Why the minimum wage cannot help.

[Sith Korriban]

If you get fired, you can always work for another company. See, that's the thing about capitalism, it is the freedom to shift to other jobs without losing out much.

That's it. I'm just calling BS. OP obviously hasn't worked in the real world.

He admitted in an earlier one of his 'I think this is how the world should work' threads that he's thirteen. Or thriteen, as the case may be.

And he never bothered to answer my question about whether he's ever had a job.

[Sungai Pusat]

How are you unable to grasp this simple idea? You take an economic theory and you factor in real-world elements, and then you look at the result and call it your conclusion. You don't just launch it and expect it to work.

"In this thread, I'm going to explain why the Titanic was the best ship ever. It's so simple even an airplane flight mechanic can understand it:
*insert diagrams*

Oh and I am not going to be talking about the iceberg, that's not part of this."

"But what if it hits something? Then all the Titanic's flaws show."
"I already said I wasn't going to talk about that, can't you read? I'm not factoring that in!"
"Er, you kind of have to, because a ship's useless until it's actually in the water..."
"NOT LISTENING! AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SIMPLE SAILING!"

Does this by any chance illuminate the absurdity present here?

IN that instance, yes the iceburg affects. In this theory, the supply and demand graph ONLY needs these two parts. And I am not trying to go "Lalala not listening!" I've already tried to make this in. OK, so I'll complete:

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country? In the Titanic you said there, it does not really matter how big the iceburg actually is, since without lifeboats, even a small leak will cause it to sink and everyone will die.

Taking inflation into account is useless as the graph pictures what the conditions of today are like, it does not factor in the past and the future. I mean, If I wanted to show the future, with about two times inflation, I can just rewrite that. But the lines aren't going to change the one little bit! Because the same mechanics appears in this time. If the equilibrium wage was a penny an hour back in the 1500s, I could just chart that in too. But I don't because the lines are motionless: It can't move in correspondence with time! The lines there can stay just the same and I can still use the same arguement back in.

I can also include others as well:

1. Evil company charges low, low wages. Result: Workers go to be hired in some other company.
2. Greed of company means they charge much more. Result: Consumers will just go to buy some other product. The supply and demand graph lines remain the same.

Of course, they can move independently, but the basis is the same: The equilibrium wage has to be set in the company to make both sides happy and the lines can move only in correspondence with how much of the demand or supply there is. Nothing else will cause those lines ot move left or right or up or down in any single way.

[Neptune-aughts]

Yeah, what happens when one does the opposite? And besides, those companies realise that their workers can simply quit, so they'll try to lure them instead of repel them. And that extra benefit you say will not really be enought o fully pull workers in. And the people have their choice: If they want slavery, they get slavery. If they want freedom, they get freedom.

For someone who wants to discuss the "simplicities" of economics, you are taking a very large stance here. No matter if you are a PhD in Economics, your statement regarding choice and slavery is extremely offending and blatantly wrong.

Time to put down the economics 101 book and pick up the history 101 book. No one chooses to be a slave. The unfortunate truth exists that some people only know slavery and to be free is out of their context of existence. This, however, does not constitute that they in fact choose to be slaves.

Countless lives have been lost in the battle to prove that slavery is an ultimate evil. Wars are still being fought today in attempt to give individuals the choice of direction for their own existence. How many more lives must be lost in an attempt to liberate those who have never known freedom?

I'm not going to argue about economics here because I feel this is a debate in which neither side is willing to change their stance. Of course, I'm mislabeling it because that, by definition, makes it an argument and not a debate.

Carry on with your banter in regards to minimum wage, but please do not show your ignorance by claiming that people choose to be free or choose to be slaves and that somehow this is in relation to whether or not they have the ability to form a capitalist government.

[Grave_n_idle]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

Seriously? Assume you just lost your minimum wage job. Explain to me how you're going to relocate to another country to take a new job?

1. Evil company charges low, low wages. Result: Workers go to be hired in some other company.
2. Greed of company means they charge much more. Result: Consumers will just go to buy some other product. The supply and demand graph lines remain the same.

'Ideal market' arguments don't work in real-world markets.

[Neo Art]

The idea that competition will just magically fix everything is an idea so naive that it is suitable only for children.

[Sungai Pusat]

Yeah, what happens when one does the opposite? And besides, those companies realise that their workers can simply quit, so they'll try to lure them instead of repel them. And that extra benefit you say will not really be enought o fully pull workers in. And the people have their choice: If they want slavery, they get slavery. If they want freedom, they get freedom.

