[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The truth is an economic theory?[/quote]
I am sure there is the truth and there is disinformation
discuss economic theory with some one that cares . I am talking present day economy of America .
Cheap labor = Record profits
What incentive would some one making record profits have to want to change that for a thriving economy if profits would fall ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am talking present day economy of America .
Cheap labor = Record profits
[/quote]
Can you prove this?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
discuss economic theory with some one that cares . I am talking present day economy of America .
Cheap labor = Record profits
What incentive would some one making record profits have to want to change that for a thriving economy if profits would fall ?
[/quote]
Where does the cheap labor come from? Laborers are both a supply and demand. They supply labor and demand money. The supply and demand should be allowed to meet. That is where a minimum wage screws up things.
A business owner also has a supply(money) and demand(workers necessary to operate). They must meet. That is where a minimum wage screws up things.
Consumers have a supply(money) and demand(goods). Both are screwed up by inflation.
A business also has a supply(production) and demand(that which consumers desire) to consider. Both are screwed up by an interventionist government.
What if someone is willing to work a job that is valued at $5/hour because he or she doesn’t have the ability to work a more valuable job? That person is hurt by a $5.01/hour minimum wage because that job no longer exists.
What if a business needs 100 workers to maximize its productive ability, but can only afford to pay 75 of them the minimum wage? The business can’t produce what is desired, thus the price of the good will go up to the level at which its production does meet its demand.
Also, when you say, “discuss economic theory with someone who cares,” you indicate that you believe things just happen for no reason. Do you think there is a labor/profit fairy or something?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The truth is an economic theory?[/quote]
Read that second book in the link and you’ll see how asinine “there is one truth” in economics statement is.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The truth is an economic theory?[/quote]
Read that second book in the link and you’ll see how asinine “there is one truth” in economics statement is.
[/quote]
I’m going to read the second book for sure, but I pretty much already know that’s total BS.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you think there is a labor/profit fairy or something?[/quote]
Yes.
Somehow there is a notion in one of his posts that says something along the lines of employee wages need to go up, and profit needs to fall in order for the economy to thrive. Lost in this statement is falling profits are a sign of an economy that is doing the opposite of thriving.
There is an equilibrium that will be reached, over time, in established industries, between labor and management. A union can speed up this process quote quickly, but because neither they or anyone can predict what that equilibrium is, they can blow past it and harm the economy as a whole trying to “get theirs”.
Same goes for owners trying to depress wages lower than what the market is. This backfires over time and leaves them wide open for competitive forces to over take their market share.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes.
Somehow there is a notion in one of his posts that says something along the lines of employee wages need to go up, and profit needs to fall in order for the economy to thrive. Lost in this statement is falling profits are a sign of an economy that is doing the opposite of thriving.
There is an equilibrium that will be reached, over time, in established industries, between labor and management. A union can speed up this process quote quickly, but because neither they or anyone can predict what that equilibrium is, they can blow past it and harm the economy as a whole trying to “get theirs”.
Same goes for owners trying to depress wages lower than what the market is. This backfires over time and leaves them wide open for competitive forces to over take their market share. [/quote]
I think that’s in every post he writes unless it’s one in which he’s arguing for the legalization of marijuana.
A government sponsored union(any other union is just employees asking for things=just fine) is an uninvolved(other than collecting its dues from workers, it does not have a stake in what happens) third party. It does not speed up the process, it just SCREWS UP the process.
Good read here.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
More nonsense , Capitalism has brought the great wealth to the (WEALTHY) and unions have brought the middle class their share
Granted the middle class could not do it with out capitalism and neither could they do it with out labor or the market
[/quote]
So… I’m not in a union and make a decent amount of money, does that move me from middle class to upper class? I would have never thought I’d get there at my age, if ever.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, no. While it might not all be in relation to national defense, some certainly is.[/quote]
Be cool with farm subsidies because some of it may or may not be tied to national defense. Got it. Be cool with welfare because if poor people are literally starving to death crime will rise. Like I said, copout.
[quote]I wouldn’t say pointing out one of the reasons for the subsidies is “touting”, but it doesn’t matter. You’ve already assumed my position, and this is the reason I didn’t want to debate it.
