[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.[/quote]
It is more people are living hand to mouth. I am sure. It would have been very easy to live on $30,000 in the 80s not so much today
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.[/quote]
It is more people are living hand to mouth. I am sure. It would have been very easy to live on $30,000 in the 80s not so much today
[/quote]
I agree with you on the $30k, but I dont think it is because of the lake of unions that the wages are staying low. I think it is because of our government spending more and more and causing inflation, so goods are going up in price, but the costs of the materials and benefits are going up, and not the cost of employment. The wages are staying low, but everything else is going up.
What does a rich person think about, and why dont the middle class do the same thing?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.[/quote]
It is more people are living hand to mouth. I am sure. It would have been very easy to live on $30,000 in the 80s not so much today
[/quote]
I agree with you on the $30k, but I dont think it is because of the lake of unions that the wages are staying low. I think it is because of our government spending more and more and causing inflation, so goods are going up in price, but the costs of the materials and benefits are going up, and not the cost of employment. The wages are staying low, but everything else is going up.
What does a rich person think about, and why dont the middle class do the same thing? [/quote]
Just think of it like going to Court. Policies in Washington (Court) are represented by lobbyists (Lawyers) Every aspect of big business is represented in Court (Washington) except Labor so in a sense Labor is in court with no Lawyer (Representation).
I am pretty sure the rich think about pretty much the same things the poor think about .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.[/quote]
It is more people are living hand to mouth. I am sure. It would have been very easy to live on $30,000 in the 80s not so much today
[/quote]
I agree with you on the $30k, but I dont think it is because of the lake of unions that the wages are staying low. I think it is because of our government spending more and more and causing inflation, so goods are going up in price, but the costs of the materials and benefits are going up, and not the cost of employment. The wages are staying low, but everything else is going up.
What does a rich person think about, and why dont the middle class do the same thing? [/quote]
Just think of it like going to Court. Policies in Washington (Court) are represented by lobbyists (Lawyers) Every aspect of big business is represented in Court (Washington) except Labor so in a sense Labor is in court with no Lawyer (Representation).
I am pretty sure the rich think about pretty much the same things the poor think about .
[/quote]
Who spent the most time in the White House during Obama’s first term? Labor.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Going all liberal on your asses [/quote]
Have you noticed that the savings rate for the middle class over the past 3 decades has gone down from 10% to negative 1-2%? Could this be the reason why the Middle class does not have any wealth and not the absence of unions?
who told you that ?
I hope the link to the personal savings rate works.[/quote]
It is more people are living hand to mouth. I am sure. It would have been very easy to live on $30,000 in the 80s not so much today
[/quote]
I agree with you on the $30k, but I dont think it is because of the lake of unions that the wages are staying low. I think it is because of our government spending more and more and causing inflation, so goods are going up in price, but the costs of the materials and benefits are going up, and not the cost of employment. The wages are staying low, but everything else is going up.
What does a rich person think about, and why dont the middle class do the same thing? [/quote]
Just think of it like going to Court. Policies in Washington (Court) are represented by lobbyists (Lawyers) Every aspect of big business is represented in Court (Washington) except Labor so in a sense Labor is in court with no Lawyer (Representation).
I am pretty sure the rich think about pretty much the same things the poor think about .
[/quote]
Who spent the most time in the White House during Obama’s first term? Labor. [/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Do you hear that business owners? You are not responsible for your success! Your employees are.
Why do the workers responsible for this increase in productivity continue to work for others instead of themselves? Another question is why do the workers continue to work for less than they are worth? Are there no businesses that appreciate their talents?
As awesome as the government is at telling people how to run businesses, I sure wish it would just cut out the middle man and run the businesses itself![/quote]
Even better, everyone knows women make 70% of what men do, so we can fix this whole mess by firing all the men and hiring women to replace them at lower wages.
Why do you people make things so hard???
– jj
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.
The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?
As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition.s [/quote]
And the tax disadvantages most of their competitors face
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.
The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?
As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.[/quote]
You don’t think it’s in a business owner’s best interest to make goods affordable for people? “We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. Whether or not business owners are as evil as we are taught in public school, the media, etc., who do you think pays for it when their operating costs are increased? The consumer. Business owners are not going to accept a longterm profit loss. Does anyone really think that paying everyone a ‘living wage’ would help things? After all, Bill Gates makes more than what people are wanting everyone to make(at least I assume people don’t want everyone making what Bill Gates does). Jealousy is not going to end. What IS in everyone’s best interest is to support a free economy.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.