For someone who wants to discuss the "simplicities" of economics, you are taking a very large stance here. No matter if you are a PhD in Economics, your statement regarding choice and slavery is extremely offending and blatantly wrong.

Time to put down the economics 101 book and pick up the history 101 book. No one chooses to be a slave. The unfortunate truth exists that some people only know slavery and to be free is out of their context of existence. This, however, does not constitute that they in fact choose to be slaves.

Countless lives have been lost in the battle to prove that slavery is an ultimate evil. Wars are still being fought today in attempt to give individuals the choice of direction for their own existence. How many more lives must be lost in an attempt to liberate those who have never known freedom?

I'm not going to argue about economics here because I feel this is a debate in which neither side is willing to change their stance. Of course, I'm mislabeling it because that, by definition, makes it an argument and not a debate.

Carry on with your banter in regards to minimum wage, but please do not show your ignorance by claiming that people choose to be free or choose to be slaves and that somehow this is in relation to whether or not they have the ability to form a capitalist government.

Yes, fine. My mistake there, I admit. But the rest of my points, I'll still hold.

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

Seriously? Assume you just lost your minimum wage job. Explain to me how you're going to relocate to another country to take a new job?[.quote]

Because you're in a country where you can relocate or take on a new job.

1. Evil company charges low, low wages. Result: Workers go to be hired in some other company.
2. Greed of company means they charge much more. Result: Consumers will just go to buy some other product. The supply and demand graph lines remain the same.

'Ideal market' arguments don't work in real-world markets.

No, your arguement does not stand because what I'm laying down here is not idealism, it is mathematics.

[Neo Art]

No, your arguement does not stand because what I'm laying down here is not idealism, it is mathematics.

Oh god, another one...

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, what happens when one does the opposite? And besides, those companies realise that their workers can simply quit, so they'll try to lure them instead of repel them. And that extra benefit you say will not really be enought o fully pull workers in. And the people have their choice: If they want slavery, they get slavery. If they want freedom, they get freedom.

For someone who wants to discuss the "simplicities" of economics, you are taking a very large stance here. No matter if you are a PhD in Economics, your statement regarding choice and slavery is extremely offending and blatantly wrong.

Time to put down the economics 101 book and pick up the history 101 book. No one chooses to be a slave. The unfortunate truth exists that some people only know slavery and to be free is out of their context of existence. This, however, does not constitute that they in fact choose to be slaves.

Countless lives have been lost in the battle to prove that slavery is an ultimate evil. Wars are still being fought today in attempt to give individuals the choice of direction for their own existence. How many more lives must be lost in an attempt to liberate those who have never known freedom?

I'm not going to argue about economics here because I feel this is a debate in which neither side is willing to change their stance. Of course, I'm mislabeling it because that, by definition, makes it an argument and not a debate.

Carry on with your banter in regards to minimum wage, but please do not show your ignorance by claiming that people choose to be free or choose to be slaves and that somehow this is in relation to whether or not they have the ability to form a capitalist government.

Yes, fine. My mistake there, I admit. But the rest of my points, I'll still hold.

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

Seriously? Assume you just lost your minimum wage job. Explain to me how you're going to relocate to another country to take a new job?[.quote]

Because you're in a country where you can relocate or take on a new job.

1. Evil company charges low, low wages. Result: Workers go to be hired in some other company.
2. Greed of company means they charge much more. Result: Consumers will just go to buy some other product. The supply and demand graph lines remain the same.

'Ideal market' arguments don't work in real-world markets.

No, your arguement does not stand because what I'm laying down here is not idealism, it is mathematics.

Horseshit. You're talking about basic principles - like supply and demand - that 'work' in ideal markets.

In real world, there isn't always real competition. So your 'math' is irrelevant, because it's based on broken data - the numbers aren't real.

[Abdju]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

The irony, it burns!!! Isn't this the exact same argument Libertarians hate so much when it comes to taxation?

In the Titanic you said there, it does not really matter how big the iceburg actually is, since without lifeboats, even a small leak will cause it to sink and everyone will die.

You just failed history.

[Iniika]

As far as your first point goes, if employers were always thinking of the bigger picture (in this case, the GNP in relation to their employee's wages) then there wouldn't be the sort of financial disasters as we have seen on the global level these past few years due to the mindset of "I'm making money, nothing else matters".

