Which is more important to the US?

[Bereta_Eder]

if there is no job other than that then he doesn't have a choice
if he is in construction and constrcution poays 1 dollar a month then he has to take it and be a slave in a free economy

[David Floyd]

if there is no job other than that then he doesn't have a choice

Why would you assume there is only one type of job (manual labor) available? That makes absolutely no sense. And why would a construction company pay only 1 dollar a month? Sooner or later a new company would come along offering $2, to attract more workers, and so on - that's the beauty of the free market.

Further, even some uneducated guy still has choice - he can, for example, join the military. But he shoulda found a way to get an education, that would certainly give him more choices. He certainly isn't a slave, though.

[Bereta_Eder]

another construction company will not offer 2 dolalrs in a free market because that would raise costs and cut earnings.

also it doesn't have to because it does not need to attract workers. workers will be forced to work there to make a living.

so the company has to be made to not take people on slave wages - socialism.

also if all contsruction workers go to the military then the military will soon stop having free slots and so the problem returns.

[David Floyd]

also it doesn't have to because it does not need to attract workers. workers will be forced to work there to make a living.

You still don't understand. There is more than one construction company. There is not an unlimited pool of construction workers. Therefore, in order to get the workers you need, you have to make it worth their while. Sure, you might argue that every company could just pay $1, but that in practice makes no sense, because the limited pool of labor would have no reason to work for your company over another. If you have no workers, you make no profit. Therefore, you raise wages to $2 to attract workers.
Everyone else hears about this, and now they stand to lose potential workers. Therefore, they go up to $2.50. This goes on until an equilibrium is met between available workers and still-in-business construction companies.
Then, you run into the problem of retaining workers. Let's say a worker at Company A gets a job offer from Company B, because Company B sees that he is a good worker, has learned quickly, whatever. But Company A sees this too, and offers him a raise in order to stay - sure, they could just let him go and find someone else, but it's expensive to train people who won't do as good of a job at first anyway.
You see, it's not as simple as Marx makes it out to be - what I just stated is a simple example, and is by definition how a free market works.

[David Floyd]

You still haven't addressed the point that unskilled labor is not the only type of employment available - it all depends on education, entrepreneurship, etc.

[Bereta_Eder]

you will always have workers since people are prepared to submit for 1 dollar wage and starve but stay alive than not to work and die.

so the pool is unlimited. that is why there is a government that is supposed to regulate.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and one more point - if companies will only want to pay people $1, or whatever, why is it that most companies offre above the minimum wage in the US? I got hired in my first job, for example, for 40% above minimum wage, and by the time I left I was making double minimum wage. This was working in a simple retail job that required no education, and I started at 16.

[David Floyd]

you will always have workers since people are prepared to submit for 1 dollar wage and starve but stay alive than not work die.

Wrong. Sure, people might rather work for starvation wages than die, but you aren't addressing the points that there is a limited pool of workers in each field. Educated people won't want construction jobs, uneducated people can't be teachers, etc. You are making a theoretical argument that doesn't work in practice.

[Akka]

The dream of a free market that would reach a fair equilibrium is just that : a dream.
We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers.
Just like anarchy, free market lead only to the rule of the strong and oppression of the weaks, it's just that it's money rather than physical strenght that counts.

[David Floyd]

The dream of a free market that would reach a fair equilibrium is just that : a dream.
We could see that in the awful work conditions in the XIXth century for the workers.

Did a true free market exist in that time period? Of course not.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Domestically, Democracy.
Internationally 1st World, Democracy.
Internationally 3rd World, Capitalism.

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Did a true free market exist in that time period? Of course not.

And which were the limitations ?
Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

These times were no way near to free-market lassez-faire capitalism. The freedom of entry was restricted and the government was HEAVILY involved in helping some businesses succeed.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Nearly absent. This time was much more free capitalistic than today. We saw the results.

These times were no way near to free-market lassez-faire capitalism. The freedom of entry was restricted and the government was HEAVILY involved in helping some businesses succeed.

There was no minimal wages, no regulation on security, no regulation on ages nor number of hours worked, no taxes for social security...

Well, you can shut your eyes and say that capitalism and lack of regulation will make a wonderful world autoregulated, after all it's no more stupid than the utopian ideas of Marx. Just the opposite utopia.

[kolpo]

100-150 years ago was most of Europe much more laisse faire then it is now(there was no social security, not many labor laws, labor unions wheren't allowed or had not power). In that time was the income differnce between rich and poor much bigger then it is now, even much bigger then in the medivial feudal times!

All those economic theories are just theories nothing more, Sweden violated quite all of them(high taxes, much government interference in economy, high minium wages) and they ended up as one of the riches and best countries on earth. It's all stupid theory! Instead look to the really, the reallity that laisse faire capitalism is dead! That everyone decide to move to human capitalism instead. Even the right in the west is no longer as much agaisnts social security and public eductaion as it was 10 years ago(Bush even want to give money to church charity that would be 20 years ago unimaginable for a republicain), both communism and pure capitalism have lost the cold war, only human capitalism remained.

Btw, there is a mathematical proof(forgot name of it) that proofed that the base of Adam Smith his theories "you are best for the others and yourself if you only strive for your own selfish needs" is incorrect. The correct version is: You are best for yourself and the others if you strive for what is best for you and the others(perfect example of this are virtual cartels).