Skyler998 Posts
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]anti-american? oh, well, I must have missed the clause that says "but its ok to infringe upon this right if we call you anti-american".
It's called being treasonous. I'm fully within my rights to shoot you on sight if you attempt to secede...as is the government.
[color=#2e1a6b]source?
And my plan never involved Texas succeeding. We'd still be under the constitution.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people a means of self-defense. Jame's Madison specifically said that it's our greatest assurance against tyranny.
Shay's Rebellion, you might want to look that up. The constitution was specifically set up so that you WOULDN'T be allowed to do things like that.
I love when YOU of all people say, "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about." Lelouch, you're like one of those college students who takes a week of psychiatry and thinks they understand all human behavior. You're a walking Dunning-Kruger and you want to accuse ME of not knowing what I'm talking about.
Just...hilarious.
federalist paper 46 wrote...
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.And as I said before to Lustful, the Federalist Papers were opinion pieces. They don't make our law, nor are they used to establish law today, merely to provide insight as to what the founding fathers intended for our laws to mean. And in some instances that's important, but the second amendment is so out dated as far as its usage, it doesn't apply to modern day america like it did during the time of the Founding Fathers.
[color=#2e1a6b]oh... ok. So whenever you decide that an amendment is outdated, the government can just ignore it and arrest us for exercising our rights! I'm so sorry for suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about.
Besides, your plan is to form a 13 million person militia(which, considering there are gun owners who would rather shoot YOU than join you) when you yourself say there are around 8 million gun owners in the first place. Even if all the other stuff were realistic, you have to admit that this is not.
But sure, I'll use your own quote against you if you want.
That same ambition can be applied to you saying it's a fantastic idea that you hold Texas' resources at ransom.
But sure, I'll use your own quote against you if you want.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
That same ambition can be applied to you saying it's a fantastic idea that you hold Texas' resources at ransom.
[color=#2e1a6b]You're right, the people are barriers against ambitions such as mine. But if they agree with such a plan, then they aren't barring such ambitions.
That's not how it works. If you want to insult what I said, you have to justify that insult with arguments/evidence.
Which I did, and you essentially just called it sad. So...obey your own rues mothafucka.
[color=#2e1a6b]But I already rebutted it.
No you didn't. You just called me sad and moved on.
[color=#2e1a6b]proof you aren't reading my responses
If you want to insult my idea, go ahead, but you have to justify it with some sort of argumen/evidencet. You have yet to provide any argument/evidence against my plan, so until then, STFU
I have. You ignored it, and just said the way I think is sad, and that you have second amendment rights. Completely and utterly ignoring the Act that I cited that would prevent you from doing even Step One of your idea.
[color=#2e1a6b]You didn't cite an act, nor do you even comprehend that the 2nd amendment allows us to form a militia
It's like, you're saying, "I can do this." and I demonstrate that legally you can't, then you become a Supreme Court Justice and go, "According to the CONSTITUTION I can."
[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution is the only document that gives the federal government any right to govern within the states. If the constitution says I can, then I can. If you disagree, then I'm clearly overestimating you.
Like it matters what you think the constitution means.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm going by what it says. You're the one saying "I think it's outdated and therefore doesn't mean that".
Edit: Oh, and as far as you 'missing the part where you can be shot for being anti-american" You might want to check out the preamble. You remember that bit about "To form a more perfect union"?
Well...
To form a more perfect Union
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#To_form_a_more_perfect_Union
Well...
To form a more perfect Union
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#To_form_a_more_perfect_Union
[color=#2e1a6b]The preamble is not a law, but states the purpose the law, just like... the federalist papers!
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]The fact that you actually think this is just saddening.
Amendment 2 wrote...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[color=#2e1a6b]btw, we've already got over 8 million armed citizens.
...Yeah...but they're not an anti-american militia. Which is pretty much what you outlined.
[color=#2e1a6b]anti-american? oh, well, I must have missed the clause that says "but its ok to infringe upon this right if we call you anti-american".
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people a means of self-defense. Jame's Madison specifically said that it's our greatest assurance against tyranny.
federalist paper 46 wrote...
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.[color=#2e1a6b]Being part of a militia is not anti-american, it's pro american. An army is the tool of the government, but a militia is the defense of the people. As LA just said, The government is not the same as the country
The fact that you think your idea is even remotely plausible makes me sadder than you could possibly be for me believing your idea is silly and would never work.
[color=#2e1a6b]no no no no no... no.
That's not how it works. If you want to insult what I said, you have to justify that insult with arguments/evidence. I justified my insult by supplying evidence showing that you were wrong. If you want to insult my idea, go ahead, but you have to justify it with some sort of argumen/evidencet. You have yet to provide any argument/evidence against my plan, so until then, STFU
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]I like the intentions, but there's a few problems with his plan. Here's a much better plan off the top of my head:Texas declares itself a sovereign state. The first thing we do is form a militia; if we get half the population to join, we'll have 13 million armed citizens. We then release a statement that says:
"we acknowledge the powers of the federal government to be only those described in article I section 8, article II section 2, and article III of the U.S. constitution. If and When the government extends beyond these powers, we will refuse to provide revenue to the federal government".
We get rid of all executive branch departments residing here. If they attempt to exercise some sort of governmental power, we will treat it as a crime. Since the government extends beyond their constitutional powers, we'll obviously cut revenue to the federal government, which will cause them to retaliate in some way. They don't really have a legal basis to say that we must fund their unconstitutional budget, so I doubt they'll send in armed forces (we have a militia anyways). What they'll probably do is cut all services to Texas. So no government programs, no army to protect us, no regulations to help us, no welfare or medicare. We cease all involvement with the federal reserve, and create a stable currency based on precious metals. We'll have charities instead of a welfare state. We let the free market build our economy with free trade and almost no regulation. As other states see our success, they too will declare themselves sovereign states. Eventually, the federal government will go back to what it should be, so that it can at least exercise its constitutional powers
Ok Lelouch, firstly I'd say this is only 'better' in the sense that anything would be better than on that post. But here's some huge problems with your idea here.
Firstly...militia of 13 million? Are you insane? You wouldn't get to 1000 before the ATF Inspection Regulations would permit the government to come in and take a look at wtf you're doing. They would then find this insurrection mission statement of yours and be fully legally allowed to jail everyone who joins your 'militia'.
Why? Because it's treasonous. And I'm sorry, but treason is an unconstitutional thing. You wouldn't get past Step 1 in your plan before everyone's in jail. So...yeah.
It seems to me that just about any plan anybody with this intent tries to pull off is doomed to fail from the onset. So...I see no point.
[color=#2e1a6b]The fact that you actually think this is just saddening.
Amendment 2 wrote...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
[color=#2e1a6b]btw, we've already got over 8 million armed citizens.