It's worse than that because it's institutionalized at this point. It's "I have to make money or I'll be fired". The person may or may not care about what happens but there is almost no wiggle room. If you can make a profit and don't your board will fire you.

If you get fired, you can always work for another company. See, that's the thing about capitalism, it is the freedom to shift to other jobs without losing out much.

Yeah, they absolutely can go work for another company. But what if all the companies are out there driving slave wages because no one is telling them they can't?

And what if there is one saintly employer that decided that the slave wages were wrong? He still wont be able to take on all the disenfranchised workers, especially when his competitors are killing him in profits while exploiting their workers. So what are all those exploited workers supposed to do? Starve? Keep searching for that one saintly company that decides to do the right thing regardless of not being able to keep up with his competitors?

[Wilgrove]

As far as your first point goes, if employers were always thinking of the bigger picture (in this case, the GNP in relation to their employee's wages) then there wouldn't be the sort of financial disasters as we have seen on the global level these past few years due to the mindset of "I'm making money, nothing else matters".

It's worse than that because it's institutionalized at this point. It's "I have to make money or I'll be fired". The person may or may not care about what happens but there is almost no wiggle room. If you can make a profit and don't your board will fire you.

If you get fired, you can always work for another company. See, that's the thing about capitalism, it is the freedom to shift to other jobs without losing out much.

Unless people aren't hiring....kinda like...well.....now.....

[Sungai Pusat]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

The irony, it burns!!! Isn't this the exact same argument Libertarians hate so much when it comes to taxation?

No, this is on a completely different topic and you bring about taxation? Just great.....

In the Titanic you said there, it does not really matter how big the iceburg actually is, since without lifeboats, even a small leak will cause it to sink and everyone will die.

You just failed history.

No, I know exactly what happened. The Titanic had left USA's shores and somewhere near the Arctic Circle, the ship met with an iceburg. In that instance, the Titanic had inadequate lifeboats. See, there's the problem: Not enough lifeboats.

[Sdaeriji]

No, your arguement does not stand because what I'm laying down here is not idealism, it is mathematics.

No, it's make believe. Your entire premise is based upon a situation that has never and will never exist in real life, ever. You're discussing the economy of the Kingdom of Daventry.

[Sith Korriban]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

...Because it costs money to move to another country, housing costs make you poor, other countries don't automatically take in just anyone... Sheesh, it's almost like the real world affects this stuff, and you can't just ignore external factors! Wow!

Let's have an example man.
Bobby Smith works for Scrooge's Penny-pinchers of Doom, and scrapes by. One day, his wife gets sick, and his money goes away in order to pay for the doctor (because this is a capitalist society with no ebil soshulist medical care). SPPOD happens to demand long hours of him.

He goes "Hmm, I should get a new job!"

...And then upon looking around finds that there are no new jobs, because companies can't just hire endless new employees, they have a finite number of places.

He goes "Hmm, I should leave this cruel country behind!"

...And then realises that he doesn't have enough money to travel anywhere else, hasn't paid the fees for the identification and other necessities, and that Country Utopius over the border already has enough people working its unskilled labour that they don't need one more. He furthermore realises that he has no qualifications, and no money to pay in his pure-capitalist society to go and get the education he needs to get qualifications.

So he keeps working, just trying to stay afloat. He works his hands to the bone. Maybe his son gets in trouble with the law as some young people do, but he hasn't the money for bail or a good lawyer. His son goes to jail. His wife thinks he should have done more.

They live in quiet misery broken by screaming arguments until their eventual deaths brought on by stress, malnutrition and other medical concerns.

Oh, what a happy ending!

[Neo Art]

In real world, there isn't always real competition. So your 'math' is irrelevant, because it's based on broken data - the numbers aren't real.

The problem with some is that they think just because they write down some shit on paper that it's suddenly "true". And worse yet the numbers don't even lead to a conclusion. It's just random shit thrown down with some baffling smugness like it's supposed to prove anything. It's monkeys on keyboards and calling in MacBeth.

My response to this poster is the same as to another who was arguing a similar "proof of math" when it came to ethics

1) A(4)
2) banana
3) Iguanas taste like purple.

Check. Mate.

[Sdaeriji]

No, I know exactly what happened. The Titanic had left USA's shores and somewhere near the Arctic Circle, the ship met with an iceburg. In that instance, the Titanic had inadequate lifeboats. See, there's the problem: Not enough lifeboats.