Being “okay” with something realistically doesn’t always mean you agree or support something ideologically either, but…[/quote]
I’ve seen you tout the geo-politcial need for farm subsidies more than once. When that’s all you really say about it you can’t be mad if I “assume” your position. Lay out your position and I won’t assume it. If you don’t have time to lay it out don’t respond, it’s really not that big a deal. You just can’t honestly be upset at me for assuming your position if you won’t tell us what it is.
Being from Kansas I get this stuff a lot from so called “fiscal” conservatives in the area. It’s one reason I despise so many far righties. Handouts from the government because I got a farm? Cool as hell, don’t get rid of it. Poor person getting government money? Fucking socialism. We are pissed as hell about illegal immigrants…except all the illegal immigrants out in western kansas doing our labor for cheap. That’s cool as hell.
I get it all the time, not trying to say you feel that way, but it is a bit of where I’m coming from. It’s the for less government crowd except for on all those goodies. To me it’s exactly like a liberal just with different handouts.
Just my .02 man.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Be cool with farm subsidies because some of it may or may not be tied to national defense. Got it. Be cool with welfare because if poor people are literally starving to death crime will rise. [/quote]
Neither you, nor anyone has to “be cool” with anything. I don’t see how pointing out the virtue of not relying on other countries for the vast majorities of your agricultural inputs and not leaving enough land or having the skills ever present to make those foodstuffs on your own should the need arise is some controversial partisan point, but if in your world it is, so be it.
No idea how or to what the welfare comment is related.
I, again, disagree. But you didn’t bring up agriculture to talk about agriculture, nor any subject other than to bring up, yet again, not so subtle ad homs about other people.
[quote]
I’ve seen you tout the geo-politcial need for farm subsidies more than once. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say pointing out one of the reasons for the subsidies is “touting”, but it doesn’t matter. You’ve already assumed my position, and this is the reason I didn’t want to debate it.
Pointing out strategic military fact is tantamount to agreeing with it?
So bringing up Gramsci and critical theory makes me a proponent then?
It is fruitless. You aren’t here to talk about agriculture, you’re here to talk about me.
Why you are assuming I’m upset in anyway is beyond me.
What does any of this have to do with me, or what I said? Nothing is the answer you are looking for.
[quote]
Just my .02 man. [/quote]
Inflation is a bitch isn’t it?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Be cool with farm subsidies because some of it may or may not be tied to national defense. Got it. Be cool with welfare because if poor people are literally starving to death crime will rise. [/quote]
Neither you, nor anyone has to “be cool” with anything. I don’t see how pointing out the virtue of not relying on other countries for the vast majorities of your agricultural inputs and not leaving enough land or having the skills ever present to make those foodstuffs on your own should the need arise is some controversial partisan point, but if in your world it is, so be it.
No idea how or to what the welfare comment is related.
I, again, disagree. But you didn’t bring up agriculture to talk about agriculture, nor any subject other than to bring up, yet again, not so subtle ad homs about other people.
[quote]
I’ve seen you tout the geo-politcial need for farm subsidies more than once. [/quote]
I wouldn’t say pointing out one of the reasons for the subsidies is “touting”, but it doesn’t matter. You’ve already assumed my position, and this is the reason I didn’t want to debate it.
Pointing out strategic military fact is tantamount to agreeing with it?
So bringing up Gramsci and critical theory makes me a proponent then?
It is fruitless. You aren’t here to talk about agriculture, you’re here to talk about me.
Why you are assuming I’m upset in anyway is beyond me.
What does any of this have to do with me, or what I said? Nothing is the answer you are looking for.
[quote]
Just my .02 man. [/quote]
Inflation is a bitch isn’t it?[/quote]
FWIW I was not here to talk about you. I was talking about agriculture and the government’s role in the marketplace. You brought that up after I jokingly said no need to bring farm subsidies into this. An offhand ha ha comment that didn’t necessarily need a full debate. Yet you expanded on it.
You seemed upset. Usually when people use language like no shit it’s because they are getting frustrated. You believe I’ve assumed your position. I haven’t. I’ve merely asked for clarification of it. For whatever reason you don’t want to lay it out. Which again is fine with me I don’t really care.
I’m really not on here to go after any one person in particular. I don’t hang around enough to even know most of the names.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I was told I was a chump because only chumps make less than $20 an hour.
