Lower Labor Costs Now!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
…so what do you want? to lower min. wage or something?

I want to get rid of minimum wage laws and let the market determine price.

It is also a good idea, as the article suggests, that corporations not be required to fund health care, etc. These are all costs that make it more expensive to hire workers.

Of course doing away with minimum wage laws won’t work unless welfare is also done away with. Why would I take a $3/hour job if I can get better than that by not working at all?[/quote]

“Learn how to completely dissolve the middle class in 3 simple steps!”

82

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
…so what do you want? to lower min. wage or something?

I want to get rid of minimum wage laws and let the market determine price.

It is also a good idea, as the article suggests, that corporations not be required to fund health care, etc. These are all costs that make it more expensive to hire workers.

Of course doing away with minimum wage laws won’t work unless welfare is also done away with. Why would I take a $3/hour job if I can get better than that by not working at all?[/quote]

I personally would be willing to go along with that if you did away with all illegal immigration. It changes the factors dealing with supply and demand.

And for tax go to a strict flat tax if you make a dollar it is one cent , if you make a hundred dollars it would be a dollar right up to the CEO making 458 million a year . Also do away with all corporate taxes and allow corporations to hold no property, for more than a year. Meaning all profit would have to be claimed on someone�??s personal income tax.

83

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In this looming recession the alternative is mass unemployment.

Ideally, I would prefer if the government just kept its nose out of the economy. They are the cause of every boom and preceding bust.

Actually, the market NATURALLY is cyclical…with series of both recession and boom. So even without an government involement, in a true laisse-faire economy, there would still be both recessions and booms.

The government simply gets involved and tries to prevent/minimalize recessions and keep up booms…it sometimes works, but mostly not

The idea of going to a laisse-faire economy is as farfetched as pigs flying. We are so accustomed to government intervention that people would revolt.

Personally, I think government intervention is a neccessity to a point, but that its rule in economy needs to decline and become less socialist

[/quote]

I would agree

84

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
Lifticus, Orion, how do you reconcile your positions with monopolies, dumping, economies of scale and other things that privileges the big dogs? Do you write that off as necessary evils?

Would love to hear your take on this.

Monopolies cannot happen without protectionism. Economies of scale are not immoral. In a free society anyone is free to compete with anyone else. We cannot level the playing field for competition by infringing on property rights. If a company becomes a monopoly through moral action then there is no problem but it is highly unlikely to happen as long as competition is allowed.

The non-aggression axiom is the litmus test.[/quote]

Would you recommend the world be one economy ?

85

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would be willing to go along with that if you did away with all illegal immigration. It changes the factors dealing with supply and demand.
[/quote]

The concept of illegal immigration goes away when the Welfare State is completely abolished. If taxpayers are not subsidizing immigrants then there is nothing immoral about said immigration. Also, if the Welfare State is abolished more Americans will be employed in the marginal labor market. This will have a decreasing effect on immigration.

People should be able to move freely to provide for their own well being; however, libertarian ethic requires that we do not pay taxes to subsidize it.

86

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Would you recommend the world be one economy ?
[/quote]

There can only be one world economy. The choices of one group necessarily always have an effect on the rest of the world. That is law.

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I personally would be willing to go along with that if you did away with all illegal immigration. It changes the factors dealing with supply and demand.

The concept of illegal immigration goes away when the Welfare State is completely abolished. If taxpayers are not subsidizing immigrants then there is nothing immoral about said immigration. Also, if the Welfare State is abolished more Americans will be employed in the marginal labor market. This will have a decreasing effect on immigration.

People should be able to move freely to provide for their own well being; however, libertarian ethic requires that we do not pay taxes to subsidize it.[/quote]

Your opinion is just that an opinion, in which I disagree. It is possible if we were to restructure our federal government into a strictly Libertarian model, your theories would work to every bodies benefit. But your state governments would have to pick up a lot the slack that the Federal government has dropped. I think some people that are libertarian�??s think our government should run like a third world country .And if we lived in a libertarian federal government system, we would probably have states that were just like third world states.

88

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Would you recommend the world be one economy ?

There can only be one world economy. The choices of one group necessarily always have an effect on the rest of the world. That is law.[/quote]

Again I disagree, there are many economies

89

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I personally would be willing to go along with that if you did away with all illegal immigration. It changes the factors dealing with supply and demand.

The concept of illegal immigration goes away when the Welfare State is completely abolished. If taxpayers are not subsidizing immigrants then there is nothing immoral about said immigration. Also, if the Welfare State is abolished more Americans will be employed in the marginal labor market. This will have a decreasing effect on immigration.

People should be able to move freely to provide for their own well being; however, libertarian ethic requires that we do not pay taxes to subsidize it.

Your opinion is just that an opinion, in which I disagree. It is possible if we were to restructure our federal government into a strictly Libertarian model, your theories would work to every bodies benefit. But your state governments would have to pick up a lot the slack that the Federal government has dropped. I think some people that are libertarian�??s think our government should run like a third world country .And if we lived in a libertarian federal government system, we would probably have states that were just like third world states.

