[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey you’re a riot man. You act like these things aren’t debated by “real” economists.
[/quote]
I don’t know what your definition of an economist is. Keynes was and economist. So was Marx. I am pretty sure I have been specifing classic economics.
[quote]
Hell, even CATO participates in these debates…and I should know, I’ve attended some of them (at CATO…OMG [/quote]
Debated what exactly? Communism is bad but maybe a just a little bit will be good? What side was CATO on? People can debate all they wan’t. I have yet to find someone succesfully refute the austrians or their counter parts. Not that they don’t try.
You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world. [/quote]
In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?
Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?
A healthier, better educated population than ever before?
Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey you’re a riot man. You act like these things aren’t debated by “real” economists.
I don’t know what your definition of an economist is. Keynes was and economist. So was Marx. I am pretty sure I have been specifing classic economics.
Hell, even CATO participates in these debates…and I should know, I’ve attended some of them (at CATO…OMG
Debated what exactly? Communism is bad but maybe a just a little bit will be good? What side was CATO on? People can debate all they wan’t. I have yet to find someone succesfully refute the austrians or their counter parts. Not that they don’t try.
[/quote]
Actually, they rarely try.
The pricing problem in socialism waits for a rebuttal since 1922.
Most people simply ignore the parts they cannot refute.
You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.
I assume you are talking about the early Lochner era. Or do you think free market capitalism was responsible for the great depression and conditions it brought?
What do hardships exerienced in a developing nation have to do with free market solutions for a developed country.
How were the hardships here any different than those under controlled economies in the same stage of development?
Do you think working conditions would be the same now without regulation?
Do you think child labor would still be an issue?[/quote]
C’mon, guy. These things did not magically end because we became more prosperous. Prosperity was a necessary but not sufficient condition. In many instances, factory owners fought bitterly against child labor laws, sanitary working conditions, and decent (though still [rightly] low) wages because these things cut into their bottom line.
Working conditions, pay, and quality of life of workers would have remained dismal without intervention from the legal system. For one thing, courts needed to stop striking down such laws as unconstitutioal for violating ‘freedom of contract.’
Working conditions would NOT be the same now as in 1920 with or without legal reform and regulation. But you really think we’d be as well off as we are without minimal, appropriate regulations ensuring decent working conditions and fair wages? I think not. Wal-mart is as good an example as any. Even when we HAVE these laws, it tries to stiff its employees and avoid paying for hours worked (not too mention plenty of other illegal and shady employment practices) when it thinks it can get away with it.
You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.
In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?
Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?
A healthier, better educated population than ever before?
Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.
[/quote]
I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.
Minimal regulation and ‘interference’ can and does without driving costs up exorbitantly. That’s not to say the pendulum can’t swing too far in the other direction. For example, unions in the modern world create far more problems then they solve. But most of the labor laws are appropriate. They should remain and be enforced.
What is being missed by the defenders of WalMart is not the problems with the company itself but the philosophy engendered by the WalMart ‘mindset’ — fuck your employees, buy your products from virtual slave/sweat shops, try to put everyone around you out of business.
Walmart is behaving like the owner of the only coal mine in a West Virginia town.
I’m all for competition but it should be done fairly and above board. When a WalMart employee has to choose between food for his kids or medicine for his wife, that’s a devil’s choice — and then his manager keeps part of his pay. “Well, if you want to work here, we’ll just forget about these few extra hours. Afterall, dividends must be paid!!”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What is being missed by the defenders of WalMart is not the problems with the company itself but the philosophy engendered by the WalMart ‘mindset’ — fuck your employees, buy your products from virtual slave/sweat shops, try to put everyone around you out of business.
Walmart is behaving like the owner of the only coal mine in a West Virginia town.
I’m all for competition but it should be done fairly and above board. When a WalMart employee has to choose between food for his kids or medicine for his wife, that’s a devil’s choice — and then his manager keeps part of his pay. “Well, if you want to work here, we’ll just forget about these few extra hours. Afterall, dividends must be paid!!”
The grapes of wrath are growing…swiftly growing…[/quote]
Yes. But that is exactly how most large corporations do and would behave if left entirely to their own devices. I’m a defense lawyer for a large firm. You’d scarcely believe the ways some of these big corporate actors try to skirt the law. I can only imagine the state of things if laws did not exist, both for workers and consumers. Consumer protection laws have been overdone in some cases but are also a type of ‘interference’ that is good and necessary.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The grapes of wrath are growing…swiftly growing…[/quote]
…And so is your hypocrisy and that of the Wal-Mart “Moral Police”, HH…
I’m STILL waiting for the name of that All-American, “above board”, “We-only-use-American/Non-Immigrant/Foreign-Labor-that-is-highly-paid with health and work benefits/and we have no employee problems” company that it out there, HH…
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
C’mon, guy. These things did not magically end because we became more prosperous.
[/quote]
yes they did. Child labor was already on a sharp decline when laws were enacted. It’s called volentary unemployment, anohter concept you would pick up if decided to actually read a book on economics. Same concept that created the housewife.
More job oportunities = less people willing to work in miserable condidtions. How do we go about creating more productive jobs for people to chose from? Laws and regulation? Unecessary overhead?
Good for them. Competition would take care of that much better than arbitrary regulations dreamed up by self-serving politicians.
How do you figure? How many work places comply with bare minimum working standards to avoid legal ramification. What % of overall workplace do they account for? Is the cost of regulating all workplaces worth the benefit?
[/quote]
Working conditions would NOT be the same now as in 1920 with or without legal reform and regulation. But you really think we’d be as well off as we are without minimal, appropriate regulations ensuring decent working conditions and fair wages? I think not.
