What is the dollar value of...

[C0ckney]

what KH and solomwi said.

also, the problem is that you're using the speenhamland system to try to prove a point, but it's clear that you don't really know much about it, or what came before or after. i would suggest reading a good book on social conditions in 18th and 19th century england (there are quite a few to choose from, and i won't make any particular recommendations). you also need to read "the myth of the old poor law" by mark blaug, which should clear up most of your misconceptions about speenhamland and the systems which existed alongside it.

[curtis290]

In today's market we'd call he floor on wages the minimum wage.

Wow, ******.

similarity

It's not an economic equivalence, moron. Nobody claimed it was.

And it doesn't mean that the labor market "didn't exist" prior to that. It simply means that at the low end of the income distribution had some significant distortion in it (in the case of the poor laws as stated, it placed a wedge between marginal increases in employer pay and employee pay, while in the case of the minimum wage it places a ban on transactions)

Good ****ing Lord, you're stupid. Neither distortion means that the job market "doesn't exist"

Why do you assume people have no utility for more than 3 shillings? And you are completely ignoring that competition in the labor market would force wages above three shillings.

Precisely. There is a distortion and loss of labor supply at the low end of the distribution. Above that, the distortion becomes smaller.

Which is why the idea that the labor market "didn't exist" due to this is ridiculous. Which is precisely the point I made earlier...

You need to rethink the employer's incentive under such a system, dip****.

Good lord. This epitomizes what is wrong with the views of people like KH. Sure, you know a lot about mathematical models based on flawed assumptions, and you can calculate what you need to on the job as a financial analyst. But these models don’t reflect reality, and they can’t always be your point of departure, or you’re going to seriously misinterpret the world. Your knowledge of the math in econ textbooks doesn’t mean you know ANYTHING about how broader economic structures, much less politics, history or culture. The ‘low end of the income distribution’? Are you serious? It was the early 19th century! Do you actually think there was a sizable middle class in England at this time? That the vast majority of the population wasn’t living in abject poverty at the time? A small group of people held an amazing amount of wealth and this group was growing, but the bulk of the population was earning less than the 3 shillings or hardly above it. The Speenhamland system effected most people and had a huge impact on the economy since the vast majority of the population saw those kind of wages. It ended up getting rid of labor supply period, as well as forced wages down to zero. A modern labor market can’t exist in these conditions.

This is an interesting line of thought. When society agrees to make a market for something it's really distributing power. Before land could be bought and sold though society already had a means of distributing power. The market just changed the way power was distributed. Of course you can't buy and sell real love, but you can pretend.

Good stuff. And the society has no control over the distribution of power in such a system. It is completely dependent on an artificial system based on factors outside of the peoples’ control. What a silly way to distribute power and run a society.

See. If I remember correctly, kidicious is a full-blown socialist. Yet I can agree with him on something, despite being ideological enemies. I don’t take our disagreements personally. What is it with you people that you have to vehemently attack every point I make just because you disagree my beliefs?

what KH and solomwi said.

also, the problem is that you're using the speenhamland system to try to prove a point, but it's clear that you don't really know much about it, or what came before or after. i would suggest reading a good book on social conditions in 18th and 19th century england (there are quite a few to choose from, and i won't make any particular recommendations). you also need to read "the myth of the old poor law" by mark blaug, which should clear up most of your misconceptions about speenhamland and the systems which existed alongside it.

OK, how about I read that book and you read the section on Speenhamland (and the chapter before and after it) in Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation. Deal?

[MikeH]

I remember when KrazyHorse said he'd play nicely with new posters.

[Dinner]

Like a politician's promises it was all a lie.

[KrazyHorse]

I remember when KrazyHorse said he'd play nicely with new posters.

Each of Curtis' posts counts as 200...

[Solomwi]

that Curtis quoted six different posters, and only found Kiddie worth agreeing with. That's telling.

