Hey, politicians! Want to create jobs!

[Sibirsky]

No. Joe is such a good guy, he is going to pay his employer $2.50/hr for the job.

IOW, wtf are you talking about?

You and your ilk talk about wage reductions and how productivity will be better?

I'm still trying to see how that will happen.....

You can link to me saying productivity will improve, right?

You and your ilk? What the fuck does that mean?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Depending on the proportion of Joes to Jameses in the economy, this might be a net positive outcome.

It is never a net positive. Attempting to control the market has never worked.

Depends. It's almost certainly never increased efficiency, but it's sometimes achieved other goals at the sacrifice of some efficiency. One good example is that of safety regulations which, while creating costs for companies, ensure that workers have a safe working environment.

Minimum wage laws can likewise be beneficial, provided you're willing to lose some market efficiency.

[Sibirsky]

It is never a net positive. Attempting to control the market has never worked.

Depends. It's almost certainly never increased efficiency, but it's sometimes achieved other goals at the sacrifice of some efficiency. One good example is that of safety regulations which, while creating costs for companies, ensure that workers have a safe working environment.

Minimum wage laws can likewise be beneficial, provided you're willing to lose some market efficiency.

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.


Minimum wage is only beneficial to those that are not laid off. It is never a net positive. It also creates negative long term effects to those laid off.

[Maurepas]

There were other factors in the Great Depression, and I don't think such a system has ever been done before, and certainly not in a country with the dominance America has in the Consumer market.

Not to mention, I think a few 'ups and downs' are good for a healthy economy. We keep bailing ours out(rather than say, bailing the workers out like in the Depression) and I believe its a factor in our stagnation. Sometimes you need to bottom out so you can continue building back up.

Europe put up its own trade barriers in response. Your international trade went down to $3 billion in the 1929. America used to make up with exports when its domestic demand slowed, but here, it couldn't because:

a) Its goods were more expensive
b) People couldn't afford them, even though they were cheap, because they didn't have money (post-war Europe)

Yeah but things are different now. Now we're the importers, and it's everyone else that has to export to us or face loss of profit.

I'm simply suggesting we use this to our advantage. Currently we do not, we let a few wealthy entities reap the benefits at our expense, and to even their future loss if the rate of loss on our end keeps up. When noone has extra money to blow on cars, apple products, and the like, even those wealthy few will fall.

We need to use our Consumer Economy while we still have it.

[Moral Libertarians]

Yeah but things are different now. Now we're the importers, and it's everyone else that has to export to us or face loss of profit.I'm simply suggesting we use this to our advantage. Currently we do not, we let a few wealthy entities reap the benefits at our expense, and to even their future loss if the rate of loss on our end keeps up. When noone has extra money to blow on cars, apple products, and the like, even those wealthy few will fall.We need to use our Consumer Economy while we still have it.

How can a consumer economy, especially America's, be used as a weapon? That would entail getting everyone to stop buying X product or start buying Y product. You can't possibly get this level of coordination between all or most consumers; they are not a single functional group. If you somehow force retailers to import products from one country rather than another, then by definition those goods will be more expensive, so prices will rise. The consumers will simply buy from other businesses that do sell the original country's products.

[Nulono]

Yeah, great idea! Then we could also lower our regulations to their levels. We saw how well that turned out in the Industrial Revolution, with workers losing fingers, rat feces in our food, and toxic waste dumping in our rivers.

[Trotskylvania]

Depends. It's almost certainly never increased efficiency, but it's sometimes achieved other goals at the sacrifice of some efficiency. One good example is that of safety regulations which, while creating costs for companies, ensure that workers have a safe working environment.

Minimum wage laws can likewise be beneficial, provided you're willing to lose some market efficiency.

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.


Minimum wage is only beneficial to those that are not laid off. It is never a net positive. It also creates negative long term effects to those laid off.

OSHA wasn't the first workplace safety law

[Keronians]

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.

Huh?

I don't see how asking them to create fair competition is so unreasonable. Their currency is ridiculously undervalued.

