Why the minimum wage cannot help.

[Abdju]

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.

Yay slavery!

Is there a point you're trying to make? Because you're failing to do it.

It was only a matter of time till someone tried to defend sweatshops a a superior example of production practise. The dubious honour, in this case, was yours.

Certainly superior to the alternative. The dubious claims are yours. Slave labor cannot save 30-40% of their income.

I thought it was 40-50%, re: your earlier post...

[General Elections]

In general market theory, equilibrium means people who are willing to sell a good for price x is equal to people who are willing to buy the same good at price x. If you project this onto the labor "market", this means that (numbers from your example) the people who want to work for $4 is equal to the number of people industry wants to employ for $4. This is not the same as everyone having work: you could see that if you had put numbers on the axes: horizontally the amount of people, vertically the salary (always put units on axes in a graph!). Now if you have one product, people can choose not to buy that product. However, people cannot choose not to have an income. A simple supply/demand model can only be applied if there's a choice to opt out, e.g. for a single good, or a single type of job. If you want more plumbers, you can try to raise the salary to attract more people willing do that job instead of doing something else (note that this doesn't say anything about how effective an increase in salary is).
I'm not an expert, but I'm fairly sure that you cannot apply this model to macro-economical quantities as there's no sense of competition.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Yay slavery!

Is there a point you're trying to make? Because you're failing to do it.

It was only a matter of time till someone tried to defend sweatshops a a superior example of production practise. The dubious honour, in this case, was yours.

Certainly superior to the alternative.

The alternative... you mean 'being paid a minimum wage, and not being compelled into slave labour conditions'?

[Jervak]

I think wage barriers in current countries won't really accomplish anything besides reducing competition between capitalists (increased barrier to entry) and concentrate the power to fewer capitalists and the state.

Of course, there's the workers, who desperately need more money under this system to survive, but I would prefer them getting higher wages through counter-economics than state benefits which might end up doing more harm than good.

[Mikedor]

Wow - I've read some bullshit in my time, but this could take this week's prize as the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Fine.....
Just explain why!

Because unless you want a country full of sweatshops, you need some form of minimum wage.

Explain to me how in a country with an average income of $20+/hr, removing a minimum wage of $7.25 would cause everyone's wages to drop. And cause all jobs to magically transform into sweatshop jobs.

Don't you think the minimum wage contributes towards the average income? And mean isn't that useful, in a situation like this mode is called for.
The mean wage of two people could be $100, if one earns $5 and the other $195, for instance.

[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.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

[Qwcasd]

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.

I have seen you say that before. I want a source.

Here

After going through a few links, I saw 30%-50%, and that was total national savings, that wasn't the savings rate. And I would contend that is more of a cultural thing, and less of an economic thing. Chinese people hardly ever buy a house with mortgage, most save until they have enough dosh to buy the house all at once, and while they wait, live with their parents.
And I was never arguing that the Chinese were underpaid, (most of them, and that is not to say that there isn't a lot of deplorable things happening in China, civil and economically) considering there is a shortage of labour.

[Sith Korriban]

if you're bitten by a snake or chop your fucking arm off in an accident, you sort of want to survive, and that entails going to the closest doctor, not walking for five hours to find another one.

It doesn't even have to be such obscure injuries. If you get hurt in a car accident or have a heart attack, both things that literally happen to thousands of people every day, you don't really have the luxury of shopping around for a hospital, or even negotiating a rate with the closest hospital.

Exactly. But then, I live half an hour out of what isn't a big city and doesn't have multiple hospitals. Plus it's Australia, Land of Poison. My examples tend to lie that way.

But yeah, snake, spider, heart attack, car accident, "my baby swallowed something he shouldn't, please save him!"...

If you're not living in a big city you just want to get to medical help at all in time regardless of the rest, and even if you are, you don't have time when you might be about to die.

[Grave_n_idle]

$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.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Not if it won't feed you (and your family, if you have one).

Jeez. The sooner you people get into the real world, the sooner we can have real debates on NSG.

[Sibirsky]

Wow - I've read some bullshit in my time, but this could take this week's prize as the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Fine.....
Just explain why!

