World’s richest woman would prefer to pay her miners $2 a day

[Hauldren Collider]

What the hell is an "actual choice"? Is it $3 a day? $2 a day? Is it US minimum wage, $7.50/hour? What is it?

[Aeson]

Aeson, if we paid the workers more, we'd have to hire less workers. That would be far worse.

And there's nothing exploitative about it. The mining companies would be provided opportunities where there previously existed none. And you think that's bad, because the opportunities aren't as good as you'd like? Ridiculous.

I would love for the workers to have a choice as to where they'd work. Ideally they'd be as wealthy as I am. You are attributing things to me that are patently false, accusing me of things I've never said, and I can't honestly figure out why.

No, we could pay the workers much more and not have to hire less workers. We'd have to hire more since the workers would now be consumers creating their own demand. Hell, we might even decide that the demand is great enough that we'll stop paying our farmers to not grow food ... and they could hire some workers too.

As for why I attribute this to you, it's what you've said. You've said that if I pay my workers $1 more than market (a depressed market where wages are almost entirely dictated by immigration restrictions) that it's welfare destroying. You support the effects of the immigration restrictions. You cheerlead for those who exploit them. Then you feign disbelief when someone calls you on your support of the status quo.

[Aeson]

What the hell is an "actual choice"? Is it $3 a day? $2 a day? Is it US minimum wage, $7.50/hour? What is it?

The ability to choose to work somewhere else. Stupid ****.

[Zevico]

What the hell is an "actual choice"? Is it $3 a day? $2 a day? Is it US minimum wage, $7.50/hour? What is it?

It's a matter of vanity, not economics. Without the unemployment that comes with the minimum wage, who can we shower with state based patronage, love and entitlements? Without the minimum wage, how can we blame employers for hiring illegal immigrants at below the minimum wage and being "unpatriotic"? People need to feel powerful and righteous, as if they can wash away the ills of the world with a wave of a hand. It doesn't work that way. Good intentions have a way of meeting reality with unfortunate consequences.

Prices in the market are simply a way of signalling the cost for the scarce use of resources. Unskilled labour is not a scarce resource compared to the services of a doctor. Hence a doctor's wage is higher than a labourer's. To say that there ought to be a minimum cost for hiring labour imposed by third parties unrelated to the transaction is simply another way of saying that there ought to be fewer people legally employed in the market as unskilled labourers. All else being equal, that means a less efficient economy. Aeson complains about the black market in illegally unemployed, below minimum wage workers. The reason that market exists is because of minimum wage laws. They've created the very black market he bewails.

Incidentally, and to get back to the thread topic, the world's "richest woman" doesn't dispute it either: she simply pointed out that labour costs were one factor among many that pulled investors to locations other than Australia. A few pages ago, I posted a clip of a mining company director, Keith De Lacy, complaining about all the other factors that do so in Australia and pointing out the serious costs it has for Australian businesses. It's not as if Keith is some evil right-winger either. He's the former ALP Treasurer of Queensland. The ALP are the political equivalents of the Democrats.

[Aeson]

It's a matter of vanity, not economics. Without the unemployment that comes with the minimum wage, who can we shower with state based patronage, love and entitlements? Without the minimum wage, how can we blame employers for hiring illegal immigrants at below the minimum wage and being "unpatriotic"? People need to feel powerful and righteous, as if they can wash away the ills of the world with a wave of a hand. It doesn't work that way. Good intentions have a way of meeting reality with unfortunate consequences.

Yah, the unfortunate consequence of revealing good intentions is how many morons it will spark to come out of the woodwork to try to obfuscate problems and cheerlead the cause of them. But somehow I still maintain my faith in humanity's potential in spite of it all ...

Prices in the market are simply a way of signalling the cost for the scarce use of resources.

It also signals demand.

Caging your labor force is a distortionary way to locally decrease demand for labor, thus devalue it.

Aeson complains about the black market in illegally unemployed, below minimum wage workers. The reason that market exists is because of minimum wage laws. They've created the very black market he bewails.

No, the reason these illegal employments exist is because of immigration restrictions. The minimum wage in the US is a joke. Even high school kids working their first part time job will tend to earn more than it ... because even minimally productive people who don't have any special skills can still produce more than $7.50 worth of value per hour, regardless of what nitwits like you think.