[color=#2e1a6b]I like the intentions, but there's a few problems with his plan. Here's a much better plan off the top of my head:
Texas declares itself a sovereign state. The first thing we do is form a militia; if we get half the population to join, we'll have 13 million armed citizens. We then release a statement that says:
"we acknowledge the powers of the federal government to be only those described in article I section 8, article II section 2, and article III of the U.S. constitution. If and When the government extends beyond these powers, we will refuse to provide revenue to the federal government".
We get rid of all executive branch departments residing here. If they attempt to exercise some sort of governmental power, we will treat it as a crime. Since the government extends beyond their constitutional powers, we'll obviously cut revenue to the federal government, which will cause them to retaliate in some way. They don't really have a legal basis to say that we must fund their unconstitutional budget, so I doubt they'll send in armed forces (we have a militia anyways). What they'll probably do is cut all services to Texas. So no government programs, no army to protect us, no regulations to help us, no welfare or medicare. We cease all involvement with the federal reserve, and create a stable currency based on precious metals. We'll have charities instead of a welfare state. We let the free market build our economy with free trade and almost no regulation. As other states see our success, they too will declare themselves sovereign states. Eventually, the federal government will go back to what it should be, so that it can at least exercise its constitutional powers
Texas declares itself a sovereign state. The first thing we do is form a militia; if we get half the population to join, we'll have 13 million armed citizens. We then release a statement that says:
"we acknowledge the powers of the federal government to be only those described in article I section 8, article II section 2, and article III of the U.S. constitution. If and When the government extends beyond these powers, we will refuse to provide revenue to the federal government".
We get rid of all executive branch departments residing here. If they attempt to exercise some sort of governmental power, we will treat it as a crime. Since the government extends beyond their constitutional powers, we'll obviously cut revenue to the federal government, which will cause them to retaliate in some way. They don't really have a legal basis to say that we must fund their unconstitutional budget, so I doubt they'll send in armed forces (we have a militia anyways). What they'll probably do is cut all services to Texas. So no government programs, no army to protect us, no regulations to help us, no welfare or medicare. We cease all involvement with the federal reserve, and create a stable currency based on precious metals. We'll have charities instead of a welfare state. We let the free market build our economy with free trade and almost no regulation. As other states see our success, they too will declare themselves sovereign states. Eventually, the federal government will go back to what it should be, so that it can at least exercise its constitutional powers
Jacob wrote...
The hentai tag has been added to differentiate between ecchi, hentai, yuri, and yaoi.[color=#2e1a6b]It's sorta pointless, but like you said, there are more important priorities
[color=#2e1a6b]My time for a 1.3 mile run has Been about 7:40 for the past few years, but on the night I came home from philmont, I ran it in 6:30. All I do at philmont is hike 10 miles a day at 8000 ft altitude, but that sure built up my endurance.
[color=#2e1a6b]I think we should define "time" before we discuss the implications behind this concept. I think time is best defined as: a measurement of consistent motion sequences. A year is time because it is a measurement of the consistent motion sequence of the earth's revolutions. A day istime because it is a measurement of the consistent motion of the earth's rotation. What's important to understand is that consistent motion sequences are necessary for time to exist. Without them, we wouldn't have time
[color=#2e1a6b]http://sig.grumpybumpers.com (creates a url that links to a random selection of a pool of image urls. I found this because of Ryssen's sig)
http://www.drudgereport.com (links to current news articles; not recommended for mainstream media zombies)
http://myanimelist.net (Tracks your Anime example)
http://vndb.org (tracks Visual Novels example)
http://www.drudgereport.com (links to current news articles; not recommended for mainstream media zombies)
http://myanimelist.net (Tracks your Anime example)
http://vndb.org (tracks Visual Novels example)
[color=#2e1a6b]Life is worth living when we are pursuing that which we value. These values are subjective, as they vary from person to person. Examples of values include God, Knowledge, Entertainment, Helping people, Fame, or just general happiness.
One point in the book a supercomputer is built to find the meaning of the life, universe, and everything. The answer is 42.
[color=#2e1a6b]Is this what inspired that genius girl to have 42 as her username?
yummines wrote...
Nobody said there needs to be a reason to live. If you have ever read the "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, this is explained. One point in the book a supercomputer is built to find the meaning of the life, universe, and everything. The answer is 42.
[color=#2e1a6b]Is this what inspired that genius girl to have 42 as her username?
[color=#2e1a6b]Just to clarify, are you suggesting that all multi-chapter series be uploaded like this?
https://www.fakku.net/manga/soushisouai-note-english
https://www.fakku.net/manga/soushisouai-note-english
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
spectre257 wrote...
willing to work for and in unreasonably poor conditions. Heck even here in Australia big brand companies try to pull dodgy shit by not paying staff for their hours or trying to get them to do extra hours for nought (worked for one of those companies).So abolishing minimum wage would only make the problem worse.
[color=#2e1a6b]The lack of a desire to work is caused by unemployment benefits and other social programs, but that's for a different thread.
Excuse me, but my dad was on unemployment for a while, and he was looking for work during that entire time.
[color=#2e1a6b]Then your dad was not among the people who lack a desire to work.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch seems to me, and this is just an inference from his statements about unemployment benefits, to be the kind of person who believes in the concept of a "Welfare queen". That is, a woman who just has a bunch of kids in order to get more welfare money and doesn't take care of her kids or look for a job.If this is so Lelouch, I'll like you to know that this concept is a myth.
[color=#2e1a6b]I've never even heard of this idea before.
My opinion about this is influenced by the people who tell my dad straight up "I have no interest in working, but I need to find 2 people hiring in order to keep my benefits"
spectre257 wrote...
willing to work for and in unreasonably poor conditions. Heck even here in Australia big brand companies try to pull dodgy shit by not paying staff for their hours or trying to get them to do extra hours for nought (worked for one of those companies).So abolishing minimum wage would only make the problem worse.
[color=#2e1a6b]The lack of a desire to work is caused by unemployment benefits and other social programs, but that's for a different thread.
[color=#2e1a6b]Thank you for finally responding. I was getting tired of that 1-sided discussion
[color=#2e1a6b]Did you really just equate the principles of supply and demand with "blind faith"?
I want a solid answer here: are the principles of supply and demand just "blind faith"?
Yes.
The principals of supply and demand assume things that simply are not true. As has been repeated to you time and again, and you keep waving this away as absurd.