The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?
As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.[/quote]
You don’t think it’s in a business owner’s best interest to make goods affordable for people? “We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. Whether or not business owners are as evil as we are taught in public school, the media, etc., who do you think pays for it when their operating costs are increased? The consumer. Business owners are not going to accept a longterm profit loss. Does anyone really think that paying everyone a ‘living wage’ would help things? After all, Bill Gates makes more than what people are wanting everyone to make(at least I assume people don’t want everyone making what Bill Gates does). Jealousy is not going to end. What IS in everyone’s best interest is to support a free economy. [/quote]
You are so vague.
Wtf does paying a living wage would help things mean? Help what things?
What do you think is the goal of a free market? Do you think that classical economic thought is completely correct? (You certainly appear to be holding to this idea.)
Why do you think a free economy is in everyone’s best interest? As well…do you think America’s corporatism is anything like a true free market?
A living wage doesn’t mean that everyone needs to make what Bill Gate’s makes. It would mean working a regular 40 hour work week should be able to support a family modestly.
The buying power of the average American worker has certainly shrunk. A lot of this has been cleverly hidden by technology advancing. At some point though its likely tech won’t be able to keep up and what should occur then?
Business owners don’t think about long term profit now. Especially businesses like Walmart which is what has been most talked about in this thread.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.
The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?
As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.[/quote]
You don’t think it’s in a business owner’s best interest to make goods affordable for people? “We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. Whether or not business owners are as evil as we are taught in public school, the media, etc., who do you think pays for it when their operating costs are increased? The consumer. Business owners are not going to accept a longterm profit loss. Does anyone really think that paying everyone a ‘living wage’ would help things? After all, Bill Gates makes more than what people are wanting everyone to make(at least I assume people don’t want everyone making what Bill Gates does). Jealousy is not going to end. What IS in everyone’s best interest is to support a free economy. [/quote]
You are so vague.
Wtf does paying a living wage would help things mean? Help what things?
What do you think is the goal of a free market? Do you think that classical economic thought is completely correct? (You certainly appear to be holding to this idea.)
Why do you think a free economy is in everyone’s best interest? As well…do you think America’s corporatism is anything like a true free market?
A living wage doesn’t mean that everyone needs to make what Bill Gate’s makes. It would mean working a regular 40 hour work week should be able to support a family modestly.
The buying power of the average American worker has certainly shrunk. A lot of this has been cleverly hidden by technology advancing. At some point though its likely tech won’t be able to keep up and what should occur then?
Business owners don’t think about long term profit now. Especially businesses like Walmart which is what has been most talked about in this thread.
[/quote]
Would paying a “living wage” satisfy anyone who is not satisfied now? I think not.(In case anyone’s wondering, I think the economy could be much better, but not without reducing/eliminating government interference)
I think everyone should try to maximize their profit without harming or forcing anything on anyone else.
A free market is the only thing with a chance of longterm success. Our current economy is nothing close to free. A free market is in everyone’s best interest because it is fair. No managed economy can be fair.
If a 40 hour week(how did that concept come to be accepted?) should pay enough to support a family, then would you pay an employee with 11 children then same as one with two? It would take more money to “modestly” support the 11 child family. It seems that using that standard would result in people getting raises for making children.
How have you determined that the buying power of the average American worker has shrunk?
Wal-Mart has been open for a good while now for a business that doesn’t think about longterm profit. What does Wal-Mart think of and what stops other companies from being just as successful? If any Wal-Mart haters want to say the government supports Wal-Mart and keeps them open, why do you want even more government involvement?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The liberal Utopia would compel Walmart to pay a lawn-and-picket-fence, sedan-in-the-driveway middle class salary to people whose job description is only barely distinguishable from that of a garden statue.
The conservative Utopia would allow Walmart to pay its employees whatever it damn well pleases because, you know, the only thing stopping every single American citizen with a functioning cerebral cortex from starting their own business and rising to untold fortune is laziness and lack of ambition. The upper echelons of the American economy have the capacity to accommodate millions, haven’t you heard?