Because unless you want a country full of sweatshops, you need some form of minimum wage.

Explain to me how in a country with an average income of $20+/hr, removing a minimum wage of $7.25 would cause everyone's wages to drop. And cause all jobs to magically transform into sweatshop jobs.

Are you arguing that supply and demand are not valid in the real world?

I'm arguing that if supply and demand drive wages up to $20/hr, removing a $7.25 floor for them will not cause most of them to drop.

Which is hilarious. If supply and demand can drive wages up, and costs down - then they can also drive costs up, and wages down. Unless you regulate how far 'down' the wages can go.

If you had even the most basic understanding of economics, you'd never have said anything as mindnumbingly nonsensical as: "Explain to me how in a country with an average income of $20+/hr, removing a minimum wage of $7.25 would cause everyone's wages to drop".

And yet you keep acting like you almost know what you're talking about on this subject. I'm embarrassed for you.

Excellent explanation.

[Inherentjoydom]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

[Abdju]

$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.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

Yes, because removing the minimum wage will give us zero unemployment, just like it was before the minimum wage was brought in, right?

[Jervak]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

Hey? Which socialist is in power to do this?

[Sibirsky]

if you're bitten by a snake or chop your fucking arm off in an accident, you sort of want to survive, and that entails going to the closest doctor, not walking for five hours to find another one.

It doesn't even have to be such obscure injuries. If you get hurt in a car accident or have a heart attack, both things that literally happen to thousands of people every day, you don't really have the luxury of shopping around for a hospital, or even negotiating a rate with the closest hospital.

You shop around for insurance prior to needed to use it.

[Inherentjoydom]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

Hey? Which socialist is in power to do this?

The point is that if it was 20 bucks an hour the ecomomy won't function?

[Grave_n_idle]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

It's not a matter of 'loving' the minimum wage (or even, of being a socialist - so, 0 for 2 so far) - it's a matter of whether you feel like it's productive to have a workforce that can't afford to eat.

[The Archregimancy]

$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.

Most are young That doesn't mean they are high school students, or that they are even going to school.

More than half are high school students if I remember correctly. Either way, you're talking about less than 2% of the population. Minimum wage limits opportunity at low wages now, and possible opportunity for higher wages later.

The stuff I have read just has said they are young, and most haven't been to College, but whatever. And, yes it doe only concern 2% of the population, but those 2% are lowest wage earners, and arguably the most vulnerable. I can hardly see how it limits opportunity, but I can see how it decreases poverty.

A low paying job, with hands on experience is better than an unemployment check.

So you would content that the minimum wage increases unemployment? That is arguable, and even if it was true, and would contend that it is better to have a lower poverty rate and high unemployment, then to have a lower unemployment rate, but have loads of people employed for less then subsistence wages.

[Grave_n_idle]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

Hey? Which socialist is in power to do this?

The point is that if it was 20 bucks an hour the ecomomy won't function?

Of course it would, it would just adjust.

[Intangelon]

You're right about the part that I'm not an adult, you're wrong about the part that the energy and time and so on. You can walk, can you? Even if you can't walk, you can always get others to, correct?

Ever broken a leg, hip or ankle? Also pretty hard to walk with any ailment that affects breathing or circulation. Now that you've admitted that you don't know anything about reality yet (being a kid), I can go easier on you for acting like a presumptuous, uneducated, unrealistic, snotty know-it-all. Hopefully that phase will pass, because it will make you insufferable if it doesn't, believe me.

If they do get a decent wage, what happens then? Can you explain? And no, economies grow not because of lots of spending, they grow because of savings.

Uh...if they get a decent wage, they just might...I don't know...SPEND it on stuff that companies make, thereby increasing demand. A good thing. See, there's a correlation between HAVING money and BUYING something with it, and NOT having money and NOT buying something with it.

I already said it: That guy can jup the border if they wanted to, there's nothing forcing them not to.