CroatianRage got a better outcome than me ha.[/quote]
Haha, that’s not how much I make, that’s how much is budgeted for living expenses. Remember how mad people got at McDonalds for offering a sample budget for their employees? What an odd thing to get mad at.[/quote]
Please post this fucking budget that you won’t shut the hell up about. Frankly, I think you are full of shit…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should someone who can’t afford a family go and start one? Why should that kind of irresponsible decision be subsidized? Should all wages be commensurate with the size of a person’s family?[/quote]
Yup and this covers 100% of cases…do people never lose their jobs? No catastrophic medical expenses that force someone out? Condoms breaking? Those damn irresponsible teenagers and their loose condom wearing morals.
Fuck I am pissed at myself for making it 13 pages through this thread with all the idiotic banter between the circle jerk crowd without blowing a gasket. Fuck you.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For some perspective; my first job after being an NCO of Marines (In charge of 4-6 Marines most days and as many as 20-30 on occassion) reporting on a couple hundred million dollars in Air Wing expenditures, I made $17 an hour…[/quote]
This is something that legitimately bothers me. The military is touted as being great for a resume, etc. but then men and women come home and look for a job and can’t get a good one. Its always funny and sad. You talk to someone and they are like, “yea I was in charge of a nuclear missile silo while in the Air Force,” and now they are working at a physical labor job because they aren’t “qualified for anything else.” Not sure if serious.
I will repeat. Remedial labor jobs are not meant to be your source of living. If you are working at the bottom level of McDonalds as an adult, and it isn’t temporary until you can find a real job, you have REAL problems.
[/quote]
So there are enough ‘real jobs’ out there to support every single one of these burger flippers jumping ship and getting them? AND you mean to tell me you can offer that WHILE maintaining the fast food industry that they are leaving, because people are lining up at the door to flip them burgers? God damn, when are you running for office?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
It’s a copout for a handout essentially. [/quote]
Not really, no. Not even close. If I need to explain why, it isn’t worth my time to do so to be honest. You seem like a relatively intelligent person so I assume you understand what I’m saying and are just looking to debate. Of which I’m not going to partake.
We had 2 world wars in the last 100 or so years, the thought we wouldn’t have a third is silly. If a country goes 100% free market on their agriculture and imports 90% of its food due to comparative advantage (and absolute in some foodstuffs) and then suddenly loses the ability to import food due to war, and half their population starves to death…
I guess one man’s copout is another man’s well reasoned safe harbor against wide spread famine should history repeat itself. [/quote]
It’s still a copout. Especially knowing all the subsidies that go towards wealthy farmers. This has nothing to do with famine. How can you espouse free markets and the wonders of capitalism and then tout how government intervention is necessary here. Anyone could make similar arguments towards health care, the auto industry, any of the bailouts, etc.
Necessary to prevent possible future disaster. For the good of the nation. Look at history. You can say the SAME thing about almost any government involvement in the marketplace. Let’s keep in mind historically MOST government intervention was because of history i.e. something we “needed” to do at the time.
I understand what you’re saying beans I really do…but it’s a copout at best. Farmers made record profits in 2012 despite absolutely awful conditions. We’re really gonna sit here and be pissed at fast food workers wanting more money and ignore the other people who get more money? Seems tough to do with a straight face.
[/quote]
I too LOL’ed at that. Did someone temporarily hack Beans’ account?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote: every government turns into a tyrannical war machine, is the same reason communism won’t work, is the same reason a totally free market won’t work either. Man is flawed. Government (structure to provide order) is needed.
[/quote]
Communism doesn’t work because it goes completely against man’s nature.
A free market would work perfectly until a huge amount of the incompetent(being flawed) band together under the control of an evil incompetent(coincidentally, this is what the U.S. has had for at least the past century) and begin fighting against the self-interest of all(the incompetent have nothing to gain by winning-they will just bring everyone down to their level-defeating the competent will hurt everyone). THAT is why any government is needed-to keep the incompetent from destroying an almost free market. That is the ONLY reason for a government, and why only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.
[/quote]
LOL
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have got a tree , I do not need YOUR apples
[/quote]
GREAT point. That goes for (almost)everyone(some people-the mentally handicapped, etc.-will still need charity). Why does anyone needs what belongs to anyone else?