As is so often the case, both are stupid. Nobody is owed affluence simply for showing up. And on the other hand, every Sam Walton needs a million Joe Six-Packs, so we might as well make sure they are making enough to buy Sam Walton’s shit. Somewhere in the balance of those two platitudes is the reasonable solution.[/quote]
You don’t think it’s in a business owner’s best interest to make goods affordable for people? “We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. Whether or not business owners are as evil as we are taught in public school, the media, etc., who do you think pays for it when their operating costs are increased? The consumer. Business owners are not going to accept a longterm profit loss. Does anyone really think that paying everyone a ‘living wage’ would help things? After all, Bill Gates makes more than what people are wanting everyone to make(at least I assume people don’t want everyone making what Bill Gates does). Jealousy is not going to end. What IS in everyone’s best interest is to support a free economy. [/quote]
You are so vague.
Wtf does paying a living wage would help things mean? Help what things?
What do you think is the goal of a free market? Do you think that classical economic thought is completely correct? (You certainly appear to be holding to this idea.)
Why do you think a free economy is in everyone’s best interest? As well…do you think America’s corporatism is anything like a true free market?
A living wage doesn’t mean that everyone needs to make what Bill Gate’s makes. It would mean working a regular 40 hour work week should be able to support a family modestly.
The buying power of the average American worker has certainly shrunk. A lot of this has been cleverly hidden by technology advancing. At some point though its likely tech won’t be able to keep up and what should occur then?
Business owners don’t think about long term profit now. Especially businesses like Walmart which is what has been most talked about in this thread.
[/quote]
Would paying a “living wage” satisfy anyone who is not satisfied now? I think not.(In case anyone’s wondering, I think the economy could be much better, but not without reducing/eliminating government interference)
I think everyone should try to maximize their profit without harming or forcing anything on anyone else.
A free market is the only thing with a chance of longterm success. Our current economy is nothing close to free. A free market is in everyone’s best interest because it is fair. No managed economy can be fair.
If a 40 hour week(how did that concept come to be accepted?) should pay enough to support a family, then would you pay an employee with 11 children then same as one with two? It would take more money to “modestly” support the 11 child family. It seems that using that standard would result in people getting raises for making children.
How have you determined that the buying power of the average American worker has shrunk?
Wal-Mart has been open for a good while now for a business that doesn’t think about longterm profit. What does Wal-Mart think of and what stops other companies from being just as successful? If any Wal-Mart haters want to say the government supports Wal-Mart and keeps them open, why do you want even more government involvement?[/quote]
The buying power of the average American worker has certainly shrunk over the last few decades. I didn’t think this was even in question?
Most large corporations do not decision make on best long term profit. They base most decisions on things that will boost share price most quickly or value of the company immediately for privately held large companies. This is not the same thing as long term profit.
Ok so you do believe in classical economic thought with the free market is fair bullshit. Ignoring that we are to far down the rabbit hole to ever have a free market. In the real world its not the case that the market is “fair” whatever you choose to mean by that. There is still the very real element of chance. Obviously in classical thought the element of chance would be nonexistent or minimal and its not the case. There needs to be some sort of system to help alleviate the hand of fate without rewarding those who choose to do nothing.
So you’d pick an average family. Say two adults and two kids and thats what you’d base your modest living on. Going out of those bounds would of course increase expenses and needed money to maintain the standard of living.
Libertarian bullshit aside. The vast resources of the government have long been in bed with big business and this has perpetuated a climate that doesn’t do much for the regular workingman…it also freezes out competition somewhat or totally in some industries due to government regulation. To simply eliminate this regulation isn’t enough. Some industries have become so entrenched by years of government support that simply taking away regulation won’t even the playing field enough.
The buying power of the average American worker has certainly shrunk over the last few decades. I didn’t think this was even in question?
Most large corporations do not decision make on best long term profit. They base most decisions on things that will boost share price most quickly or value of the company immediately for privately held large companies. This is not the same thing as long term profit.
Ok so you do believe in classical economic thought with the free market is fair bullshit. Ignoring that we are to far down the rabbit hole to ever have a free market. In the real world its not the case that the market is “fair” whatever you choose to mean by that. There is still the very real element of chance. Obviously in classical thought the element of chance would be nonexistent or minimal and its not the case. There needs to be some sort of system to help alleviate the hand of fate without rewarding those who choose to do nothing.