Supply and demand presumes perfect competition. However, according to Alan P. Kirman, "Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, V. 6, N. 2 (Spring 1992): pp. 117–136, he says..."economists have no adequate model of how individuals and firms adjust prices in a competitive model. If all participants are price-takers by definition, then the actor who adjusts prices to eliminate excess demand is not specified"
Further, according to Goodwin, N, Nelson, J; Ackerman, F & Weissskopf, T: Microeconomics in Context 2d ed. Sharpe 2009, ""If we mistakenly confuse precision with accuracy, then we might be misled into thinking that an explanation expressed in precise mathematical or graphical terms"(Like you used in your opening post Lelouch) "is somehow more rigorous or useful than one that takes into account particulars of history, institutions or business strategy. This is not the case. Therefore, it is important not to put too much confidence in the apparent precision of supply and demand graphs. Supply and demand analysis is a useful precisely formulated conceptual tool that clever people have devised to help us gain an abstract understanding of a complex world. It does not—nor should it be expected to—give us in addition an accurate and complete description of any particular real world market."
Ain't that just interesting?
As far as minimum wage goes, the picture you grabbed that graph from comes from a textbook which has an article using it as an example NOT to get rid of the minimum wage, but to not make it higher.
"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity. (Formby, J., Bishop, J., & Kim, H.. (2010). The Redistributive Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage. Public Finance Review, 38(5), 585. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2140268271).) Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages." (Belman, D., & Wolfson, P.. (2010). The Effect of Legislated Minimum Wage Increases on Employment and Hours: A Dynamic Analysis. Labour, 24(1), 1–25. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global.
Since our relatives and personal experiences apparently count in this thread, I'd like to point out my father owns a small printing business(he didn't make it himself, he worked his way up it until he owned the place) he keeps his wages 50 cents above minimum wage. That's what that quote speaks about. It causes workers to be more likely to work there. It also prevents him from having to raise it again if there's a sudden slight increase in the minimum wage, allowing him to adjust his budget accordingly before raising it again by 50 cents.
That's just good business models.
Concerning your textbook reading where you demonstrate you don't read further from the textbook(which all classes that are good should say that you should) Here are some economists that believe this to be logically incoherent.
P. Garegnani, "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution", Review of Economic Studies, V. 37, N. 3 (July 1970)
Robert L. Vienneau, "On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm", Manchester School, V. 73, N. 5 (September 2005)
Arrigo Opocher and Ian Steedman, "Input Price-Input Quantity Relations and the Numeraire", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 3 (2009)
Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley of Machester argue that the application of this model is only hypothetically flasifiable, and as such little empirical evidence even exists for its coherency.
Here's Gary Fields, Professor of Labor Economics and Economics at Cornell University, "the predictions derived from the textbook model definitely do not carry over to the two-sector case. Therefore, since a non-covered sector exists nearly everywhere, the predictions of the textbook model simply cannot be relied on."
So what's a two-sector system? A system where there is one sector which has minimum wage put in play, and a sector where it's not. According to Fields: "the self-employed, service workers, and farm workers are typically excluded from minimum-wage coverage… [and with] one sector with minimum-wage coverage and the other without it [and possible mobility between the two]".
In the United States, the minimum wage is set close to the equilibrium point, so the minimum wage really has no effect. The only arguments against the minimum wage that economists actually lodge is against the RAISING of it arbitrarily, it's rarely, if ever argued that we get rid of it entirely. It CAN be done, however, in an instance of inflation, if long term estimates show that the inflation will remain where it is.
Currently there's still a bit of a scuffle going on in the academics of economics where there's accusations being thrown about that there's publication bias against any research that might show that an increase in minimum wage could increase employment, or at least have no statistically significant impact on unemployment.
This isn't my theory that I pulled out of my ass of course, it's a theory lodged after a meta analysis, or rather a couple, of studies was published by Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, called "Publication Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations
Being skeptical, I'll be waiting to see how this pans out. However the fact still remains that using the textbook model like you are Lelouch, is very highly criticized among economists. Because...as has been explained before...it assumes what is not true, in order to work, and has little empirical evidence to its credit. So yeah...believing something is true based on little to no evidence? Sounds like blind faith to me.
[color=#2e1a6b]Your sources seemed to focus on the inaccuracy of supply in demand, not the principles themselves. By that I mean that they aren't denying that price affects demand, or that price affects supply. They appear to be saying that the magnitude of how much these are affected are unpredictable, which I already know.
[color=#2e1a6b]well, you already said that "It will be laborers who will not provide their services". So if he were to stay in business, he would have zero employees. I suppose he could just stay in business, keep paying rent and electricity even though he has no means of creating profit.
I'm glad you finally quoted me, but is this really your argument?
Considering your counter is that employees WILL leave, and they WILL get different jobs under a competitive model, when that assumes things you literally could not possibly know...then yeah, I think his incredulousness is justified.
[color=#2e1a6b]I only assumed things that Room101 already claimed.
[color=#2e1a6b]O_o
it's not a good to assume that people act out of self interest? did you really just say that?
You have sparked my interest. I'd like to know what economist would defend this claim.
Lelouch, this is a common problem I've seen when you debate people. Read what he said. He didn't say people don't act out of self-interest, he said they don't act out of the SAME self interest. Some people prefer to have a job, even if it's a shitty one, just to feel secure. Some people prefer higher paying jobs to support their families. some people prefer low paying jobs where they have little work to do because they're lazy. There are meta levels of self interest you are not addressing aside from some weird presumption that, "Everyone wants more moneh."
[color=#2e1a6b]Well, you're half right.
He said "You assume that everyone has same self-interest". But I never made this assumption. The assumption I made was that people act out of self interest.
[color=#2e1a6b]The products in the back of the convenient store are part of the market supply.
Then so are the diamonds.
No, because the hoarded diamonds are not available to the market.
[color=#2e1a6b]My father was an ice cream truck driver. Just roving around Houston with blasted music. Then he created a business that hung door flyers on houses. Eventually, he got together with someone, bought a used printing press, and started an advertisement company. Sometime later, he managed to buy some collating machines and some other equipment, and then his company became a direct mail company (he mails envelopes with advertisements in them). 29 years later, he still has that company, he's upgraded his equipment, hired graphic artists, salesman, telemarketers, etc.
He is currently paying for 16 different people to have full time jobs, and about 6 part time jobs. At his peak (roughly 10 years ago), he had about 30 people working for him.
I know that many people can't start a small business, but too many people don't even try. In addition, the education system doesn't even try to teach people how to get a job. We might see more people starting businesses if people were taught how.
The vast majority of people are average, and are more likely to WORK for small business than own one. Your father? Is not an example of what most people would do.
If your father counts as an example for you, then my completely inept co workers, who vastly outnumber our employer, and couldn't tie their own shoes if they didn't have an instructional video is an example for me.
[color=#2e1a6b]I fully acknowledge that both kind of people exist. I don't think room101 acknowledged that ordinary people can become entrepreneurs, which is why I brought this up.
[color=#2e1a6b]If starting a business is irrational, then the free market is screwed.
It is irrational for everyone with a shitty job to go, "Imma start a business!"
the only people who should start businesses are people who have the cognitive capabilities to understand how to compete with other businesses, otherwise they'll fuck themselves over.