Pittbulll, you are funny. You are pro-individual rights, and also admit that each person has a tree(talents) and does not need apples(money) belonging to anyone else, yet you are a statist to the max. You may be this country’s educational system’s greatest success: someone who knows that what the government does is wrong, yet is so indoctrinated that he fully supports it.[/quote]
Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that a public education in this country (through the high school level) involves indoctrination into some neo-liberal statist belief system? Hell even college for that matter. I have heard this nonsense spewed quite a bit in the past year, which not only makes it pretty obvious that you are not capable of having an original thought of your own, but that you are drinking some sort of kool-aid. that must be some good shit. Spewing about indoctrination while you are holding a big ass pitcher of the red shit…lol
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t claim to know why the income disparity has increased; however, I have a feeling that:
[/quote]
That graph is looking at “family” income, which means it isn’t a serious analytical endeavor unless it adjusts, and shows how it adjusts, for the change in family sizes.
It also ignores, like most lefty talking points, vertical mobility throughout the quintiles.
In other words, that graph is garbage. [/quote]
Interesting, I didn’t really look at the graph. I assumed it was the typical the 1% makes more than the other 99% of us.[/quote]
Read more Sowell, things like this will start to jump out at you.
No, average family size form a different source from the graph doesn’t “help”. [/quote]
Anything in particular you’d recommend? [/quote]
If you have a droid, you have a kindle app, which means for $10 you can be reading this on your afternoon coffee break.
Great book.
Second one is not Sowell, but could be read two or three times before you absorb the majority of it. On this one though, you will need to have remembered you college econ classes and/or the material you studied for the exam to get any great value out of this book. People devoid of basic economic theory will be lost here rather quickly. [/quote]
“I hate indoctrination…here read this…”
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
For some perspective; my first job after being an NCO of Marines (In charge of 4-6 Marines most days and as many as 20-30 on occassion) reporting on a couple hundred million dollars in Air Wing expenditures, I made $17 an hour…[/quote]
This is something that legitimately bothers me. The military is touted as being great for a resume, etc. but then men and women come home and look for a job and can’t get a good one. Its always funny and sad. You talk to someone and they are like, “yea I was in charge of a nuclear missile silo while in the Air Force,” and now they are working at a physical labor job because they aren’t “qualified for anything else.” Not sure if serious.
I will repeat. Remedial labor jobs are not meant to be your source of living. If you are working at the bottom level of McDonalds as an adult, and it isn’t temporary until you can find a real job, you have REAL problems.
[/quote]
So there are enough ‘real jobs’ out there to support every single one of these burger flippers jumping ship and getting them? AND you mean to tell me you can offer that WHILE maintaining the fast food industry that they are leaving, because people are lining up at the door to flip them burgers? God damn, when are you running for office?[/quote]
How many teenagers, retirees still needing some supplemental income, and handicapped folks are there in the US? How about illegals that need money? That’s a rather large number of people to fill the “part-time” role. If there wasn’t as much government subsidy, and everything wasn’t free for the lazy/stupid, they’d have to work for their smart phones, homes, and food. Nothing like having to chip in.
If people are smart enough to choose a major in college that actually has demand and will pay the bills (see most liberal arts majors don’t count), then they’ll get a job that pays more than mininum wage. Engineering has something like a 90%+ hiring rate at the college level, good example.
If you don’t want to go to college, choose a tech school, or even work in a trade - carpentry, tile laying, brick laying, cutting grass. All of which don’t require formal educations but apprenticeships. You just have to be willing to work hard. Most would be smaller/privately owned businesses your pay will depend on what you can do and how profitable the small business is - ultimately more than minimum wage.
The military. If you can’t find a job to support your family, you can join the military. It pays the bills. Sure you incur risk, might get deployed, but its a job and something you can hold you head high about. At least I’d think its better than working minimum wage.
The problem with burger flippers jumping ship is they aren’t qualified to do so. You can’t get a higher paying job when you didn’t graduate highschool, don’t speak well, or aren’t driven. That’s what fills the dredges of the part-time world. For those folks who are stuck in part-time because they are between jobs - they are the decent people that are more than likely working multiple part-time jobs, and it will be temporary because they have the drive to find a better source of income.
Jobs are out there, people just don’t want them. They claim they do, but if it doesn’t fit their major, or isn’t something they like, they don’t take it. The people are at fault here. And its not the responsibility of the US to cheat those who did work for what they make to subsidize even further those who’ve been lazy and irresponsible. Grasshopper vs the Ant.