Yeah, it was nonsense the first time and it's still nonsense. "Nothing?" Like borders, guards, security, possible harsh conditions due to geography like deserts, rivers or seas to cross. Can you not see that you're actually advocating workers LEAVING YOUR COUNTRY and turning your own nation into one completely composed of slave wage earners and CEOs? Seriously, who will be left to work if nobody can afford to live on the pittance your corporations are offering? You speak of leaving a nation like it was something easy to do. Well, let's say it's Iceland. Pretty hard to just swim to Canada.

I've got no need to talk about that arguement because the rest of the passages already refutes his argument.

I hate to break it to you, but no, they really don't. Your strongest refutation so far has been to insult the cognitive abilities of all of us who are trying to wrap our minds around your solipsistic and utterly fictional nonsense. If you can't back up your own BS with anything but "you're wrong", then you need to address those two words to a mirror. Lower your voice and strengthen your argument. Otherwise, you're just talking in childish circles.

I've already did, like I've already explained. Please see the top parts of the passages. You might understnad where I'm trying to point by then.

You're pointing to absolutely nothing but what you've already said, over and over again, which has been REPEATEDLY shown to be complete garbage and utterly devoid of anything even REMOTELY resembling a coherent argument.

You have a nice adolescence, sonny. I'm done with you.

[Inherentjoydom]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

It's not a matter of 'loving' the minimum wage (or even, of being a socialist - so, 0 for 2 so far) - it's a matter of whether you feel like it's productive to have a workforce that can't afford to eat.

Peolple could afford to eat.

[Neo Art]

if you're bitten by a snake or chop your fucking arm off in an accident, you sort of want to survive, and that entails going to the closest doctor, not walking for five hours to find another one.

It doesn't even have to be such obscure injuries. If you get hurt in a car accident or have a heart attack, both things that literally happen to thousands of people every day, you don't really have the luxury of shopping around for a hospital, or even negotiating a rate with the closest hospital.

I'm going to have a moment of open honesty here. I have cancer. Or, more likely, had. It's probably been cut out by now.

Prior to my surgery, 2 weeks ago, I was on a drug, imatinib, marketed in the US as gleevec. The maker hold a patent on it. There is ONE manufacturer. One. No negotiation, no shopping around, no looking for the best price. If I want the drug, I pay the cost.

I have good insurance. I thankfully paid $25 a month. I took 60 pills a month for 9 months. that's 540 pills. I paid $225 for my full course of treatment. Without insurance, Imatinib costs $130 a pill.

No, that's not a typo. Not "a month", not even "a day". A pill. 540 pills. $130 a pill. Without insurance, that drug would have cost me seventy THOUSAND dollars in 9 months.

Where, exactly, am I supposed to go if I can't afford that?

[The Archregimancy]

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.

Yay slavery!

Is there a point you're trying to make? Because you're failing to do it.

It was only a matter of time till someone tried to defend sweatshops a a superior example of production practise. The dubious honour, in this case, was yours.

Certainly superior to the alternative.

The alternative... you mean 'being paid a minimum wage, and not being compelled into slave labour conditions'?

Oh they have that option in China? For the masses? News to me.

[Grave_n_idle]

If u socialists love the minimum wage so much why not make it 20 dollars an hour?

It's not a matter of 'loving' the minimum wage (or even, of being a socialist - so, 0 for 2 so far) - it's a matter of whether you feel like it's productive to have a workforce that can't afford to eat.

Peolple could afford to eat.

God would find a way?

That's what you're giving me - theology. "People could afford to eat" isn't based on anything but your wish that it be so.

[Inherentjoydom]

I'm 11 fyi and i'm who u r attmepting without success to beat in a depate

[Sibirsky]

Wow - I've read some bullshit in my time, but this could take this week's prize as the dumbest thing I've read all week.

Fine.....
Just explain why!

Because unless you want a country full of sweatshops, you need some form of minimum wage.

Explain to me how in a country with an average income of $20+/hr, removing a minimum wage of $7.25 would cause everyone's wages to drop. And cause all jobs to magically transform into sweatshop jobs.

Don't you think the minimum wage contributes towards the average income? And mean isn't that useful, in a situation like this mode is called for.
The mean wage of two people could be $100, if one earns $5 and the other $195, for instance.

Obviously minimum wage earners are also included in the average of all earners. All 2% of them.