[color=#2e1a6b]Then there's a problem with our education system
[color=#2e1a6b]They will need some amount of money to start the business.
[color=#2e1a6b]I've sat next to my Dad while he was at a job fair, and I did get plenty of observation. Though I am a little curious about what you know about the entrepreneur's perspective.
Oh! Oh! I know!
My dad's an entrepreneur too! Worked at his plant for 2 years!
entrepreneurs work their asses off to make sure they can match basic costs for most customers and prices. Competition is rough, and depending on your market, you might get screwed because the Chinese, or some other out of america business can sell what you sell for 50% off what you could ever afford.
My dad gets fucked by the Chinese regularly, he's a printing company that can't even afford to sell notebooks for 5 cents each, and he's only able to do that because the paper is used from FREE recycled paper. The Chinese STILL beat him on that.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm assuming this is sarcasm. If so, what's your point?
[color=#2e1a6b]My professor has a heavy African accent, so he's really hard to understand. But after class, I'll talk with a few students for literally an hour. My inspiration to make this argument came from one of my discussions after class, not from the class.
My textbook didn't talk about these negative affects of minimum wage
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]Did you really just equate the principles of supply and demand with "blind faith"?
I want a solid answer here: are the principles of supply and demand just "blind faith"?
Yes.
The principals of supply and demand assume things that simply are not true. As has been repeated to you time and again, and you keep waving this away as absurd.
Supply and demand presumes perfect competition. However, according to Alan P. Kirman, "Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, V. 6, N. 2 (Spring 1992): pp. 117–136, he says..."economists have no adequate model of how individuals and firms adjust prices in a competitive model. If all participants are price-takers by definition, then the actor who adjusts prices to eliminate excess demand is not specified"
Further, according to Goodwin, N, Nelson, J; Ackerman, F & Weissskopf, T: Microeconomics in Context 2d ed. Sharpe 2009, ""If we mistakenly confuse precision with accuracy, then we might be misled into thinking that an explanation expressed in precise mathematical or graphical terms"(Like you used in your opening post Lelouch) "is somehow more rigorous or useful than one that takes into account particulars of history, institutions or business strategy. This is not the case. Therefore, it is important not to put too much confidence in the apparent precision of supply and demand graphs. Supply and demand analysis is a useful precisely formulated conceptual tool that clever people have devised to help us gain an abstract understanding of a complex world. It does not—nor should it be expected to—give us in addition an accurate and complete description of any particular real world market."
Ain't that just interesting?
As far as minimum wage goes, the picture you grabbed that graph from comes from a textbook which has an article using it as an example NOT to get rid of the minimum wage, but to not make it higher.
"If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. ... The direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. This is known as the "ripple effect". The ripple effect shows that when you increase the minimum wage the wages of all others will consequently increase due the need for relativity. (Formby, J., Bishop, J., & Kim, H.. (2010). The Redistributive Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage. Public Finance Review, 38(5), 585. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2140268271).) Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed or out of the labor force. Some argue that by increasing the federal minimum wage, however, the economy will be adversely affected due to small businesses not being able to keep up with the need to subsequently increase all workers wages." (Belman, D., & Wolfson, P.. (2010). The Effect of Legislated Minimum Wage Increases on Employment and Hours: A Dynamic Analysis. Labour, 24(1), 1–25. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global.
Since our relatives and personal experiences apparently count in this thread, I'd like to point out my father owns a small printing business(he didn't make it himself, he worked his way up it until he owned the place) he keeps his wages 50 cents above minimum wage. That's what that quote speaks about. It causes workers to be more likely to work there. It also prevents him from having to raise it again if there's a sudden slight increase in the minimum wage, allowing him to adjust his budget accordingly before raising it again by 50 cents.
That's just good business models.
Concerning your textbook reading where you demonstrate you don't read further from the textbook(which all classes that are good should say that you should) Here are some economists that believe this to be logically incoherent.
P. Garegnani, "Heterogeneous Capital, the Production Function and the Theory of Distribution", Review of Economic Studies, V. 37, N. 3 (July 1970)
Robert L. Vienneau, "On Labour Demand and Equilibria of the Firm", Manchester School, V. 73, N. 5 (September 2005)
Arrigo Opocher and Ian Steedman, "Input Price-Input Quantity Relations and the Numeraire", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 3 (2009)
Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley of Machester argue that the application of this model is only hypothetically flasifiable, and as such little empirical evidence even exists for its coherency.
Here's Gary Fields, Professor of Labor Economics and Economics at Cornell University, "the predictions derived from the textbook model definitely do not carry over to the two-sector case. Therefore, since a non-covered sector exists nearly everywhere, the predictions of the textbook model simply cannot be relied on."
So what's a two-sector system? A system where there is one sector which has minimum wage put in play, and a sector where it's not. According to Fields: "the self-employed, service workers, and farm workers are typically excluded from minimum-wage coverage… [and with] one sector with minimum-wage coverage and the other without it [and possible mobility between the two]".
In the United States, the minimum wage is set close to the equilibrium point, so the minimum wage really has no effect. The only arguments against the minimum wage that economists actually lodge is against the RAISING of it arbitrarily, it's rarely, if ever argued that we get rid of it entirely. It CAN be done, however, in an instance of inflation, if long term estimates show that the inflation will remain where it is.
Currently there's still a bit of a scuffle going on in the academics of economics where there's accusations being thrown about that there's publication bias against any research that might show that an increase in minimum wage could increase employment, or at least have no statistically significant impact on unemployment.
This isn't my theory that I pulled out of my ass of course, it's a theory lodged after a meta analysis, or rather a couple, of studies was published by Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, called "Publication Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations
Being skeptical, I'll be waiting to see how this pans out. However the fact still remains that using the textbook model like you are Lelouch, is very highly criticized among economists. Because...as has been explained before...it assumes what is not true, in order to work, and has little empirical evidence to its credit. So yeah...believing something is true based on little to no evidence? Sounds like blind faith to me.
[color=#2e1a6b]Your sources seemed to focus on the inaccuracy of supply in demand, not the principles themselves. By that I mean that they aren't denying that price affects demand, or that price affects supply. They appear to be saying that the magnitude of how much these are affected are unpredictable, which I already know.
[color=#2e1a6b]well, you already said that "It will be laborers who will not provide their services". So if he were to stay in business, he would have zero employees. I suppose he could just stay in business, keep paying rent and electricity even though he has no means of creating profit.
I'm glad you finally quoted me, but is this really your argument?
Considering your counter is that employees WILL leave, and they WILL get different jobs under a competitive model, when that assumes things you literally could not possibly know...then yeah, I think his incredulousness is justified.
[color=#2e1a6b]I only assumed things that Room101 already claimed.