[Hauldren Collider]

No, we could pay the workers much more and not have to hire less workers. We'd have to hire more since the workers would now be consumers creating their own demand.

You fail econ.

if I pay my workers $1 more than market (a depressed market where wages are almost entirely dictated by immigration restrictions) that it's welfare destroying.

True.

You support the effects of the immigration restrictions. You cheerlead for those who exploit them. Then you feign disbelief when someone calls you on your support of the status quo.

FALSE. Just like you falsely accuse Jaguar of supporting these things, you falsely apply these beliefs to me. You really are a dishonest piece of ****, aren't you? I am highly in favor of opening our borders and ending tariffs. Go **** yourself.

Like Jaguar, I think it's absolutely atrocious that we refuse to let hardworking people into the United States, and even more atrocious that we reduce the availability of their goods by raising taxes on their importation. You have a complete fantasy about my political views, which probably explains why you find them ridiculous. You actually have no idea what they are.

[Hauldren Collider]

The ability to choose to work somewhere else. Stupid ****.

There must be at least two possible jobs for every person or we're being exploited?

[Zevico]

It also signals demand.

True.

Caging your labor force is a distortionary way to locally decrease demand for labor, thus devalue it.

Yes, those evil top hatted capitalists and all that jazz. I understand. But Winston, did capitalists ever wear top hats? I forget.

[quote]No, the reason these illegal employments exist is because of immigration restrictions. The minimum wage in the US is a joke. [/quote[
Except where it isn't.

Even high school kids working their first part time job will tend to earn more than it

Not in all cases.

... because even minimally productive people who don't have any special skills can still produce more than $7.50 worth of value per hour

Well, you say that, but recent studies suggest otherwise.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_d6b3ebe4-e360-11e1-9e03-001a4bcf887a.html

From 2006 to 2011, the teenage unemployment rate almost doubled from 10.2 percent to 19.4 percent. Meanwhile, the average hours worked per week for Montana teens fell from 12.1 to 8 hours — a decrease of 34 percent. The percentage of Montana teenagers who had a job declined from 48.2 percent in 2006 to 36.6 percent in 2011. Teen employment share in all industries dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.2 percent.

It may ruffle some feathers to say it, but one of the key factors contributing to teen unemployment here is a 43 percent increase in the state minimum wage from $5.15 in 2005 to $7.35 in 2011. While accounting for the effects of the recession, analysts at the Employment Policy Institute recently calculated that minimum wage increases over that period alone caused the loss of 1,178 jobs for Montana teens.With more economic woes and more minimum wage increases on the horizon, teens should not expect their job prospects to improve in the foreseeable future.

[Jaguar]

No, we could pay the workers much more and not have to hire less workers. We'd have to hire more since the workers would now be consumers creating their own demand. Hell, we might even decide that the demand is great enough that we'll stop paying our farmers to not grow food ... and they could hire some workers too.

How do you think aggregate demand works? Do you think we need policies to sustain long-term aggregate demand? If so, what are they?

Is it important to get as much aggregate demand as possible? If so, how do we do it?

[Aeson]

You fail econ.

You fail reality. This isn't some functional economy we're talking about. It's not even the current slighly depressed one we have. It's a hugely depressed one where inflation, especially wage inflation, would be tremendously helpful. (To the world economy too.) Currently there are sick ****s who are getting rich off of the misery of the people born into these situations, and all you can do is cheerlead their market setting behavior and cry foul if someone else who thinks the people are worth more actually tries to do something about it.

True.

Yes, it's true that you support the effects of immigration restrictions. Sure, you hem and haw about how you wish they didn't exist, but when it comes right down to it you're always on their side. You don't see the damage they create by depressing wages, you argue the damage would be paying them more.

FALSE. Just like you falsely accuse Jaguar of supporting these things, you falsely apply these beliefs to me. You really are a dishonest piece of ****, aren't you? I am highly in favor of opening our borders and ending tariffs. Go **** yourself.

Like Jaguar, I think it's absolutely atrocious that we refuse to let hardworking people into the United States, and even more atrocious that we reduce the availability of their goods by raising taxes on their importation. You have a complete fantasy about my political views, which probably explains why you find them ridiculous. You actually have no idea what they are.

You think that it's a good thing people are moving business to the third world to exploit cheap labor created by immigration restrictions. You think it's bad if someone actually tries to pay the workers based on their productivity rather than some horribly low figure that's set by those immigration restrictions. Yes, you might not actually be aware that that's what you're doing ... and I've noted your ignorance already.