Poe. We're done here.

[Sibirsky]

$4 is what makes the corporatist pricks happy and forces everyone else to starve.

Very rude language u Communist degenerate.

Its not rude to speak the truth. Could you survive on $160 a week? Its hard enough on the current amount.

Most people getting minimum wage are high school students. That's gas, cigarette, beer, weed and god knows what else money. They aren't paying rent. They aren't paying for most of their food. They aren't paying for healthcare...

If my income went to the above, and nothing else, $160/week would be adequate.

[Wilgrove]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

The irony, it burns!!! Isn't this the exact same argument Libertarians hate so much when it comes to taxation?

No, this is on a completely different topic and you bring about taxation? Just great.....

In the Titanic you said there, it does not really matter how big the iceburg actually is, since without lifeboats, even a small leak will cause it to sink and everyone will die.

You just failed history.

No, I know exactly what happened. The Titanic had left USA's shores and somewhere near the Arctic Circle, the ship met with an iceburg. In that instance, the Titanic had inadequate lifeboats. See, there's the problem: Not enough lifeboats.

Really? really?!

[Neo Art]

You're discussing the economy of the Kingdom of Daventry.

I love you not only for the reference, but the fact that it's a double plus good reference for the fact that Daventry had a chest that was always filled with gold.

[Sungai Pusat]

...Because it costs money to move to another country, housing costs make you poor, other countries don't automatically take in just anyone... Sheesh, it's almost like the real world affects this stuff, and you can't just ignore external factors! Wow!

Let's have an example man.
Bobby Smith works for Scrooge's Penny-pinchers of Doom, and scrapes by. One day, his wife gets sick, and his money goes away in order to pay for the doctor (because this is a capitalist society with no ebil soshulist medical care). SPPOD happens to demand long hours of him.

Yeah, what you're saying is that that doctor is the only one in the whole country. Oh what ignorance! Haven't you seen about competition?

He goes "Hmm, I should get a new job!"

...And then upon looking around finds that there are no new jobs, because companies can't just hire endless new employees, they have a finite number of places.

No, your arguement is completely useless because once companies want to expand, they'll always have a spot that'll attract Bobby since they want to attract him with offers better han his previous job. They can bargain.

He goes "Hmm, I should leave this cruel country behind!"

...And then realises that he doesn't have enough money to travel anywhere else, hasn't paid the fees for the identification and other necessities, and that Country Utopius over the border already has enough people working its unskilled labour that they don't need one more. He furthermore realises that he has no qualifications, and no money to pay in his pure-capitalist society to go and get the education he needs to get qualifications.

Yeah, you're basing your arguement on just buying a ticket and just going there? Do you think that's the only option he can take?

So he keeps working, just trying to stay afloat. He works his hands to the bone. Maybe his son gets in trouble with the law as some young people do, but he hasn't the money for bail or a good lawyer. His son goes to jail. His wife thinks he should have done more.

See, your arguement's useless when you said about how healthcare's gonna be terribly expensive thanks to capitalism and when you're talking about how the company can just charge you low wages and get away with ti simply becuase they can so, they're like God etc.

They live in quiet misery broken by screaming arguments until their eventual deaths brought on by stress, malnutrition and other medical concerns.

Oh, what a happy ending!

Your arguement is a terrible one. I'd only give a 5/10, and that's all for trying!

[Grave_n_idle]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

...Because it costs money to move to another country, housing costs make you poor, other countries don't automatically take in just anyone... Sheesh, it's almost like the real world affects this stuff, and you can't just ignore external factors! Wow!

Let's have an example man.
Bobby Smith works for Scrooge's Penny-pinchers of Doom, and scrapes by. One day, his wife gets sick, and his money goes away in order to pay for the doctor (because this is a capitalist society with no ebil soshulist medical care). SPPOD happens to demand long hours of him.

He goes "Hmm, I should get a new job!"

...And then upon looking around finds that there are no new jobs, because companies can't just hire endless new employees, they have a finite number of places.

He goes "Hmm, I should leave this cruel country behind!"

...And then realises that he doesn't have enough money to travel anywhere else, hasn't paid the fees for the identification and other necessities, and that Country Utopius over the border already has enough people working its unskilled labour that they don't need one more. He furthermore realises that he has no qualifications, and no money to pay in his pure-capitalist society to go and get the education he needs to get qualifications.