[color=#2e1a6b]O_o
it's not a good to assume that people act out of self interest? did you really just say that?
You have sparked my interest. I'd like to know what economist would defend this claim.
Lelouch, this is a common problem I've seen when you debate people. Read what he said. He didn't say people don't act out of self-interest, he said they don't act out of the SAME self interest. Some people prefer to have a job, even if it's a shitty one, just to feel secure. Some people prefer higher paying jobs to support their families. some people prefer low paying jobs where they have little work to do because they're lazy. There are meta levels of self interest you are not addressing aside from some weird presumption that, "Everyone wants more moneh."
[color=#2e1a6b]Well, you're half right.
He said "You assume that everyone has same self-interest". But I never made this assumption. The assumption I made was that people act out of self interest.
[color=#2e1a6b]The products in the back of the convenient store are part of the market supply.
Then so are the diamonds.
No, because the hoarded diamonds are not available to the market.
[color=#2e1a6b]My father was an ice cream truck driver. Just roving around Houston with blasted music. Then he created a business that hung door flyers on houses. Eventually, he got together with someone, bought a used printing press, and started an advertisement company. Sometime later, he managed to buy some collating machines and some other equipment, and then his company became a direct mail company (he mails envelopes with advertisements in them). 29 years later, he still has that company, he's upgraded his equipment, hired graphic artists, salesman, telemarketers, etc.
He is currently paying for 16 different people to have full time jobs, and about 6 part time jobs. At his peak (roughly 10 years ago), he had about 30 people working for him.
I know that many people can't start a small business, but too many people don't even try. In addition, the education system doesn't even try to teach people how to get a job. We might see more people starting businesses if people were taught how.
The vast majority of people are average, and are more likely to WORK for small business than own one. Your father? Is not an example of what most people would do.
If your father counts as an example for you, then my completely inept co workers, who vastly outnumber our employer, and couldn't tie their own shoes if they didn't have an instructional video is an example for me.
[color=#2e1a6b]I fully acknowledge that both kind of people exist. I don't think room101 acknowledged that ordinary people can become entrepreneurs, which is why I brought this up.
[color=#2e1a6b]If starting a business is irrational, then the free market is screwed.
It is irrational for everyone with a shitty job to go, "Imma start a business!"
the only people who should start businesses are people who have the cognitive capabilities to understand how to compete with other businesses, otherwise they'll fuck themselves over.
[color=#2e1a6b]Then there's a problem with our education system
Also, where the FUCK are most people going to get the start up capital to start a business if they're starting one because they aren't making any money?
[color=#2e1a6b]They will need some amount of money to start the business.
[color=#2e1a6b]I've sat next to my Dad while he was at a job fair, and I did get plenty of observation. Though I am a little curious about what you know about the entrepreneur's perspective.
Oh! Oh! I know!
My dad's an entrepreneur too! Worked at his plant for 2 years!
entrepreneurs work their asses off to make sure they can match basic costs for most customers and prices. Competition is rough, and depending on your market, you might get screwed because the Chinese, or some other out of america business can sell what you sell for 50% off what you could ever afford.
My dad gets fucked by the Chinese regularly, he's a printing company that can't even afford to sell notebooks for 5 cents each, and he's only able to do that because the paper is used from FREE recycled paper. The Chinese STILL beat him on that.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm assuming this is sarcasm. If so, what's your point?
Just saying, it's not a bad idea to ask your professor questions about what's in the textbook. Economics isn't a hard science like biology or physics.
[color=#2e1a6b]My professor has a heavy African accent, so he's really hard to understand. But after class, I'll talk with a few students for literally an hour. My inspiration to make this argument came from one of my discussions after class, not from the class.
My textbook didn't talk about these negative affects of minimum wage
Room101 wrote...
Quote, quote what?[color=#2e1a6b]It's amazingly simple:
quote what I said that you disagree with, and explain why it's wrong
No matter what I say, it still goes over your head:
What you have proposed is a theory. T-H-E-O-R-Y. Backed by more theoretical models which sometimes work - sometimes don't.
And it's either your unfortunate wording, or more likely, completely blind faith in this theory that makes you come out just raving
What you have proposed is a theory. T-H-E-O-R-Y. Backed by more theoretical models which sometimes work - sometimes don't.
And it's either your unfortunate wording, or more likely, completely blind faith in this theory that makes you come out just raving
[color=#2e1a6b]Did you really just equate the principles of supply and demand with "blind faith"?
I want a solid answer here: are the principles of supply and demand just "blind faith"?
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]No-one. Entrepreneurs who offered such low wages will go out of business. The entrepreneur who stays in business will be the one who offers wages high enough to get people to work for him.
*Will* Why the confidence? WHY? Because model said so? What will happen if they don't?
[color=#2e1a6b]well, you already said that "It will be laborers who will not provide their services". So if he were to stay in business, he would have zero employees. I suppose he could just stay in business, keep paying rent and electricity even though he has no means of creating profit.
I'm glad you finally quoted me, but is this really your argument?
You assume that everyone has same self-interest. Again, this is height of model-inspired arrogance. NO. Not everyone has the same self-interest. Have you ever studied social sciences for God's sake? Generalizations like that do not work when making a law as big as this. Some people will be motivated by this. Some will not! Just assuming that the same line of reasoning applies to all market players is just silly undergrad reasoning. And not a good one either.
[color=#2e1a6b]O_o
it's not a good to assume that people act out of self interest? did you really just say that?
You have sparked my interest. I'd like to know what economist would defend this claim.
"If diamonds are hoarded, they're not in the market!" - Straciatella ice cream is sitting in my convenience store's storeroom rather then shelves, so it doesn't exist! Obviously it will not affect whether the store will order more, what price they may charge when people start demanding it at the counter and store owner says "Well, we have some in the back..."
[color=#2e1a6b]The products in the back of the convenient store are part of the market supply.
Oh. No-one will employ me, so I'll become entrepreneur myself.
I...
I....
I..... gave up right there. No, seriously. I'm a poor worker, earning 10$ a day. I'm out of job, cannot feed my family and no-one will employ me...so I make my own company.
Out of what? How will I acquire the workplace? The materials?
I...
I....
I..... gave up right there. No, seriously. I'm a poor worker, earning 10$ a day. I'm out of job, cannot feed my family and no-one will employ me...so I make my own company.
Out of what? How will I acquire the workplace? The materials?
[color=#2e1a6b]My father was an ice cream truck driver. Just roving around Houston with blasted music. Then he created a business that hung door flyers on houses. Eventually, he got together with someone, bought a used printing press, and started an advertisement company. Sometime later, he managed to buy some collating machines and some other equipment, and then his company became a direct mail company (he mails envelopes with advertisements in them). 29 years later, he still has that company, he's upgraded his equipment, hired graphic artists, salesman, telemarketers, etc.