[/quote]
“Third world” just means people are not allowed own the means to their own livelihood and government owns everything; as such it is the complete opposite of the “libertarian ideal”.

I am just stating the moral implications of subsidization. I do not believe in the concept of nationality so I see no threat to immigration; I do see a threat to asking taxpayers to subsidize it.

The solution to stopping immigration is to quit subsidizing welfare. The effect is two-fold: 1) it removes the incentive for immigration and 2) it employs Americans in what is typically seen as “immigrant work” thus lowering the demand for immigrant labor.

My idea is that instead of looking at each place as belonging to some national government, private property, instead, is treated as sovereign unto itself. There would be thousands of “Liechtensteins” competing with each other for tenants.

90

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Again I disagree, there are many economies

[/quote]
Do you have your own economy? Where do the divisions in differing economies lie? Economic law does not stop at national borders. Your opinion is incorrect in theory and practice.

An economy cannot belong to anyone. Economic law is the result of people making choices in a world fraught with scarcity and uncertainty – in other words, all human actions have economic consequences.

91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The concept of illegal immigration goes away when the Welfare State is completely abolished. If taxpayers are not subsidizing immigrants then there is nothing immoral about said immigration. Also, if the Welfare State is abolished more Americans will be employed in the marginal labor market. This will have a decreasing effect on immigration.

People should be able to move freely to provide for their own well being; however, libertarian ethic requires that we do not pay taxes to subsidize it.[/quote]

In a truly Libertarian state, maybe. I don’t think it is quite as simple as eliminating the welfare state. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. They would still have a detrimental effect if they didn’t pay taxes, offer employee benefits, comply with industry regulations, etc. Basically anytime there is montiary advantage in black market labor illegals will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

You also have to take account for individual state regulation and policy as well.

We are long way from being able to open the boarders without ill effect.

92

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
But your state governments would have to pick up a lot the slack that the Federal government has dropped.[/quote]
This is the way it is supposed to be.

There would be tremendous competition among state to adopt policies that attract businesses and citizens. This is a good thing and would provide improvments across the board. The original intent of the men that ratified the consitution was to let each state control it’s own destiny. Each state would essetially be a petri dish in which new policies could be tried.

If states are attacking the same problems with diffent solutions it would very easy to assess results and pick from the best solutions. When the federal gov’t implements policy nation wide, how do we ever know if it was the most effective solution?

93

[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The concept of illegal immigration goes away when the Welfare State is completely abolished. If taxpayers are not subsidizing immigrants then there is nothing immoral about said immigration. Also, if the Welfare State is abolished more Americans will be employed in the marginal labor market. This will have a decreasing effect on immigration.

People should be able to move freely to provide for their own well being; however, libertarian ethic requires that we do not pay taxes to subsidize it.

In a truly Libertarian state, maybe. I don’t think it is quite as simple as eliminating the welfare state. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. They would still have a detrimental effect if they didn’t pay taxes, offer employee benefits, comply with industry regulations, etc. Basically anytime there is montiary advantage in black market labor illegals will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

You also have to take account for individual state regulation and policy as well.

We are long way from being able to open the boarders without ill effect.[/quote]

Preach it Brother Dhikey

94

[quote]dhickey wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
But your state governments would have to pick up a lot the slack that the Federal government has dropped.
This is the way it is supposed to be.

I think some people that are libertarian�??s think our government should run like a third world country .And if we lived in a libertarian federal government system, we would probably have states that were just like third world states.

There would be tremendous competition among state to adopt policies that attract businesses and citizens. This is a good thing and would provide improvments across the board. The original intent of the men that ratified the consitution was to let each state control it’s own destiny. Each state would essetially be a petri dish in which new policies could be tried. If states are attacking the same problems with diffent solutions it would very easy to assess results and pick from the best solutions. When the federal gov’t implements policy nation wide, how do we ever know if it was the most effective solution?[/quote]

You and I agree, but reality prevails

95

[quote]dhickey wrote:
You also have to take account for individual state regulation and policy as well.

We are long way from being able to open the boarders without ill effect.[/quote]

I am not making distinctions in government. I am just arguing from an ethical perspective.

Sovereignty is everyone’s right.

96

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
You also have to take account for individual state regulation and policy as well.

We are long way from being able to open the boarders without ill effect.

I am not making distinctions in government. I am just arguing from an ethical perspective.

Sovereignty is everyone’s right.[/quote]

Agreed. Unfortunately, I would take a gigantic effort to undo most of the harful policies we currently have. They have become so interdependant that undoing one will often require the undoing of 10 more. On paper the solution is quite easy :

No welfare
No regulation of volentary transactions
No subsidies
No tarrifs
No education subsidization
No income tax
No capital gains tax
No social security
No foreign aid
No foreign medaling

The problem is how we get from here to there without the interim period being a complete disaster. It would be very hard to pick one of these to attack with severe consequence becuase of interdependance on other policies. I would be nice to start from scratch but we don’t have that luxury. I think Milton Friedman and Charles Murray have laid out intelegent compromises, but even their solutions would be terribly complex as far as managing short term fall out.

