Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[The Black Forrest]

If I were a business owner and I could hire people for a dollar a day, I would like to hire more produce more and sell for less, I would like to dominate the market and everything will take to compete with me. Not only regulations, but the spirit of business owners.

When you lower the cost of living to support a dollar an hour; then I will believe you......

[Terra Agora]

This has nothing to do with anarchism...

When you make extravagant claims, I think I'm entitled to using my own strawmen.

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

[Keronians]

If I were a business owner and I could hire people for a dollar a day, I would like to hire more produce more and sell for less, I would like to dominate the market and everything will take to compete with me. Not only regulations, but the spirit of business owners.

So, you admit that you would pay people absolutely shit?

Of course. Gotta edge the competition.

That is how successful empires are made. The ones with excessive morals and ethics get left behind.

[Libertarian Mesa]

If I were a business owner and I could hire people for a dollar a day, I would like to hire more produce more and sell for less, I would like to dominate the market and everything will take to compete with me. Not only regulations, but the spirit of business owners.

So, you admit that you would pay people absolutely shit?

If it were legal, yes. See what you can say for others who have to compete?

[Greater Cabinda]

So, you admit that you would pay people absolutely shit?

If it were legal, yes. See what you can say for others who have to compete?

So, you just proved that free-markets lead to monopoly.

Thanks. At least you admit it.

[Moral Libertarians]

Indeed. Tariffs are what we need. Without them, more and more jobs will just be sent overseas.

Where the workers are more efficient. Tariffs distort trade, by stopping resources from being used where they can produce the most goods for the lowest cost, and therefore lower global economic welfare (essentially the volume of goods and services produced). America, Britain and other western economies (barring Germany) have lost manufacturing jobs because they are not as good at them for the wages they earn. They just need to specialise in doing something else that they do have a cost advantage in. Trying to protect old, wasteful industries with protectionist measures is a self-defeating process, as other countries will likely impose tariffs of their own on your exports.
That is capitalism.

[Keronians]

If it were legal, yes. See what you can say for others who have to compete?

So, you just proved that free-markets lead to monopoly.

Thanks. At least you admit it.

Ehm, not exactly. They certainly can, but then, they could end up in excessive competition.

[Libertarian Mesa]

If it were legal, yes. See what you can say for others who have to compete?

So, you just proved that free-markets lead to monopoly.

Thanks. At least you admit it.

I admitted no such thing. Quite the contrary, companies should compete. A fierce battle of wits like the Quiet Man arise in such a battle of economic ingenuity.

[The Merchant Republics]

How so?

It's a matter of logical. Right now the vast majority of Americans earn far above the minimum wage. If that is understood then it must hold true that lowering the minimum wage for those people would not effect them at all. If you are working for a bank for $18/h then minimum wage being lowered from (a hypothetical) $7/h wouldn't lower your wage in kind. You've already signed a contract to work for $18/h and if we understand the relationship between an employer and employee as one were both sides seek maximum utility for minimum price, then we must conclude that the banker was hired because he was worth $18/h and that no one else applied who would provide comparable service and could be employed for less.

If that is true than the reduction of minimum wage will not have effect on the banker's wage. This process may repeated for anyone currently employed at above minimum wage. The only people who would be effected are the people currently kept out of the market by the minimum wage.

Apply this to another commodity other than labour and you'll see how this is the same, if Gold were to have a price floor of $7 that would not mean that lowering the price floor would lower the price of gold. The price of gold like the price of (skilled) labour is already well above the minimum and an elimination of the price floor will not have any effect in lowering it.

It doesn't directly lower your wage, but it lowers the wage for somebody else, which lowers the wage for people in similar industries earning a similar wage, which lowers wages for those around them, etc etc until all wages are lowered. You may have a contract for a particular wage, but that doesn't mean that somebody else can't come in who will work for less, and contracts aren't generally permanent anyway. The person worth $18 in your example may well be worth $18 given a set value for the currency, but when the value of that currency increases, that person may no longer be worth that wage.

It won't directly reduce wages in all industries, but the economy is totally interconnected. Lowering wages in one industry will eventually catch up to other industries.

See, but that was a single example applied wide to the economy. The average person will not and should not work for less than he is currently earning so long as he is productive. It doesn't make economic sense.

The only people willing to work for less are those currently outside of the market, a minority of the workforce whom should they become employed at less than minimum wage would only effect those currently vying for those same less than minimum wage jobs.

Your applying a slippery slope fallacy, but there isn't one. The minimum wage has no correlation with the average wage. In times before minimum wage people we're not employed for nothing, if we understand that to be true then we must accept that lowering the minimum wage does not necessarily lower the average wage.

[The Black Forrest]

When you make extravagant claims, I think I'm entitled to using my own strawmen.

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

Not valid; there will always be governments.