He is currently paying for 16 different people to have full time jobs, and about 6 part time jobs. At his peak (roughly 10 years ago), he had about 30 people working for him.
I know that many people can't start a small business, but too many people don't even try. In addition, the education system doesn't even try to teach people how to start a business. We might see more people starting businesses if people were taught how.
I'm sorry. I'm used to talk with people who have rational view of the world, and acknowledge that there are different ways of thinking, and that there may be different causes for same events.
[color=#2e1a6b]If starting a business is irrational, then the free market is screwed.
I recommend you go and do field experiment sometime. It may prove to be quite enlightening.
[color=#2e1a6b]I've sat next to my Dad while he was at a job fair, and I did get plenty of observation. Though I am a little curious about what you know about the entrepreneur's perspective.
[color=#2e1a6b]How can you be a fakku elder and not know how to quote?
You see, you automatically assume that since there is a custom/regulation/etc. people will follow it. They don't have to.
[color=#2e1a6b]If you quoted me, you could show where I claimed that they have to follow it. but I didn't claim that they have to follow it. When we make claims about how people will economically behave, we assume that people will act out of self interest (they do what benefits themselves). So, if someone were to say that they "have" to do something, we really mean that they have to do that if they want to preserve self-interest
[color=#2e1a6b]again, we assume that people act out of self-interest. These "laws" are just helpful ways to describe a person's self-interest. They don't have to follow them, but they do because it serves their self-interest.
[color=#2e1a6b]The law of supply and demand only applies to products in the market. If the diamonds are hoarded, then they are no longer in the market's supply of diamonds. You aren't disproving anything
[color=#2e1a6b]Then quote where I said that instead of making shit up. I gave a very thorough explanation of what minimum wage does, but you're completely ignoring it
[color=#2e1a6b]I know what the affects of outsourcing are. But I'm confused how this defends the need of minimum wage. From what I understand, minimum wage makes it even harder to compete in industries that outsource.
[color=#2e1a6b]Can you quote where I made that assumption?
[color=#2e1a6b]When considering issues like this, I like to examine how an identical scenario would work in the product market, so:
[color=#2e1a6b]This problem could be solved by having tons of people break out and offer consumers low prices. This would put the companies charging a high price out of business.
In the same way, the problem you brought forth could be solved by having a bunch of entrepreneurs break in and offer higher wages. This would put the companies offering low wages out of business, since no one would work for them.
[color=#2e1a6b]You can choose whether to be an entrepreneur or an employee. if wages are too low, become an entrepreneur, which will actually help increase wages
[color=#2e1a6b]Everyone is greedy, even the workers. It's just that wealthy entrepreneurs can empower their greed.
?
[color=#2e1a6b]Minimum wage doesn't directly affect skilled workers. If the average wage is too low when minimum wage is abolished, then we need to encourage entrepreneurship. This would increase the demand for labor and decrease the supply for labor, thereby raising equilibrium wage.
[color=#2e1a6b]This is a different issue. We can talk about monopolies on a different thread.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not ignoring anything. You're the one that's ignoring everything that I say. If you there are flaws in my arguments, then PLEASE point them out. I want to learn whatever flaws exist in my argument, but your completely ignoring them with each reply, making this kinda a 1-way discussion.
Room101 wrote...
No, I don't have to.You see, you automatically assume that since there is a custom/regulation/etc. people will follow it. They don't have to.
[color=#2e1a6b]If you quoted me, you could show where I claimed that they have to follow it. but I didn't claim that they have to follow it. When we make claims about how people will economically behave, we assume that people will act out of self interest (they do what benefits themselves). So, if someone were to say that they "have" to do something, we really mean that they have to do that if they want to preserve self-interest
The Law of Supply of demand:
I have not stated that these are *completely* useless. However, I have questioned your conclusion that "because laws say so, it must happen!". I keep trying to say, it doesn't!
I have not stated that these are *completely* useless. However, I have questioned your conclusion that "because laws say so, it must happen!". I keep trying to say, it doesn't!
[color=#2e1a6b]again, we assume that people act out of self-interest. These "laws" are just helpful ways to describe a person's self-interest. They don't have to follow them, but they do because it serves their self-interest.
Let's take diamonds. Diamonds are valuable in several industries, and there's a lot of them. If we assume that quantity of diamonds (which is large), then demand for diamonds (which is somewhat smaller, but still large), then you'd think that, with accordance to supply/demand model, price would fell to a price where the most consumers could get them, and miners would still make a profit.
And yet, diamonds are expensive as fuck, elite product.
Why?
Because diamonds are being carefully hoarded. The sellers themselves show a big middle finger to the economy, by carefully regulating the flow so that there is always fewer diamonds around then what are needed. Thanks to this, the price can remain disproportionately high to the actual quantity of diamonds.
And yet, diamonds are expensive as fuck, elite product.
Why?
Because diamonds are being carefully hoarded. The sellers themselves show a big middle finger to the economy, by carefully regulating the flow so that there is always fewer diamonds around then what are needed. Thanks to this, the price can remain disproportionately high to the actual quantity of diamonds.
[color=#2e1a6b]The law of supply and demand only applies to products in the market. If the diamonds are hoarded, then they are no longer in the market's supply of diamonds. You aren't disproving anything
And to be honest, I see nothing in your posts that indicates at any other line of thinking besides "minimum wage is bad, we have to get rid of it, because it stifles the law of supply and demand!"
[color=#2e1a6b]Then quote where I said that instead of making shit up. I gave a very thorough explanation of what minimum wage does, but you're completely ignoring it
Let's go a little farther: You assume that lower wages will mean cheaper production. A bit, but not much. Where does all American materiel comes from? Where is your oil from? Your steel? Your plastic? Your guns, your car doors, your microchips? Changes in minimum wages do not change the prices of commodity, that may be required to make yours. Where is any blast furnance in the U.S? In France they closed one of the last ones last week! In industrial heartland, no less.
Which brings to another point - many primary and secondary industries are about extinct in the West. How can you hire people for jobs that do not exist? And if you lower the wages in tertiary sector...well, people will leave. And why should then employees bother about local market then? They can say with clear conscience "there are no people that want to work here" and outsource everything to India anyway.
If you really want to, I could also get into the whole debate that it certainly wasn't minimum wage that started the crisis that closed down multiple factories, forced hundreds of thousands around the world to be unemployed, and encouraged even more outsourcing.
Speaking of outsourcing: Majority of firms that remain in countries such as the USA, France, England, etc. and haven't outsourced will, for the most part, be unable to compete with the juggernauts like Apple that moved most of its production over to China. We also have to consider that outsourcing is in China's political interest. They *will* do something that will make it even more attractive for production to be done in China - slave labor, government protection, you name it. In the worst part, they yank your debt chain. Jobs will not come back, and enterprises that remain will gain little.
