Advertisement

by The Left-Libertarian Hippies » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:29 pm

by Rainbows and Rivers » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:29 pm
by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:30 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Distruzio wrote:
No they don't. Being employed by the gov't is tantamount to being unemployed.
Sorry but your argument would have credibility if the need for governments would end.
They have functions like a company and create jobs to work those functions.
They also create jobs in other sectors. Aero-defense. The space program. The science foundation........
Suggesting it's the same as being unemployed well that's only worth a

by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:31 pm

by Orsalia » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:33 pm
Moral Libertarians wrote:Keronians wrote:
How about floating their currency?
Though I do love me a good out of the box thinking.
America could just nuke China... because quite clearly, if they're stealing American jobs, then if you kill them all, America will have jobs YAY!
Some people just don't get it.
Conserative Morality wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:Don't worry, when I'm famous, I'll let all of you know. :p
Twenty years later...
B&C: "Hey General, I'm Secretary General of the UN! Muhahahaha!"
New Poster: "You're the what of the who?"
Old Poster: "Aww. Buffy thinks he's an adult. *ruffles hair*"
CM: "I thought you were going to be someone important."
by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:34 pm
Robert Magoo wrote:The Merchant Republics wrote: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.

by The Left-Libertarian Hippies » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:36 pm

by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:38 pm
Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:congress being spineless sacks of shit with no integrity.

by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:41 pm

by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:42 pm


by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:43 pm
by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:43 pm
Rainbows and Rivers wrote:Wienholdland wrote:By starting a company... If there weren't endless amounts of regulations and taxes it wouldn't be so hard. Then if people become dissatisfied with Disney, they are free to pick an alternative.
What regulations are stopping you from starting a company competing with Disney?

by The Left-Libertarian Hippies » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:43 pm

by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:44 pm
Zhou Renmin Pingdang wrote:KEEP THE JOBS HERE

by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:45 pm
The Left-Libertarian Hippies wrote:Im not that paranoid...to have...backup plans...even though things dont look so hot (economically and politically).


by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:45 pm
by Sibirsky » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:46 pm

by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:46 pm

by Rainbows and Rivers » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:47 pm

by Wienholdland » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:47 pm

by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:48 pm

by Brandenburg-Altmark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:48 pm

by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:48 pm

by Wienholdland » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:49 pm
Anyone selling blank DVDs as movies isn't going to stay in business for very long.

by UCUMAY » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:49 pm
Brandenburg-Altmark wrote:UCUMAY wrote:They will get them back at lower pay...
Roger Smith & al shipped the jobs to Mexico purely for additional profit. GM was posting record profits through the early 80s before they decided to shut down their factories and reopen them across the border. The funny part is they were rewarded for leaving hundreds of thousands of people homeless with more government contracts thanks to our great saviour Ronald Reagan.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Achan, Bienenhalde, Breizh-Veur, Dimetrodon Empire, Emotional Support Crocodile, Galloism, Kandorith, Ostroeuropa, Page, Reich of the New World Order, Tarsonis
Advertisement