[Keronians]

When you make extravagant claims, I think I'm entitled to using my own strawmen.

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

Anarchism is an impossible dream.

Not so much in the early 20th century, though, I admit.

[Moral Libertarians]

If I were a business owner and I could hire people for a dollar a day, I would like to hire more produce more and sell for less, I would like to dominate the market and everything will take to compete with me. Not only regulations, but the spirit of business owners.

But you can't produce more. Your skilled workers will leave for better paying jobs, and you will have to employ people without those skills who are willing to work for this money as they cannot get a higher-wage job. You'll no doubt end up spending the same or more on labour costs as you have to employ more people. Businesses in the real world pay different workers different wages because some workers have more and better skills than others.
In simple terms: you get what you pay for.

[The Black Forrest]

So, you just proved that free-markets lead to monopoly.

Thanks. At least you admit it.

Ehm, not exactly. They certainly can, but then, they could end up in excessive competition.

Not when you have the existing powerhouses stomping them out or keeping them small.

[Terra Agora]

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

Not valid; there will always be governments.

lol
Someone doesn't know what a broken window fallacy is...

And no... You are in no position to make such a ridiculous claim...

[Terra Agora]

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

Anarchism is an impossible dream.

Not so much in the early 20th century, though, I admit.

And again anarchism is quite irrelevant.

[Hydesland]

When you make extravagant claims, I think I'm entitled to using my own strawmen.

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

The broken window fallacy is a fallacy.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... _wind.html

[Robert Magoo]

If I were a business owner and I could hire people for a dollar a day, I would like to hire more produce more and sell for less, I would like to dominate the market and everything will take to compete with me. Not only regulations, but the spirit of business owners.

When you lower the cost of living to support a dollar an hour; then I will believe you......

The cost of living is what it is because of wages. The two are totally connected.

[Terra Agora]

Yeah no...
Its quite simple really. Like I said its a broken window fallacy.

The broken window fallacy is a fallacy.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... _wind.html

Read the comments buddy.

[The Black Forrest]

When you lower the cost of living to support a dollar an hour; then I will believe you......

The cost of living is what it is because of wages. The two are totally connected.

Ok. You are now making a $1 an hour; where you going to live and how are you going to eat?

[Robert Magoo]

It doesn't directly lower your wage, but it lowers the wage for somebody else, which lowers the wage for people in similar industries earning a similar wage, which lowers wages for those around them, etc etc until all wages are lowered. You may have a contract for a particular wage, but that doesn't mean that somebody else can't come in who will work for less, and contracts aren't generally permanent anyway. The person worth $18 in your example may well be worth $18 given a set value for the currency, but when the value of that currency increases, that person may no longer be worth that wage.

It won't directly reduce wages in all industries, but the economy is totally interconnected. Lowering wages in one industry will eventually catch up to other industries.

See, but that was a single example applied wide to the economy. The average person will not and should not work for less than he is currently earning so long as he is productive. It doesn't make economic sense.

The only people willing to work for less are those currently outside of the market, a minority of the workforce whom should they become employed at less than minimum wage would only effect those currently vying for those same less than minimum wage jobs.

Your applying a slippery slope fallacy, but there isn't one. The minimum wage has no correlation with the average wage. In times before minimum wage people we're not employed for nothing, if we understand that to be true then we must accept that lowering the minimum wage does not necessarily lower the average wage.

It won't necessarily reduce value. People can be paid less while effectively earning more, because the currency is stronger. Eliminating minimum wage is a good idea, I'm in agreement with you there.

[Robert Magoo]

The cost of living is what it is because of wages. The two are totally connected.

Ok. You are now making a $1 an hour; where you going to live and how are you going to eat?

Assuming others are making less too, my living quarters and food will cost less.

[Keronians]

The cost of living is what it is because of wages. The two are totally connected.

Ok. You are now making a $1 an hour; where you going to live and how are you going to eat?

Meh. There'd probably be deflation if that occurred, in which case, prices would also be lower.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

No. Nothing we can do will match the third world without us actually, uh, becoming the third world. The solution is to stop courting corporations(which make up ~30% of our jobs,) and start taking care of small businesses. This will never happen because of congress being spineless sacks of shit with no integrity.

[Keronians]

No. Nothing we can do will match the third world without us actually, uh, becoming the third world. The solution is to stop courting corporations(which make up ~30% of our jobs,) and start taking care of small businesses. This will never happen because of congress being spineless sacks of shit with no integrity.

It's more along the line of campaign donations.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

The only way to maintain high real wages (and the correspondingly high standard of living) is via productivity. Pretty much the only answer to the dilemma that doesn't rely on falling living standards is to keep American productivity high when compared to that of foreign workers.

One big problem with trying to stop outsourcing is that if you succeed, all prices go up. And because of how economics works, even if you assume an increase in real wages, the overall standard of living would go down.