Which brings to another point - many primary and secondary industries are about extinct in the West. How can you hire people for jobs that do not exist? And if you lower the wages in tertiary sector...well, people will leave. And why should then employees bother about local market then? They can say with clear conscience "there are no people that want to work here" and outsource everything to India anyway.
If you really want to, I could also get into the whole debate that it certainly wasn't minimum wage that started the crisis that closed down multiple factories, forced hundreds of thousands around the world to be unemployed, and encouraged even more outsourcing.
Speaking of outsourcing: Majority of firms that remain in countries such as the USA, France, England, etc. and haven't outsourced will, for the most part, be unable to compete with the juggernauts like Apple that moved most of its production over to China. We also have to consider that outsourcing is in China's political interest. They *will* do something that will make it even more attractive for production to be done in China - slave labor, government protection, you name it. In the worst part, they yank your debt chain. Jobs will not come back, and enterprises that remain will gain little.
[color=#2e1a6b]I know what the affects of outsourcing are. But I'm confused how this defends the need of minimum wage. From what I understand, minimum wage makes it even harder to compete in industries that outsource.
Actual Wages:
Again, you're arbitrarily assuming that companies will keep a certain level of pay.
Again, you're arbitrarily assuming that companies will keep a certain level of pay.
[color=#2e1a6b]Can you quote where I made that assumption?
Have it occurred to you, that without minimal wage regulation, companies can co-operate with each other to *force* the labor market to accept substandard wages? Even if, we assume that someone breaks out and offers workers higher salaries, there will be a limited amount of places he can offer. Once they're filled, you're still left with lots of workers without a job.
[color=#2e1a6b]When considering issues like this, I like to examine how an identical scenario would work in the product market, so:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]This problem could be solved by having tons of people break out and offer consumers low prices. This would put the companies charging a high price out of business.
In the same way, the problem you brought forth could be solved by having a bunch of entrepreneurs break in and offer higher wages. This would put the companies offering low wages out of business, since no one would work for them.
It was the point of my "and you can't give them (employers) a hard time about it."They can all lower their wages to an unreasonable limit. It's no longer illegal, and everyone can be doing it, so you, as a worker, do not get to choose.
[color=#2e1a6b]You can choose whether to be an entrepreneur or an employee. if wages are too low, become an entrepreneur, which will actually help increase wages
I have not stated "Your model is, without fail, wrong". But you absolutely fail to consider that entrepreneurs can be a bunch of greedy dicks.
[color=#2e1a6b]Everyone is greedy, even the workers. It's just that wealthy entrepreneurs can empower their greed.
Oh, and the wage-cutting idea as product price reduction? That was made by my econ teacher as a part of the lecture. I think I can draw on what he told us, given he's rich as fuck and major financial advisor to French government.
?
Also, emigration. What if U.S abolishes minimum wage, and the average wage comes down to beneath what some of the countries with minimum wage offer? It will encourage skilled workers to leave. Promising students will consider working outside of States. Brandrain ahoy.
[color=#2e1a6b]Minimum wage doesn't directly affect skilled workers. If the average wage is too low when minimum wage is abolished, then we need to encourage entrepreneurship. This would increase the demand for labor and decrease the supply for labor, thereby raising equilibrium wage.
You forget the most elemental rule that economy had demonstrated time, and time, and time again after 2008:
Unless rained in, majority of entrepreneurs, financiers and etc. are greedy fucks. Regulations are not perfect. None of them are. But they were created because you cannot trust someone who has a vested interest in keeping the market unfair to regulate it. Go and read the diamond part, if you still fail to understand that one.
Unless rained in, majority of entrepreneurs, financiers and etc. are greedy fucks. Regulations are not perfect. None of them are. But they were created because you cannot trust someone who has a vested interest in keeping the market unfair to regulate it. Go and read the diamond part, if you still fail to understand that one.
[color=#2e1a6b]This is a different issue. We can talk about monopolies on a different thread.
Oh, and what's your evidence? Besides one graph, I've seen nothing. Nothing, beyond your self righteous belief in theory. And gain, I do not say that this theory "fails forever". But that you completely ignore anything else.
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not ignoring anything. You're the one that's ignoring everything that I say. If you there are flaws in my arguments, then PLEASE point them out. I want to learn whatever flaws exist in my argument, but your completely ignoring them with each reply, making this kinda a 1-way discussion.
[color=#2e1a6b]there's this really cool thing you can do in these discussions called... um...
Addressing the opponents argument
you use these tags that look like this [*quote] [*/quote]. It's really cool, I recommend you try it sometime.
[color=#2e1a6b]I never claimed they were. The imperfections come from an inability to calculate magnitude, as well as not taking into account other variables. But none of my claims predicted magnitude, and you haven't pointed out any variable that alters my conclusion. All you have done is ridiculed and denied basic economic principles, without any argument or evidence.
[color=#2e1a6b]You're the one calling them magic
[color=#2e1a6b]That's because they're satisfied with the amount of labor they have at that price. A change in wage will change the demand for labor
[color=#2e1a6b]The wages will decrease, which decreases the cost of production, which decreases the price of the product, which increases the demand for the product, which increases production, which increases the need for labor, which causes the entrepreneur to hire more labor, which brings back jobs.
^this is just an explanation of why the demand for labor increase as wages decrease; the law of demand.
[color=#2e1a6b]As I just explained in my last reply, Outsourcing is even more cost-effective with minimum wage. In fact, it makes it almost impossible for American companies to compete with companies that outsource.
[color=#2e1a6b]Please do us both a favor and stop using the word magic; it's completely irrelevant to this discussion (if I can call it that).
This is exactly why the entrepreneur can't have wages "as little as its humanly possible". The supply of workers decrease as wages decrease, which forces the entrepreneur to raise its prices.
[color=#2e1a6b]No-one. Entrepreneurs who offered such low wages will go out of business. The entrepreneur who stays in business will be the one who offers wages high enough to get people to work for him.
[color=#2e1a6b]I have no idea where you're quoting from.
You're contradicting yourself. You just said above that no one would work for low wages, and now you're saying that "no-one can give you a hard time about it".
[color=#2e1a6b]Then you should have no problem citing a "frequent failure" of the law of supply and demand
[color=#2e1a6b]No, I didn't say minimum wage can be eliminated by unemployment.
I said that low wages can be eliminated by unemployment (minimum wage = unemployment)
[color=#2e1a6b]Again, you're contradicting what you said earlier:
Addressing the opponents argument
you use these tags that look like this [*quote] [*/quote]. It's really cool, I recommend you try it sometime.
Room101 wrote...
It's a law and a model. But as you might have noticed (if you paid attention in class), models are not perfect.[color=#2e1a6b]I never claimed they were. The imperfections come from an inability to calculate magnitude, as well as not taking into account other variables. But none of my claims predicted magnitude, and you haven't pointed out any variable that alters my conclusion. All you have done is ridiculed and denied basic economic principles, without any argument or evidence.