Not to mention most people don’t care enough to accept short term discomfort, even if half their salary, and quality of life, is being stolen from them. Things are going to have to, and will, get much worse for people to take a real interest in politics and economics. It will take a revolution of sorts.

97

[quote]dhickey wrote:
The problem is how we get from here to there without the interim period being a complete disaster. [/quote]

Educate the populace on libertarian ethics and law and make them understand that voluntarism is the only right and proper way to live. Government must quit enforcing laws and people must be prepared to defend themselves against aggression. It must be done slowly and in stages like the list you provided.

No matter what happens it is doubtful that it will be an easy or painless process which is what everyone wants.

98

You aren’t even a libertarian thou. You are just an anarchist? crazy nut job. Government has no legitimacy? Govt is always immoral while the corporation is always acting in the interest of the consumer? There should be no country boundaries, people should be able to live anywhere?

You just tell yourself your libertarian, so people dont think you are the nut job you are!

Do you just post on these political forums because this is the only way to get your message out because in a real face-to-face convo people just walk away after talking to you for ten minutes?

99

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
orion wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
orion wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
That is what I am saying!! unchecked greed is greed. Thank you for agreein with my point. Besides simply looking at the word “greed” and saying “Ohh. he didnt put unchecked in front of it. hes wrong.” You need to read the context of what I wrote.

Your idea of greed is my idea of self-interest. And your idea of unchecked greed is my idea of greed

On the matter of poluttion, this is one of the things I mentioned with public goods earlier in the thread. The govt is there to take care of pollution because it a problem that no person is willing to pay for so the govt must pay for it for us. This is one of the things the rest of you said was unneccessary (till now)

Read my comments and fully understand them before cutting them down.

I still disagree with some of your arguments.

There are for examples no externalities when it comes to tainted food or risky drugs and yet the government regulates this.

The same is true for work safety.

If the government would not regulate these areas, businesses would have to insure against the risk and insurance companies would very likely do a much better job at supervising them because they can do things that a government agency must not be allowed to do.

If there has to be coercion, mandatory insurances are all that is required.

Need I educate you on working conditions during the Industrial Rwvolution? Child labor? Horrible working conditions?

As far as tainted food, read “The Jungle” by Upton St. Clair and you will see my agruement (this book also touches upon working conditions as well)

All throught history industry has not been self-regulating when it comes to product qualitity and worker safety…why would it magicallz start now?

Need I remind you that capitalism could not possibly have caused the working conditions during the Industrial Revolution since those were the people it encountered when it started?

So, these poor masses where the product of feudalism, not capitalism, and capitalism and the enormous rise in productivity made those working conditions obsolete in mere decades, while the population doubled yet again.

And it should be noticed that those people poured into the cities to work under the exact same conditions you find so appalling, so maybe the preferred them to their alternatives.

Meaning, those conditions where an improvement for them.

Fuedalism in colonial America? I dont think so. I will agree that fuedalism existed in Britian prior to the Industrial Revolution, but you can not possibly try to place blame on treatment of workers on fuedalism, when fuedalsim didnt exist in pre-Industrial America[/quote]

But you cab blame capitalim not knoeing what caused the poverty?

100

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
You aren’t even a libertarian thou. You are just an anarchist? crazy nut job. Government has no legitimacy? Govt is always immoral while the corporation is always acting in the interest of the consumer? There should be no country boundaries, people should be able to live anywhere?
[/quote]
Since you didn’t have the balls to directly address anyone I’ll just assume you were directing it at me.

Libertarianism and anarchism are compatible and not competing doctrines. In fact, there are a contingent who would call themselves anarcho-libertarian.

Libertarianism entails the doctrines of liberty which include a set of ethics to achieve it. Anarchism is how people might organize themselves under such an ethic. I subscribe fully to the ideas of liberty; I am a libertarian. I do not believe in the authority of government and believe it is fully unworkable in all circumstances in a free society; I am an anarchist – and I do not deny it to anyone who may ask.

There is no doubt that government is the negation of freedom. There is no other way for it to work. It is alway immoral.

[quote]
You just tell yourself your libertarian, so people dont think you are the nut job you are![/quote]

What is more important: what other people think of you or holding true to principle? What will people think of you if you have no principle?

[quote]
Do you just post on these political forums because this is the only way to get your message out because in a real face-to-face convo people just walk away after talking to you for ten minutes?[/quote]

I do it for many reasons – the biggest being that there are many people like you who make it fun. Plus, if I did not you would have no one to call crazy or to talk down to with superiority. I fulfill your need for validation.