So you’d pick an average family. Say two adults and two kids and thats what you’d base your modest living on. Going out of those bounds would of course increase expenses and needed money to maintain the standard of living.
Libertarian bullshit aside. The vast resources of the government have long been in bed with big business and this has perpetuated a climate that doesn’t do much for the regular workingman…it also freezes out competition somewhat or totally in some industries due to government regulation. To simply eliminate this regulation isn’t enough. Some industries have become so entrenched by years of government support that simply taking away regulation won’t even the playing field enough.
[/quote]
I’ll be honest, I have no idea what “buying power” is even supposed to mean when talking about the buying power of “the average American worker” and trying to blame it on business. Explain it to me, please. I know that advances in technology seem to decrease the price of older technology, and the poor can now afford things that were unheard of 100 years ago.
A company has to base its decisions on what it feels will benefit it. The benefit it’s looking for is nobody else’s business.
I accept chance. Why do we need a system to neutralize it? A system to alleviate the hand of fate? Please explain. It seems to me that everything could then be attributed to “fate” and regulated. Fairness, to me, means that no force is used for or against anyone and everyone decides for themself what to invest in. A better word would probably be freedom.
The fact is that some people have been given the talent/luck/drive/whatever necessary to run a business and others have not. This is the thing that people truly want to eliminate. If everyone received exactly the same pay, there would still be jealousy if someone was somehow still motivated enough to be better.
You propose a system which elimates fate while not rewarding those who do nothing? I’m not sure how fate can be eliminated(or why that would be desirable…), but I fully support eliminating a government reward for those who do nothing.
So the income it takes to support an average family would be the determinant of a minimum wage? I assume this would not be a national minimum wage. Correct? The cost of living varies from place to place so I’m not sure how a national wage would work. Would minimum wage for a childless, single, teenaged employee be the same as that of the head of a family? Who would determine what this family should be able to pay for with its income? Should this family live entirely on beans and rice or should it be able to go to Disney World once a month? Who would be responsible for a family having more than two children? Or are you saying that family would have to handle its own economic problems after having a third child(You lack the ability or drive to become something other than a Wal-Mart greeter? That’s okay, we’ll make those bastards pay Would the government force employers to give raises or would the government subsidize the third child with others’ money? Maybe the government could set a two child limit on families? After all, we have already decided the government should be responsible for making sure people “earn” enough money to support their families(earn is in quotations since some of that money would be paid to the employee at the point of a gun), so shouldn’t the government then be able to tell us how many children we can have? It’s absolutely a vital function of government to make sure that everyone receives enough money to modestly support a four person family, but what if a husband and wife both work? Would they each only receive half of the minimum wage or would they each receive enough money to support their family on their own?
Business has been in bed with government…and your solution is…MORE GOVERNMENT? If eliminating regulations won’t help, what will? You seem to be in favor of getting rid of government interference, but think that wouldn’t be enough. Instead, in order to fix the mess the government created, you want that same government to get MORE involved? If we could eliminate government involvement in the economy, I’d be more than willing to accept that some companies have received a headstart. If a business needs government handouts and those handouts are eliminated, that company won’t last long no matter how far in front it starts. That’s the beauty of freedom, things take care of themselves.
Since businesses don’t think about the longterm, why don’t you start up a business that does? In the longterm you should be able to put every other company in your chosen field out of business. You could then hire everyone they have to let go AND give them pay raises.
Are you a union worker? Is it possible that your desire for an increased minimum wage is not altruistic, but instead due to union wages being indexed to the minimum wage?
If I remember correctly, this site used to run articles on manliness. I can think of nothing ‘manlier’ than the “animating contest of freedom” but it seems many desire “the tranquility of servitude”.
Wall of text with huge quoting issues. Blah.
And the dreaded your you’re confusion.
Lets just leave it at that I don’t think classical economics even if there is a true free market always accurately allows talent to rise.
The accident of birth is even too much sometimes. If the free market is truly fair then it would be ok to cap money someone is allowed to inherit correct? Since one should be able to rise on ones own merit one shouldn’t need to start a few million or 100 million ahead correct?
Most people don’t want Harrison Bergeron when they advocate fairness, but an unfettered free market with no safety net is equally unwelcome.