[/quote]
I think not as well. I think we would be better off as a whole. Our wonderfull gov’t has hindered progress and growth of our economy. We will never know our true potential and this has undoubtadly cost us in quality of life and employment opportunity.
The are providing opportunities that not otherwise be there. They are not obligated to create jobs, nor are the employees obligated to work there.
If I want to pay the kid down the street 10 buck to shovel my driveway but no more than 40 bucks a month, I should be able to. Even if it snows 5 times. That’s between me and kid down the street. Matter of fact this is how many services are sold. How is employment any different? Arbitrary.
If walmart has a contract with it’s employees that it is violation of, they should most certainly pay. That’s what our courts are supposed to protect. If they are not in violation with a contract volentarily agreed to by both parties, gov’t should stay out of it. So should we.
dhickey, what if society as a whole deems that they don’t want to allow child labor within their society, regardless of if some employers and some children want to work? Would that, for you, be tyranny of the masses?
Also, correct me if I was wrong in this, but you were the poster who argued that slavery would have ended via the free market and thus should have been allowed to continue until the free market “corrected” it, right?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey, what if society as a whole deems that they don’t want to allow child labor within their society, regardless of if some employers and some children want to work? Would that, for you, be tyranny of the masses?
[/quote]
yep. gov’t is supposed to protect individual rights, not implement mob rule. Do you understand the difference? What if a majority want to enact laws that descriminate against a minority?
I worked when I was in 6th grade. I would bike 10 miles to the golf course in summer to caddy. I got payed $10 plus tip for a round of golf no matter how long it took. Extreme heat, rain. Sometimes they would have me carry two bags. Should that be “corrected”? By the federal gov’t? Maybe we can have a caddy czar?
The laws we have are arbitrary and outdated. They may certianly help a few, but at what cost? Would we better off with free market solutions to the same problems? Would society and charitable organizations be more efficient than self serving politians and beaurcrats?
Should all “good” and “sensible” ideas be legislated and regulated? Helmet laws? Seatbelt laws? Smoking bans on private property? Banning of transfats? Maybe we should mandate and regulate diet and exercise? This would certainly be as beneficial for children as child labor laws. How about regulating parent involvement in home work?
Nobody ever asks at what cost? No one ever looks past the obviouse effects.
If you draw an arbitrary line in the sand how can you expect anything but arbitrary rules, regulation, and enforcement? This is exactly how we have created all powerful beauracracies like the FCC, EPA, SEC, etc. We have given the power of legislator, regulator, police, judge, and jury to group of unelected beaurcrats.
Nope, not me. No libertarian would stand for slavery. Should certainly be illegal. I am not an anarchist. I do beleive in limited gov’t for the protection of our freedom.
You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.
In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?
Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?
A healthier, better educated population than ever before?
Yeah, those laisser faire economists really went after after the little guy.
I am hardly saying that. I am saying that the market left to its own devices will not provide decent and fair working conditions in many cases. It didn’t. Wouldn’t. Can’t.
[/quote]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey, what if society as a whole deems that they don’t want to allow child labor within their society, regardless of if some employers and some children want to work? Would that, for you, be tyranny of the masses?
[/quote]
Of course it would be, because as Bastiat has pointed out children that could hardly be fed were made to go to school instead of being able to contribute to their families well being.
Who knows how many children died because of mandatory schooling.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The grapes of wrath are growing…swiftly growing…
…And so is your hypocrisy and that of the Wal-Mart “Moral Police”, HH…
I’m STILL waiting for the name of that All-American, “above board”, “We-only-use-American/Non-Immigrant/Foreign-Labor-that-is-highly-paid with health and work benefits/and we have no employee problems” company that it out there, HH…
Mufasa
[/quote]
How about 100?
Here are the top 100 companies to work for. What, Walmart’s not on the list? Shameful.
Walmart should figure out that people are more productive if you treat them as if they were VOLUNTEERS. I treat each of my teachers as if they were a volunteer.
They’ve got enough trouble teaching high school without me trying to screw them out of every nickle. Wally World executives should figure that out, the criminals.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The grapes of wrath are growing…swiftly growing…
…And so is your hypocrisy and that of the Wal-Mart “Moral Police”, HH…
I’m STILL waiting for the name of that All-American, “above board”, “We-only-use-American/Non-Immigrant/Foreign-Labor-that-is-highly-paid with health and work benefits/and we have no employee problems” company that it out there, HH…
Mufasa
How about 100?
Here are the top 100 companies to work for. What, Walmart’s not on the list? Shameful.
Walmart should figure out that people are more productive if you treat them as if they were VOLUNTEERS. I treat each of my teachers as if they were a volunteer.
They’ve got enough trouble teaching high school without me trying to screw them out of every nickle. Wally World executives should figure that out, the criminals.
[/quote]
Try again.
People were “happy” working for their Wall Street Firms as they made millions and raped the public.
You STILL did not give me the retail company that meets your “moral” criteria.
Even so, I am also willing to bet that out of that list, there are more than a few flying “under your moral radar”.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Maybe we should mandate and regulate diet and exercise? This would certainly be as beneficial for children as child labor laws. How about regulating parent involvement in home work?
[/quote]
How about regulating that if you have a child you MUST marry the child’s mother, and stay married. Looking at the cycles of poverty and violence broken homes cause, it would seem to be as justified as child labor laws. Child raising/parenting laws? Do it for the children. Do it for America.
You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.
In a world where population exploded, living standards rose even higher?
Dickensian poverty that was the result of feudalism was ended in mere decades?
A healthier, better educated population than ever before?
[/quote]