Tweet
Deregulation never happened. Instead there was a partial lifting which was worse then doing nothing. It didn't help that Enron paid politicians to rig the system for it and then stole billions of dollars from consumers.
-
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
It's economic orthodoxy that minimum wage laws increase unemployment, insofar as they increase the cost of labor (some minimum wages are so low as to have little impact). I have no reason to question the orthodoxy. As Roland was so fond of pointing out, some European countries such as Austria don't have minimum wages.While this seems logical on its face, historically it has proben to be untrue.
Even commies should agree that this is the case in a free-market economy and propose policies accordingly.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I don't agree with minimum wages. It's like Affirmative Action... it's the wrong solution for the problem... though it's better than doing nothing and allowing corporations to dictate wages.
Some people on this board live in a dilluded fantasy world where there is this mysterious entity known as a "market" that "fairly determines wages".
The people who control the means of production control the wages.
Damn, now you dopes got me sounding like a damned commie.
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
If raising the min wage expands employment, why did the Sierra Club of California ask for an exemption from the increase they pushed for in California? What did the Sierra Club say when asking for the exemption? That they would have to lay off people if required to pay employees more! C'mon, the notion that raising the cost of labor creates more jobs is ludicrous, just ask the Sierra Club when it's looking out for itself as opposed to screwing other businesses.
The BS is amazing... Force other employers to pay higher labor costs because it'll expand the economy, but don't force us because we'll have to lay people off. That's liberal logic in a nutshell...Comment
-
What's an enviromental organization doing pushing for a higher wage?I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Also Kuci, I know that my example about the regulation of property is probably too 'theoric' in nature, so I might as well point out that corporations are paying less and less taxes while the subsidies they receive are slightly rising.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Protecting the environment.What's an enviromental organization doing pushing for a higher wage?
Someone apparently accused opponents of raising the min wage of being against the poor. What about the poor people who lose jobs or can't get jobs because of the increased min wage?Comment
-
Raising the minimum wage gives a few people more money but it increases everyone's costs. I'd bet that the majority of people on minimum wage are students. Sure, you'll have a fair percentage of illegal immigrants, ex-cons, and the mentally handicapped but most people who work full time won't have a minimum wage job. If you want to help these people make more money then training them with useful job skills would be the best way to do that.
Raising the minimum wage does put pressure on employers to either reduce costs or raise prices so there will be lost jobs. If the over all economy is doing great then these lost jobs can be made up in other areas but that isn't guaranteed. I remember a good study done in the early 1990's about a minimum wage increase in New Jersey. It dealt exclusively with the fast food industry and how they handled the increases in labor costs. It showed that the number of people working at each restaurant almost always went down as management tried to cut costs by getting a few full timers to replace a bunch of part timers.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
The Sierra Club is supposed to be an enviromental organization but it has its nose into everything these days.Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's an enviromental organization doing pushing for a higher wage?Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
WTF is wrong with something being sold to the highest bidder? (The real problem, however, is pure libertarianism doesn't have a mechanism for explaining what to do with unowned things.)Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That's the whole ****ing point! It assumes that everything, up to natural resources, must be governed by money! I could be in favor of this system if the government was regulating the market so that sidecosts (such as those to health and environment) were taken into account, but alas it isn't.Comment
-
That trend is also anti-libertarian. It's not a problem with capitalism or the market, it's a problem with INTERFERENCE in the market.Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Also Kuci, I know that my example about the regulation of property is probably too 'theoric' in nature, so I might as well point out that corporations are paying less and less taxes while the subsidies they receive are slightly rising.Comment
-
Libertarianism aside, it shows the overall friendlyness of government towards enterprises. They don't have to pay their part, and the money they receive is just icing on the cake.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That trend is also anti-libertarian. It's not a problem with capitalism or the market, it's a problem with INTERFERENCE in the market.
You've said it yourself. 'Unowned' stuff goes to the state, which assumes in most cases that it's there for the highest bidder. Remember, I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad. This whole (silly) argument just traces back to your naive post implicitly saying that unions in Canada were way too powerful, and that corporations were victims of unfair laws. My point here is that when you look at it from a global perspective, you realize that it's pretty much the opposite, that everything on society from property laws (recognized as a basic right in many constitutions) to taxation to the governing of natural resources is corporate friendly.WTF is wrong with something being sold to the highest bidder? (The real problem, however, is pure libertarianism doesn't have a mechanism for explaining what to do with unowned things.)In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Last time you talked about philosophy, I remember you saying that you aced your Logic course.Originally posted by Asher
Unions are nothing but a mob mentality endorsed by the government.
Didn't they teach you that a very quick and efficient way to test the validity of an argument is to compare it to its opposite?
Anti-unionism is nothing but an individualistic mentality endorsed by the government*.
*Where the 'government' would be that of a union-unfriendly country, say, South Korea.
In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
-
Libertarianism aside, it shows the overall friendlyness of government towards enterprises. They don't have to pay their part, and the money they receive is just icing on the cake.
You must like in your own little world, fake boris. Enterprises not only pay the majority of the taxes recieved but they also provide the jobs which most people work at. In short they pay for just about everything we have.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Corporations provide 20% of public funds, down from 50% in the 70s.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.Comment
Comment