. I suppose if you had a machine that could do all that AND manufacture anything you want, in the time and quantity you want, with the single push of a button, yeah, I would have a pretty tough time imagining what the economic impact would be. But, unless computers manage to overthrow Man and take over the world, I just don't see that happening. And if it did, we would probably have more things to worry about than just the economy.

Remember, in a free market, there would be little unemployment. Anyone who is willing to work, would be able to find a job. Remember what I said about the one axiom of human action: Man acts only to improve his condition. If man perceives that nothing he can do will improve his condition, he does nothing. And I just can't imagine that ever happening. if it did, we would be losing whatever makes us human.

It's not outside the realm of possibility for some disaster to befall mankind that would plunge us back into hunting and gathering for food and shelter. Well, that's still work.

quote:
Originally posted by Breacher:
No way in hell we should be advocating a "free" market in below poverty level wage rates while all other market controlling laws and enforcement remain fully in effect.

Oh, I am saying we should do away with all government interference in the free market. After all, I'm a free market anarchist, and that's what a free market anarchist does. Our government is doing plenty of things that it should quit doing, before it does away with the minimum wage. But we should be aware of just how destructive the minimum wage is, and what it is doing the the poorest members of our society.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
airforce
Oh, I am saying we should do away with all government interference in the free market. After all, I'm a free market anarchist, and that's what a free market anarchist does. Our government is doing plenty of things that it should quit doing, before it does away with the minimum wage. But we should be aware of just how destructive the minimum wage is, and what it is doing the the poorest members of our society.

You stated ALL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE by that do you mean ALL as in 100% not 99.99% but 100% of ALL GOVERNMENT and by ALL do you mean All Federal, State, County, City, and Town Government and does Government Interference mean or refer to Interference or Actions done or committed by any or all Employees of the Government.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep. I mean ALL.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by airforce:
Yep. I mean ALL.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Ok you say you believe in 100% Noninterference, then you should fully agree with my following line of thinking.

If the Government is to completely stop interfering with Business then as I see it the Government would have to stop Taking Sides in disputes between Management and Labor and Absolute Butt Out Of any labor dispute.

This would mean not doing anything that would affect the outcome of the dispute in even the slightest way.

Several years ago there was a Strike against UPS and during the strike Warwick RI police were used to keep Strikers from blocking the entrance to UPS and keeping trucks driven by scabs from entering or leaving the Distribution Center.

These Police were paid for with Taxpayer Dollars and it cost the City so much in Police Overtime that the City asked the State for financial help.

The Police helped UPS and worked against the Union by helping scabs replace Union Members and it didn't cost UPS anything, for this assistance.

If the Government is really not to interfere in any way then the Police would not be permitted to help UPS and UPS would be forced to hire private Security, and if there is a confrontation between Union Members and the Private Security Force the Police would still have to Butt Out since helping Security would be interfering.

The way I see it if the Government is prohibited from interfering with businesses then the only thing that the Police should do is to keep any violence from spreading out of the immediate area of dispute and into any surrounding residential or business areas.

Bluntly the Government should just let Management and Labor Duke It Out and just make sure that no none involved innocent citizens get hurt in the Crossfire.

This to me is what 100% Noninterference means, taking a completely Hands Off Approach to any and every Labor Dispute.

Any, even the slightest involvement of Government Law Enforcement means that the Government is Interfering with Business.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
J. Croft
Senior Member
Member # 3405

Icon 1 posted      Profile for J. Croft   Author's Homepage   Email J. Croft   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Airforce, I think our point is you're not going to institute those libertarian principles until there's some justice. By that I mean there isn't an oligarchy enslaving and financially raping the American People.

So how do libertarians sweep the oligarchs aside so they can institute their reforms? Be politically successful.

I don't see how you're going to sell liberarianism by talking about black folks being happy to work for 5 bucks an hour in 2011... before taxes.

There was a report of a guy named Fick in Michigan-won 2 million dollars, had the state jack him for half right off the bat and so is keeping his disability and food stamp card. I don't blame him one bit.

--------------------
Be your own leader

freedomguide.blogspot.com
freedomguide.wordpress.com
youtube.com/user/freedomguide

Posts: 1535 | From: somewhere-where am I? | Registered: Feb 2007  | Report this post to a Moderator
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sniper_762X51:
Ok you say you believe in 100% Noninterference, then you should fully agree with my following line of thinking.

If the Government is to completely stop interfering with Business then as I see it the Government would have to stop Taking Sides in disputes between Management and Labor and Absolute Butt Out Of any labor dispute.

Yep. As you know, the state has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of violence, but it is not at all uncommon for the state to delegate some of it's violence for unions to use. We see this every day.

And we also see government-protected monopolies and oligopolies. The government should butt out of here, too. protectionism hasno place in the free market.

quote:
Originally posted by J. Croft:
I don't see how you're going to sell liberarianism by talking about black folks being happy to work for 5 bucks an hour in 2011... before taxes.

I never said any of this was going to be easy.