There must be at least two possible jobs for every person or we're being exploited?

... and after all your whining about how you're being unfairly painted as in support of the status quo ... you're right back to pretending there isn't a problem with immigration restrictions keeping people from being able to choose where to work, and mocking arguments which are attacking those restrictions. Either that or you're just too stupid to understand what I said.

[Jaguar]

Yes, it's true that you support the effects of immigration restrictions.

No, he doesn't. He just said so. Multiple times. You might as well just make all your posts consecutively without even waiting for replies.

[Zevico]

You fail reality. This isn't some functional economy we're talking about. It's not even the current slighly depressed one we have. It's a hugely depressed one where inflation, especially wage inflation, would be tremendously helpful. (To the world economy too.) Currently there are sick ****s who are getting rich off of the misery of the people born into these situations, and all you can do is cheerlead their market setting behavior and

Inflation is "tremendously helpful." Wow. Mugabean economics 101?

cry foul if someone else who thinks the people are worth more actually tries to do something about it.

Keep fighting the good fight.

[Aeson]

How do you think aggregate demand works?

Generally speaking, money moves up the ladder far more efficiently than down it. By starting the money further down the ladder, we increase the turnover rate of that money. It naturally will travel up the ladder very quickly, whereas there are little to no methods for it to reach the bottom of the ladder. (From a utility perspective it's an even better deal.)

Also, much of the value of our economy is in IP and sunk R&D costs. Scarcity doesn't affect these things, and increasing number of units sold increases the value of this "work" that's already been done.

Scarcity affects material goods of course. We can't produce an infinite amount of material goods, and even services and immaterial goods aren't infinite. But we aren't at capacity in many (any?) areas of production of material goods, and we're way under capacity in the production of services (and any labor inputs), and not even in the same galaxy of being near capacity of production of immaterial goods.

Scarcity of land is also where we have a lot of room for improvement. In agriculture we use far more land to produce far less product than we should as a race. Even in developed countries we do it. But in subsistence areas we are wasting so much land it's absurd. Not only are we wasting the productive potential of the land, but we're degrading it because the farmers there aren't able to use the proper techniques to conserve resources and the quality of the land, or it's not used at all. Increasing local worker's purchasing power would increase local ownership of land. This is always good from a stewardship perspective, maintaining the value of the land is far more likely when someone actually is there to take care of it.

Another point in regards to scarcity is that by undervaluing material inputs we are becoming a wasteful culture. We throw away stuff that people in other areas of the world would love to have. We just destroy the value of it, or in some cases even make it into negative value, because it's so easy to replace for us. A better distribution of purchasing power would help to alleviate this destruction of value.

Also, we are throwing away some of our limited material resources on flat out stupidity. By eliminating immigration distortions from the labor markets we would also be eliminating inefficiencies in regards to material inputs into production/shipping that are currently only economically viable because artificially low labor (and thus land costs) cover them up.

Do you think we need policies to sustain long-term aggregate demand?

More to jump start than to sustain. If HC can make > $7.50/hr bagging groceries, it's obvious it is possible to have an economic environment where every able bodied person on earth can be at least that productive. Once we get to that point it would be as self-sustaining as what we have. Needs a nudge from time to time (more if it's been nudged the wrong way before), but sustainable without any massive intervention.

If so, what are they?

A gradual (I'm not sure how fast) loosening of immigration laws is the most clear cut measure to take.

Is it important to get as much aggregate demand as possible?

I don't think it's important to get as much as possible. I think it's important to get to the point that all people can feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide healthcare for themselves and their dependents by working a full time job. It is obvious that a human being can be productive enough to do this. The limitations are environmental factors largely imposed by humans.

But at what point we don't need more is up for everyone to decide for themselves. Not for me. At some point (which we're nowhere near) the need for more aggregate demand is not there. People have enough from there job/business/investments to maintain their lifestyle which gives them their choice of income:free time, and at that point we don't need to push any further.

If so, how do we do it?

As I said, I think we need policies to jump start long-term aggregate demand. Currently there are just too many areas of the world which are in a "no capital->no production->no capital" cycle, which could be changed to a "capital->production->capital" cycle without a whole lot of effort. People really are dying to be productive. There isn't some magical thing that happens when a person crosses a line on a map that makes them productive. In large part we'd just need to keep out of their way after giving them a kick-start.

