I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not getting into an argument with you over the second half of that post. I can only debunk that particular brand of incoherent nonsense so many times.

I'm going to break this rule once and only once: for the love of god, learn the difference between "wealth" and "money" and learn the difference between stocks and flows. Most of your comments on this topic conflate one of those pairs.

[kentonio]

RAnd yet in the low-regulation jurisdictions we don't see anything approaching the "race to the bottom" you predict. We've never seen that.

What do you mean we've never seen that, have you even looked at worker conditions in the past?

No you haven't. At best, you've claimed that in some cases supply outstrips demand and therefore wages are low, exactly as we would expect.

The cases where employers even attempt to cartelize to control wages are extremely rare, and successful examples even rarer. Labor is too mobile.

It doesn't have to be a structured cartel system, finding out the market rate for wages isn't difficult.

My problem with your approach is that its grounded purely in theory, and that theory ****s the small people. You talk as if the times/regions where demand outstrips supply somehow justify the times/regions where the opposite is true. One person getting a pay rise does not balance out another having to starve. You also depend on employers not acting immorally/corruptly when regulation is removed, which again we've seen endless examples of, including during the recent financial collapse.

It's also worth pointing out that if regulation/worker rights were so destructive to business, Europe wouldn't have any successful businesses left. How can Germany be a successful economic power AND look after its workers?

[Kuciwalker]

What do you mean we've never seen that, have you even looked at worker conditions in the past?

Even factory workers in China - where the government is actively suppressing wage growth - earn more than subsistence wages!

Your theory has yet to explain what is "the lowest wage they can get away with". You have never provided any coherent accounting of that question. We know that that level in almost all societies well above a subsistence wage (the prediction your theory originally made, until you said "no, no, it predicts something else!"), and so it's of substantial interest to us.

My problem with your approach is that its grounded purely in theory, and that theory ****s the small people.

The theory of supply and demand can't "**** over small people" any more than the theory of gravity. The theory of supply and demand simply predicts the level of wages and employment. It does so with far more accuracy than any other theory. It can therefore be used to predict the level of wages and employment if we make certain changes. One of those changes we can make would be to remove various labor regulations. The theory of supply and demand predicts that this will reduce unemployment. The international data support this prediction.

It's also worth pointing out that if regulation/worker rights were so destructive to business, Europe wouldn't have any successful businesses left.

This doesn't follow. It's useful to note, however, that Germany has persistently higher unemployment rates than the United States.

[kentonio]

Even factory workers in China - where the government is actively suppressing wage growth - earn more than subsistence wages!

You are aware that China has minimum wage laws, right?

Your theory has yet to explain what is "the lowest wage they can get away with". You have never provided any coherent accounting of that question. We know that that level in almost all societies well above a subsistence wage (the prediction your theory originally made, until you said "no, no, it predicts something else!"), and so it's of substantial interest to us.

You mean the 'almost all societies' which 'almost all' also have minimum wage laws or other worker protections in place. Answer me this, how high are domestic worker wages for illegal migrant workers?

The theory of supply and demand can't "**** over small people" any more than the theory of gravity. The theory of supply and demand simply predicts the level of wages and employment. It does so with far more accuracy than any other theory. It can therefore be used to predict the level of wages and employment if we make certain changes. One of those changes we can make would be to remove various labor regulations. The theory of supply and demand predicts that this will reduce unemployment. The international data support this prediction.

The dangerous theory isn't the basic one of supply and demand, but when ideologues who ignore history try and build systems based upon things they find 'obvious' and 'beyond argument'. You live in a country that already has shamefully low worker protections and business regulations, but you've swallowed the complete bull**** about how business can only thrive with all regulation stripped away. The same pernicious lies in fact that the banking industry peddled before crashing the financial system because they were not being properly regulated.

This doesn't follow. It's useful to note, however, that Germany has persistently higher unemployment rates than the United States.

That's useful is it? I wonder what else is useful.. how about the current unemployment rate comparisons between the US and the high protection/regulation euro countries? Shall we mention those?

[rah]

Since most countries calculate their unemployment rates differently, I think most comparisons be not very useful.

[Kuciwalker]

Econometricians aren't quite as stupid as you think, though they come close.

[The Mad Monk]

Is someone really going to try to kill someone for donating to a political candidate?

So what's your address?

[C0ckney]

The correct way to try to redisribute income is to take it directly from rich people and give it to poor people.

which, of course, cannot be achieved without a political environment conducive to the redistribution of wealth. we know what creates such a political environment, namely, strong social democratic/socialist political parties and strong unions.

how do you plan to actually redistribute wealth once you've destroyed one of the things which actually caused wealth to be redistributed.

[C0ckney]

i mean, it's a bit like hearing a priest who wants to revitalise and spread the christian faith, but the first part of his plan involves tearing down all the churches and burning every bible.

you might be forgiven for thinking that he either a) hasn't really thought his plan through, or b) has another agenda...

[Jaguar]

i mean, it's a bit like hearing a priest who wants to revitalise and spread the christian faith, but the first part of his plan involves tearing down all the churches and burning every bible.

you might be forgiven for thinking that he either a) hasn't really thought his plan through, or b) has another agenda...

Martin Luther?

[Kuciwalker]

[C0ckney]

Martin Luther?

called for neither of those things...

[regexcellent]

So basically, because those darned voters can't be relied upon to produce good, socialist policy we should have policies that increase inequality just to ensure that socialist political parties remain powerful for the foreseeable future?

Well, in America we don't have socialist parties, at least not ones that get elected, and the only politician I know of in federal office who calls himself socialist is Bernie Sanders of Vermont. It's for the best, frankly.

[C0ckney]

reg, you don't believe in redistribution downwards. that's fine, that's your right. however, if you did believe in redistribution, you'd probably give some thought about how to actually bring it about and give support to organisations that have been shown to do so. it would be astonishing if you didn't, in fact.

as you say, you don't have socialist or even social democratic parties in the US. if you look at countries which do and have strong unions, you will see that they have far more equal societies than the US because they redistribute wealth more effectively.

[regexcellent]

I'm happy with some level of redistribution.

In any case, those countries you speak of are also way poorer than we are in GDP per capita terms, so I'm happy with our ways.