[Elok]

See. If I remember correctly, kidicious is a full-blown socialist. Yet I can agree with him on something, despite being ideological enemies. I don’t take our disagreements personally. What is it with you people that you have to vehemently attack every point I make just because you disagree my beliefs?

Partly I think it's revulsion towards said beliefs, which strike most of us as borderline fascist in nature. And partly it's that posters like KH are accustomed to arguing in concrete facts, or at least defined theories, while you appeal to vague sentiments.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

that Curtis quoted six different posters, and only found Kiddie worth agreeing with. That's telling.

Couldn't be arsed with reading the thread but this could be the most spot on comment of the thrade.

[curtis290]

that Curtis quoted six different posters, and only found Kiddie worth agreeing with. That's telling.

Couldn't be arsed with reading the thread but this could be the most spot on comment of the thrade.

All it shows is that I'm more open-minded than you guys and actually consider other peoples' arguments. As for the six I quoted, they were making ridiculous claims that Speenhamland would only effect the few people with the lowest income...as if there was a middle class in early 19th century England and that many people earned above the living wage of 3 shillings a week. It was another example of people applying the concepts they learned in their econ textbook to actual historical situations and failing miserably to understand what was going on.

Partly I think it's revulsion towards said beliefs, which strike most of us as borderline fascist in nature. And partly it's that posters like KH are accustomed to arguing in concrete facts, or at least defined theories, while you appeal to vague sentiments.

Well, I have a revulsion to socialism and I didn't attack kidicious. As for facts vs. sentiments, I think it's an unfair claim. Maybe I discuss larger, general theories and concepts, but at least someone here is trying to think big as opposed wasting time arguing about minute details. I have a fundamentally different view of society than many of you, so I'm going to have to speak in very general terms about very broad concepts. When two people with fundamentally similar views of governments and societies have a discussion, they spend it arguing about minute details within such a system, such as whether or not Obama's insurance reform was a good idea. When two people with fundamentally different views of government and socities have a discussion, they have to discuss the fundamental assumptions on which their ideologies are based.

This, I believe, is a very fruitful exercise and the only way one can truly broaden one's viewpoint and better understand and formulate their own set of beliefs. Instead of having such a discussion, people immediately shut out someone that doesn't agree with their fundamental set of values and assumptions, and simply attack every minute detail of their argument without listening to what they have to say. This is why I try not to get too specific; it would simply lead to everyone quibbling about every historical fact I've mentioned in my argument whether or not it has anything to do with my argument (which is exactly what happened on conservativescave.com), not to mention it would make my posts even lengthier.

And as for concrete facts and theories, Oerdin, KH, and flash all bring the theories they learned in their econ textbooks to early 19th century England. And they prove yet again why economists have little understanding of how economies actually work, both in the present and especially in history. Here they are the ones speaking in general theories that are inapplicable to the real world, and I'm referring to facts that contradict their arguments. Every economy is different and you can't make generalizations that are true in every economy. Also, I can't believe how this debate turned out. How I am making the claim that Speenhamland was ineffective and a contradiction to the natural labor market and being attacked by a bunch of laissez-faire economists is absolutely beyond me. Another example of people simply attacking every claim I make without considering what I have to say, even when I'm basically on their side.

Why do you assume people have no utility for more than 3 shillings? And you are completely ignoring that competition in the labor market would force wages above three shillings.

Flash thinks that wages will increase above 3 shillings due to competition in the labor market, which is absolutely absurd: there's a reason that this didn't happen and that history doesn't coincide with his account of what would happen. Competition in the labor market is why the wage went far below 3 shillings before Speenhamland: labor supply greatly exceeded demand (mainly due to the commodification of land, farmers and as well as others who lived on the commons were forced out of the countryside and needed work), so wages were extremely low. Speenhamland was supposed to be the solution for this, since it would guarantee every a living wage. Instead it did not enable the natural mechanism of the labor market to function. And as for the discussion about how much everyone who earned above 3 shillings was worth, a tiny percentage of the population actually made above the 3 shilling amount, so it's completely irrelevant.