[Sibirsky]

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.


Minimum wage is only beneficial to those that are not laid off. It is never a net positive. It also creates negative long term effects to those laid off.

OSHA wasn't the first workplace safety law

Did I claim it was?

I used it as an example. Nothing more.

[Sibirsky]

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.

Huh?

I don't see how asking them to create fair competition is so unreasonable. Their currency is ridiculously undervalued.

So let them. They're subsidizing our lifestyle at the expense of their own.

[Greater Cabinda]

Huh?

I don't see how asking them to create fair competition is so unreasonable. Their currency is ridiculously undervalued.

So let them. They're subsidizing our lifestyle at the expense of their own.

And at the expense of the middle class.

[Sibirsky]

So let them. They're subsidizing our lifestyle at the expense of their own.

And at the expense of the middle class.

The Chinese middle class. It's to the benefit of the American middle class.

[Greater Cabinda]

And at the expense of the middle class.

The Chinese middle class. It's to the benefit of the American middle class.

Then why is the American middle class shrinking?

[Sibirsky]

The Chinese middle class. It's to the benefit of the American middle class.

Then why is the American middle class shrinking?

Because we just went through a global financial crisis.

[Greater Cabinda]

Then why is the American middle class shrinking?

Because we just went through a global financial crisis.

Yes. And how does the lack of manufacturing jobs contribute to the middle class's growth?

[Sibirsky]

Because we just went through a global financial crisis.

Yes. And how does the lack of manufacturing jobs contribute to the middle class's growth?

We're a service economy now. We're still the world's 2nd biggest manufacturer. Our middle class is not made up of factory employees anymore. These are office employees.

[Risottia]

If the labor is cheap there, then the minimum wage should be reduced here.

Basically, you support inflation.

And what would happen to the internal market, to the living standards of the vast majority of the population, to the imports of raw material (and to the transformation industry)?
EVEN IF the situation were to settle back to something acceptable, it would take a LOT of time. And of suffering. Expecially from the lower-income workers.

[Trotskylvania]

OSHA wasn't the first workplace safety law

Did I claim it was?

I used it as an example. Nothing more.

You said:

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.

[New new nebraska]

Americans might take issue with things like liing in complete poverty because you work for less than a dollar a day. I thought we closed that chapter in our history with the progressive era. A regressive era of barely livable wages and child labor soul be just that: regressive and unproductive. Not to mention immoral as wages that low are practically slave labor.

[Moral Libertarians]

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.

Huh?

I don't see how asking them to create fair competition is so unreasonable. Their currency is ridiculously undervalued.

Whoops... A bit of misunderstanding here. I completely agree with you, I was just poking fun at the other guy's post.

[Abdju]

What about care for the children?

read my reply to it... I'm not a monster, just a laissez-faire capitalist

You make it sound like there is a difference.

[Sibirsky]

Did I claim it was?

I used it as an example. Nothing more.

You said:

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.

And?

Does that say that OSHA was the first set of safety regulations?

[The Black Forrest]

Depends. It's almost certainly never increased efficiency, but it's sometimes achieved other goals at the sacrifice of some efficiency. One good example is that of safety regulations which, while creating costs for companies, ensure that workers have a safe working environment.

Minimum wage laws can likewise be beneficial, provided you're willing to lose some market efficiency.

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.


Minimum wage is only beneficial to those that are not laid off. It is never a net positive. It also creates negative long term effects to those laid off.

Newsbusters? Really? Have something a little less ideological?

[Sibirsky]

Bullshit. Safety was improving well before any safety regulations. Government mandated the trend and claimed credit.


Minimum wage is only beneficial to those that are not laid off. It is never a net positive. It also creates negative long term effects to those laid off.

Newsbusters? Really? Have something a little less ideological?

Are they wrong?

[The Black Forrest]

Newsbusters? Really? Have something a little less ideological?

Are they wrong?

"Exposing and combating liberal media bias?"

I question their methods.

I would question it if the site said "Exposing and combating conservative lies"