So he keeps working, just trying to stay afloat. He works his hands to the bone. Maybe his son gets in trouble with the law as some young people do, but he hasn't the money for bail or a good lawyer. His son goes to jail. His wife thinks he should have done more.

They live in quiet misery broken by screaming arguments until their eventual deaths brought on by stress, malnutrition and other medical concerns.

Oh, what a happy ending!

You act so sweet, which is why it's always such a pleasure to watch when you bring the pain.

[Abdju]

See, you're talking about housing costs, correct? Well, if the companies are that greedy that they give lower than the cost of living, then why not the people just move to another country?

The irony, it burns!!! Isn't this the exact same argument Libertarians hate so much when it comes to taxation?

No, this is on a completely different topic and you bring about taxation? Just great.....

I'm pointing the irony that die-hard libertarians say workers should move to a new country to avoid being allegedly exploitative financial arrangements, whilst they also start to cry when their intellectual opponents say they should move to a new country to avoid allegedly exploitative financial arrangements. Can't you see you are telling people to they can do the same thing you claim you is unfair/wrong/difficult?

No, I know exactly what happened. The Titanic had left USA's shores and somewhere near the Arctic Circle, the ship met with an iceburg. In that instance, the Titanic had inadequate lifeboats. See, there's the problem: Not enough lifeboats.

Is that so? And a smaller penetration of the hull would have led to the same disaster, right? OK... fair enough.... Clearly, your understanding of history is far in advance of fact

[Intangelon]

Now, lets see how taking away the minimum wage can help. By this time, all the adults will be able to be employed since the companies can now afford.

So, removing the min wage results in zero unemployment UK had no minimum wage until 1999. Therefore, the UK had zero unemployment before 1999.

No, this is only a hypothetical scenerio. If we only had minimum wage and removed that, then the unemployment will come down to zero. If there're other regulations that cost as well, then the unemployment will still be up to a certain degree. But yes, minimum wage removal will pretty much get a lot of businesses that would not be able to succeed with the minimum age succeed withut it. And I'm talking about the little guys, not the big companies.

"Other regulations"? Like weekends?

Your entire demeanor smacks of someone who's just read something for the first time that lit you up about this idea. There's no zealot like a new zealot, is there? Unfortunately, a new, basic "understanding" of an issue is often far too simplistic and ignores nuance, detail and...well...reality.

Your supposition that removing the minimum wage will somehow increase employment because corporations -- out of the goodness of their little, black, money-loving hearts, I presume -- will hire more people. At what? A lower wage. As low, in fact, as they can possibly get away with and still draw applicants. Poof -- you've just eliminated the middle class and further stratified the country via a class gap that's even wider than it already is now.

Your position forgets something very important: a company's job is to please its shareholders and make money for itself and those who have invested in it. Well, that takes care of the upper 5-10%. If they can get away with anything from tax loopholes to offshore headquarters to evade justified taxes to pittance wages, THEY WILL, with VERY few exceptions.

Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

[Grave_n_idle]

In real world, there isn't always real competition. So your 'math' is irrelevant, because it's based on broken data - the numbers aren't real.

The problem with some is that they think just because they write down some shit on paper that it's suddenly "true". And worse yet the numbers don't even lead to a conclusion. It's just random shit thrown down with some baffling smugness like it's supposed to prove anything. It's monkeys on keyboards and calling in MacBeth.

My response to this poster is the same as to another who was arguing a similar "proof of math" when it came to ethics

1) A(4)
2) banana
3) Iguanas taste like purple.

Check. Mate.

Hey man, don't be dissing on Monkey Macbeth, it won Best Simian Screenplay at last years academy awards, and that's not one of the ones you get a Gold Banana for for flashy special effects.

But, you're spot on. It's flawed-assumption logic.

A: "Let's assume the moon is made of cheese. Okay, we take rockets there, we harvest the cheese, and we feed all the hungry people. I have now proved that world hunger doesn't exist"

B: "Um, sure... if the assumption was true, which you haven't proved".

A: "Don't you understand basic math? All that cheese? Duh!"

[Sibirsky]

Feel free to take a job at $1/hour, see how that works for you.

Hey, we all know how happy and prosperous those sweatshop workers in China and India are! Why they're just rolling in dough! They're not worked to death for very little, nope, not at all!

They're rolling in enough dough to save 40-50% of it.