In today's market we'd call he floor on wages the minimum wage.

Wow, ******.

similarity

It's not an economic equivalence, moron. Nobody claimed it was.

And it doesn't mean that the labor market "didn't exist" prior to that. It simply means that at the low end of the income distribution had some significant distortion in it (in the case of the poor laws as stated, it placed a wedge between marginal increases in employer pay and employee pay, while in the case of the minimum wage it places a ban on transactions)

Good ****ing Lord, you're stupid. Neither distortion means that the job market "doesn't exist"

Precisely. There is a distortion and loss of labor supply at the low end of the distribution. Above that, the distortion becomes smaller.

Which is why the idea that the labor market "didn't exist" due to this is ridiculous. Which is precisely the point I made earlier...

As for KH and Oerdin, they assume that a minimum wage would work in early 19th century England the same way it would work today. This is just silly because of the differences between their economy and ours. We are a wealthy, developed economy, with a (relatively) large middle class. England was in the early stages of capitalism, meaning many were unemployed and most were barely making a living on the small wages they received. There was no middle class, and only a small portion of the population made more than the living wage. So Speenhamland affected most of the population where it was enacted, and it pauperized many (since they were guaranteed a living wage) and forced real wages down to zero, since the parish could simply pay for the wages of the workers. According to KH, only the "low end of the income distribution would be distorted," but just about the entire population was on the low end of the income distribution, so the whole damn thing was distorted. Another reason why you can't blindly apply economic models to economies in real life and expect to have anything intelligent to say.

As for Solomwi, he just didn't make an intelligible point. In fact I'm almost dumbfounded he wrote that post...it just doesn't make sense. Why would I have to "rethink the employer's incentive under such a system"? As an employer, you obviously want to have to pay as little as possible in labor costs. If there is a law increasing minimum wage that states that the parish will pay for the workers to receive minimum wage, why would you increase their salaries, especially when you don't have any problems hiring anyone since everyone (they all live in abject poverty) would be willing to work for that salary? Why would you spend 3 shillings and one pence instead of absolutely nothing to make a one pence increase in wages? I thought this was painfully obvious. My hope is that solomwi just didn't read the post, otherwise, ...

[Cort Haus]

thrade

AAHZ,what have you done with Ogie and how did you get his login?

[Dinner]

I saw that too. Ogie needs to wash the AAHZ ick off of his tongue.

[Kuciwalker]

All it shows is that I'm more open-minded than you guys and actually consider other peoples' arguments.

No, it shows that

1) you haven't been here long enough to find out how stupid Kiddy is.

2) you somehow managed to find one of his 'arguments' convincing.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, be a dear and summarize his response to me.

It's not worth reading that much in order to encounter what I'm sure is either one of the half-dozen least interesting common economic fallacies or simple incomprehension and stupidity.

[Solomwi]

As for Solomwi, he just didn't make an intelligible point. In fact I'm almost dumbfounded he wrote that post...it just doesn't make sense. Why would I have to "rethink the employer's incentive under such a system"? As an employer, you obviously want to have to pay as little as possible in labor costs. If there is a law increasing minimum wage that states that the parish will pay for the workers to receive minimum wage, why would you increase their salaries, especially when you don't have any problems hiring anyone since everyone (they all live in abject poverty) would be willing to work for that salary? Why would you spend 3 shillings and one pence instead of absolutely nothing to make a one pence increase in wages? I thought this was painfully obvious. My hope is that solomwi just didn't read the post, otherwise, ...

If wages went to zero, try to imagine what else would go to zero, cupcake. Here's a hint: I can get my 3 shillings slaving away on dangerous machinery most of my waking hours, or I can get the same 3 shillings not slaving away on dangerous machinery most of my waking hours.

[KrazyHorse]

That's one of the many parts I don't understand about his claim; according to him, virtually everybody was caught by the 3 shilling a week top-up. Which means that the country's farms, workshops etc. were being run by.....?

Apparently nobody in England worked until the early 19th century....