You assume that magically supply and demand will sort it out. I have never said that these two have no affect - but they are hardly magical pills you envision them to be.
[color=#2e1a6b]You're the one calling them magic
Also, today's companies seem to be pretty satisfied with amount of labor they have (not every single company of course, and not in every single sector).
[color=#2e1a6b]That's because they're satisfied with the amount of labor they have at that price. A change in wage will change the demand for labor
So, suppose America abolishes minimum wage overnight. How does that bring back jobs?
[color=#2e1a6b]The wages will decrease, which decreases the cost of production, which decreases the price of the product, which increases the demand for the product, which increases production, which increases the need for labor, which causes the entrepreneur to hire more labor, which brings back jobs.
^this is just an explanation of why the demand for labor increase as wages decrease; the law of demand.
Jobs were already outsourced. They are already in China. And China will probably make people work for free in this regard. Business stay in China. Nothing achieved. Restart Y/N?
[color=#2e1a6b]As I just explained in my last reply, Outsourcing is even more cost-effective with minimum wage. In fact, it makes it almost impossible for American companies to compete with companies that outsource.
Oh, and, um, this may be a news to you, but people will not magically flow to all magically appearing job offers, because a very fair part of Western society values its skill. You know, people want to get paid. Or did you assume that supply and demand model works one-way only? Working for a dollar a month in a factory after university degree? Fuck that. I'd rather get my social service benefits and rob a bank.
[color=#2e1a6b]Please do us both a favor and stop using the word magic; it's completely irrelevant to this discussion (if I can call it that).
This is exactly why the entrepreneur can't have wages "as little as its humanly possible". The supply of workers decrease as wages decrease, which forces the entrepreneur to raise its prices.
Simple version: It will be laborers who will not provide their services. Ergo, who will employers employ exactly?
[color=#2e1a6b]No-one. Entrepreneurs who offered such low wages will go out of business. The entrepreneur who stays in business will be the one who offers wages high enough to get people to work for him.
"Will decrease prices of their products" - Again, if they sell it at lower prices, they have to cut production cost. What's a simple way of cutting cost? Cutting wages. And with no minimum wage, you can reduce it all the way to $1, and no-one can give you hard time about it. Try to live off a $1 per month.
[color=#2e1a6b]I have no idea where you're quoting from.
You're contradicting yourself. You just said above that no one would work for low wages, and now you're saying that "no-one can give you a hard time about it".
You see, you forget one little thing: economy works with people. People are not models. Models are simply simplifications, often made for academic benefit - and the frequently fail when applied to real life.
[color=#2e1a6b]Then you should have no problem citing a "frequent failure" of the law of supply and demand
"Unemployment is not a way to solve low wages" - okay, on this, I am legitimately confused. Where does this come into minimal wage? That minimal wage can be eliminated by...unemployment?
[color=#2e1a6b]No, I didn't say minimum wage can be eliminated by unemployment.
I said that low wages can be eliminated by unemployment (minimum wage = unemployment)
Oh, and in case this wasn't said before - without minimal wage, you would be, in some cases, be borderline legalizing slavery. As long as people are paid 0.01$, they are still "paid". They work for nothing, but your law would allow it, because employers still "pays" them. Nothing, to be exact.
[color=#2e1a6b]Again, you're contradicting what you said earlier:
Spoiler:
lordisgaea4 wrote...
We have minimum wage and will never be taken down because what we gain from it is way more superior than what we lose from it . "you need to examine what it actually does" you have to examine everything it does also , not just watch you want to examine to prove your point .[color=#2e1a6b]Enlighten me
Room101 wrote...
Good Lord. Did you just started your economy classes and blindly believe everything they told you?[color=#2e1a6b]The exact opposite. But they taught me the law of supply and demand, and that was the final piece I needed to form this argument.
Maybe we should legalize slavery while we're at it, because, hey, cheap labor force!
[color=#2e1a6b]I can understand your need for a straw man, but really?
Minimum wage is not perfect, but abolishing it will be even worse. Bottom line of almost every business is to cut cost. Without minimum wage laws, all the companies will pay as little as its humanly possible, which will not sustain any of its workers. And once they're out, they will just throw them out and hire new ones.
[color=#2e1a6b]No, that's actually not accurate. They will pay as little as they can, not as little as its humanly possible. The limited supply of labor will force the entrepreneur to have higher wages.
This exact argument can also be used on the product market, but its flaws are much more obvious since we understand the product market better:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]Obviously, they don't sell their products for as much as it's humanly possible; they sell them for as much as they can. The limited amount of people buying the product will force the entrepreneur to decrease prices.
That's of course assuming that entrepreneurs would bother start hiring people. Just because you lower the minimal wage, it doesn't mean new jobs will magically pop out to take care of unemployment.
[color=#2e1a6b]yep, the labor market's law of demand is just magic nonsense...
/sarc
As long as Chinese, Indonesians and Thai let themselves be assfucked by manufacturing companies, nothing will change, you do know that?
[color=#2e1a6b]Outsourcing is an even more cost-effective with minimum wage. In fact, it makes it almost impossible for American companies to compete with companies that outsource.
And that's without even considering that you can build a fucking robot. Sure, it's more expensive initially, but robot does not demand wages, breaks, food and it doesn't complain.
[color=#2e1a6b]Robots are also more cost-effective with minimum wage. Which side are you arguing?
And as Black Jesus mentioned, if people are not paid enough, they won't buy the produce. If no-one one buys the produce, manufacturers won't sell - they will make losses and to make up for it they will cut costs, i.e produce less, hire less. Less people work, less stuff gets made. We're back to square one. It's a self-sustaining downward spiral.
[color=#2e1a6b]"if some people aren't paid enough, they won't buy the products. if no-one buys the products..."
Inconsistent premises
>Minimal wage sustains high standard of living.
Mother of God, are you even trying? Go on to Brazilian favelas. Go and take a look at this fucking "high quality living" that their minimum wage affords.
Mother of God, are you even trying? Go on to Brazilian favelas. Go and take a look at this fucking "high quality living" that their minimum wage affords.
[color=#2e1a6b]I botched my reply to Blackjesus. The word "high" is relative to equilibrium wage.
I'm not saying we should pay laborers God-knows-what, but borderline legal slavery IS. NOT. A. WAY. TO. SOLVE. FUCKING. UNEMPLOYMENT.
[color=#2e1a6b]That's not what my claim is. My claim is that unemployment is not a way to solve low wages.
Go back and do your classes again.
[color=#2e1a6b]I am taking classes. Based on the knowledge you've shown, I think you're the one who needs to re-educate himself (and learn proper etiquette for serious discussion)