Onward and upward,
airforce

[ 05-20-2011, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: airforce ]

Posts: 17757 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
safetalker
Senior Member
Member # 4025

Icon 1 posted      Profile for safetalker   Email safetalker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gentlemen
There can be no liberty until things like mandatory wages, and taxes are abolished. If I get hired for a wage I don't think is fair the company knows day one without my telling them it is a temporary position and that I will be leaving when I find a better one.
If I take a job earning less than I can afford to receive the fault is mine not the Company's. One right the Powers that be are working on, but we still have, is the right to travel.
Companies function upon a profit margin and a loss. If they pay to little the worker will not be suited to the job, and will end up costing them more than the difference between the wage he received and the wage a qualified worker should be paid. The Company knows this and will adjust for quality workers.
when I am hired however based upon the color of my skin, the limpness of my wrist, or the position my Uncle has in the City, I am a loss on day one. It would be better to pay me to stay home and hire another who is willing to work.
There is no such thing as 'almost" free. That is like being almost pregnant.
To save this nation we need to get rid of privileges that are provide under color of law to substitute for our rights.

Posts: 1246 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Nov 2008  | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Vader
Senior Member
Member # 168

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lord Vader   Email Lord Vader   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
airforce
I don't know. I've never thought that much about it. In any event, you would still need the raw materials gathered and shipped to the production facility, and the finished product shipped out. You would still need someone to do maintenance on that magic machine. You would still need buyers to negotiate the price and terms for the raw materials, and you would still need sales people to sell the finished product. I suppose if you had a machine that could do all that AND manufacture anything you want, in the time and quantity you want, with the single push of a button, yeah, I would have a pretty tough time imagining what the economic impact would be. But, unless computers manage to overthrow Man and take over the world, I just don't see that happening. And if it did, we would probably have more things to worry about than just the economy.

when I stated that over 90% would be Unemployed I exaggerated it a little since I wanted to get my point across.

Now as to which jobs would be Safe or Relatively Safe.

White Collar jobs will be the safest, unfortunately that includes our scum sucking supposed Representatives, so I don't see any Robotic Congressmen or Congresswomen coming anytime soon and the biggest scum sucker the President will not have anything to worry about.

White collar jobs includes, people who work behind a desk to salesmen and women regardless of what they are selling.

There will also be some Blue Collar workers who will have much to worry about, like the Wait Staff at Restaurants and Hotels and Maids and Bellhops at Hotels and most likely most people who flip hamburgers for a living although I believe that at least some of their jobs will be taken over by Robots eventually, and this will also be true for Maids.

Now as to the jobs that are going to go the way of the Dodo, Factory Jobs are at the top of the list, followed closely by Farm and a large percentage of Construction Jobs.

Other jobs that I believe even though they may not totally disappear but will lose a lot of human workers will include the Military, Civilian Firefighters and at least I can hope some Police Officers.

By the way airforce even Correction Officers will be affected by Robot workers but it will most likely not happen until a lot of the current Correction Officers are retired.

By the way all of this is not something that will be taking place 100 Years in the future, I believe it will happen in less then 20 years and it may actually happen in five to ten years or even sooner if our luck is real bad.

The truth is that a very large part of the Technology that will be necessary is available now, and some of these Robots are currently in Development and some are even almost ready to be put to use.

There were two things other then not having a brain that a Robot could not do or at least was not very good at.

First Robots could not walk like a Man can, they could move on Wheels or Tracks but they could not Walk.

Second Robots only had claws or pincers they did not have anything like a human hand with four finger and an opposable thumb so they could not pick something up or manipulate it with the dexterity of a Man using his Hand.

Well both of those things have changed.

Robots can now Walk on either Four Legs like an Animal or on Two Legs like a man can.

Robots also can now be fitted with a Human like hand that can even Type using a keyboard like what I am typing this on at twenty words per minute and they can even have feeling in their fingertips just like a Human has.

There is a Robot currently in development that will trim Wine Vines without any human guidance and it is expected to be in the field in about four years.

A large John Deer Farm Tractor has been modified to be Autonomous and can navigate on it's own meaning without an operator.

A Robot has been introduced that actually Milks Cows so that Cow can be Milked 24 hours per day.

Another Company is working on a Robot that is Humanoid from the Waist Up and will be used in the Manufacturing Industry and will do things like Pack Boxes etc.

These Robots are Civilian Robots and will replace Civilian Workers but there are also Robots that will replace Soldiers.

I think everyone should read up on DARPA and that should give everyone a good lesson in what the future holds not only for Employment in the Military but what we as Freedom Fighters will be facing in the very near future and some of it is already here.

In the near future we will be facing Autonomous Battle Tanks and that will not be fun.

When Chinese Government first attempted to Crush and I do mean it literally as in Crush under the Tracks of Large Battle Tanks, it didn't work out as the Commie Bastards Expected or Wanted since the Tank Crews were from the City like the Demonstrators were, so the Bastards replaced the those Tank Crews with Country Boys who didn't realy care for city People and they were the ones who finally ran over and crushed demonstrators to death under their tanks.

With Robotic Tanks Freedom Fighters and anyone standing up against the Government will not have to worry about tank crews refusing orders and Freedom Fighters and other who stand against the Government will be run over and crushed into a gory past by these unthinking Robots.

The Time of the Robot is upon us and there is no way to escape it, it will just happen and we must put aside our antiquated Ideas like the Free Market and figure out a New Social Economic System that will enable us to thrive in the new world we are being thrust into.

If I can think of anything to add I will try to do it tomorrow since I am too tired to do anymore tonight.

--------------------
VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)

Posts: 3823 | From: Trapped in Rhode Island | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2017 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2