I am not a union worker. I am certainly pro union. The anti union mindset is hysterical bullshit. You can do a little bit of research yourself to find out about pre union working conditions to see the level the average business owner would set them at pre union in America. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that the modern business owner has more altruism. Unfettered free market capitalism loves slavery, child labor, unsafe working conditions and throwing away labor. Any laws against these already hinder the free market.
Typical modern anti union crap would start out with something like “well blah blah we have changed its no longer necessary” Why do you think its changed motherfucker?
Please posit some actual benefits to an unfettered free market for labor. If you want to use class mobility throw up a bit of evidence.
[quote]groo wrote:
Wall of text with huge quoting issues. Blah.
And the dreaded your you’re confusion.
Lets just leave it at that I don’t think classical economics even if there is a true free market always accurately allows talent to rise.
The accident of birth is even too much sometimes. If the free market is truly fair then it would be ok to cap money someone is allowed to inherit correct? Since one should be able to rise on ones own merit one shouldn’t need to start a few million or 100 million ahead correct?
Most people don’t want Harrison Bergeron when they advocate fairness, but an unfettered free market with no safety net is equally unwelcome.
I am not a union worker. I am certainly pro union. The anti union mindset is hysterical bullshit. You can do a little bit of research yourself to find out about pre union working conditions to see the level the average business owner would set them at pre union in America. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that the modern business owner has more altruism. Unfettered free market capitalism loves slavery, child labor, unsafe working conditions and throwing away labor. Any laws against these already hinder the free market.
Typical modern anti union crap would start out with something like “well blah blah we have changed its no longer necessary” Why do you think its changed motherfucker?
Please posit some actual benefits to an unfettered free market for labor. If you want to use class mobility throw up a bit of evidence.[/quote]
How would it be fair to cap the money someone is allowed to inherit? Someone else made that money and can will it to a charity or government if he or she doesn’t want the money to be inherited.
How were pre-union working conditions in America compared to working conditions in the rest of the world at the time?
As far as slavery and the free market go, I have already said I don’t advocate the use of force. Slavery is also inefficient.
If parents force their children to go to work and the children can find employment(in what jobs could a young child outperform an adult?), then so be it. That would be some pretty sorry parenting.
How would having unsafe working conditions be in a business owner’s best interest?
If I produce molweebs(that’s a made up item) and find there’s a big enough market for molweebs to make it worth my time to build a factory and mass produce them, then how should I pay my labor? Let’s say I only employ seven year old children, pay them 3 cents/hour, and make them play Russian roulette during their shifts(that scenario pretty much takes care of child labor, low pay, and dangerous working conditions).
I would hope I wouldn’t be able to find much labor, but let’s assume I find enough parents willing to force their children to work for me. Now, knowing that producing molweebs is big business(this is assuming my entire labor force doesn’t kill itself off first-thus ending my ability to produce as many molweebs as I feel necessary), a competitor emerges and builds his/her own factory. My competitor(we’ll call him/her X) pays 4 cents/hour and doesn’t make the employees play russian roulette.
How many workers would I have left after the evil parents realized they could be making a third bigger profit on their childrens’ labor? My molweeb production would then be limited to what I could produce by myself. My prices will be higher than X’s due to his/her ability to mass produce molweebs. How many people are going to buy my molweebs when they can check the next shelf and buy the same product cheaper?
How long will I stay in business when it becomes an expense with no return? I think my molweeb production, if it continues, would then be known as a hobby.
Back to the point of why labor needs Representation in Washington . Eric Cantor wants to do away with FDR’s law that mandates overtime for minimum wage workers . WHY ? Is that a problem in today’s society ? Or is some one paying Cantor to fuck the hourly wage worker ?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. [/quote]
The market did a fine job in 19th-century England, right? And in Guinea? North Korea? Somalia?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“We” don’t need to make sure anybody is making enough to buy anything, the market will take care of that. [/quote]
The market did a fine job in 19th-century England, right? And in Guinea? North Korea? Somalia?[/quote]
Ah, North Korea, the last and greatest bastion of freedom and market forces. I feel that by continuing to participate in this debate after that comment, I am in danger of being seen the same way the winner of the 400m dash at the Special Olympics is, so I’m going to go ahead and bow out.