As for the nature of that kick-start, I don't support cash transfers without some sort of structure and responsibility. Probably not ever, but definitely not to start. We have to realize that we're dealing with cultures which have been influenced by hundreds of years of colonialism, and where most people don't have much in the way of familiarity with how to manage money effectively. It will take time to counteract that.

I think it should be in infrastructure investment and business startups in developing economies, with schedules as to how (fast and much) ownership will be transferred to the workers, as well as incentive based pay for the workers on top of reasonable wages (will vary from market to market). Selling bonds to central banks to finance it.

Start the money lower on the ladder. It will find it's way up fast enough.

Obviously it would take a large shift in our national identity for this to have any chance at happening. As for me, I'll spend the rest of my life working towards it. No dip**** like HC, or even like KH, will convince me it's a bad thing to pay my workers based on their productivity rather than on how un-free they are to go where they want.

[Aeson]

How do you think aggregate demand works?

Generally speaking, money moves up the ladder far more efficiently than down it. By starting the money further down the ladder, we increase the turnover rate of that money. It naturally will travel up the ladder very quickly, whereas there are little to no methods for it to reach the bottom of the ladder. (From a utility perspective it's an even better deal.)

Also, much of the value of our economy is in IP and sunk R&D costs. Scarcity doesn't affect these things, and increasing number of units sold increases the value of this "work" that's already been done.

Scarcity affects material goods of course. We can't produce an infinite amount of material goods, and even services and immaterial goods aren't infinite. But we aren't at capacity in many (any?) areas of production of material goods, and we're way under capacity in the production of services (and any labor inputs), and not even in the same galaxy of being near capacity of production of immaterial goods.

Scarcity of land is also where we have a lot of room for improvement. In agriculture we use far more land to produce far less product than we should as a race. Even in developed countries we do it. But in subsistence areas we are wasting so much land it's absurd. Not only are we wasting the productive potential of the land, but we're degrading it because the farmers there aren't able to use the proper techniques to conserve resources and the quality of the land, or it's not used at all. Increasing local worker's purchasing power would increase local ownership of land. This is always good from a stewardship perspective, maintaining the value of the land is far more likely when someone actually is there to take care of it.

Another point in regards to scarcity is that by undervaluing material inputs we are becoming a wasteful culture. We throw away stuff that people in other areas of the world would love to have. We just destroy the value of it, or in some cases even make it into negative value, because it's so easy to replace for us. A better distribution of purchasing power would help to alleviate this destruction of value.

Also, we are throwing away some of our limited material resources on flat out stupidity. By eliminating immigration distortions from the labor markets we would also be eliminating inefficiencies in regards to material inputs into production/shipping that are currently only economically viable because artificially low labor (and thus land costs) cover them up.

Do you think we need policies to sustain long-term aggregate demand?

More to jump start than to sustain. If HC can make > $7.50/hr bagging groceries, it's obvious it is possible to have an economic environment where every able bodied person on earth can be at least that productive. Once we get to that point it would be as self-sustaining as what we have. Needs a nudge from time to time (more if it's been nudged the wrong way before), but sustainable without any massive intervention.

If so, what are they?

A gradual (I'm not sure how fast) loosening of immigration laws is the most clear cut measure to take.

Is it important to get as much aggregate demand as possible?

I don't think it's important to get as much as possible. I think it's important to get to the point that all people can feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide healthcare for themselves and their dependents by working a full time job. It is obvious that a human being can be productive enough to do this. The limitations are environmental factors largely imposed by humans.

But at what point we don't need more is up for everyone to decide for themselves. Not for me. At some point (which we're nowhere near) the need for more aggregate demand is not there. People have enough from there job/business/investments to maintain their lifestyle which gives them their choice of income:free time, and at that point we don't need to push any further.

If so, how do we do it?

As I said, I think we need policies to jump start long-term aggregate demand. Currently there are just too many areas of the world which are in a "no capital->no production->no capital" cycle, which could be changed to a "capital->production->capital" cycle without a whole lot of effort. People really are dying to be productive. There isn't some magical thing that happens when a person crosses a line on a map that makes them productive. In large part we'd just need to keep out of their way after giving them a kick-start.

As for the nature of that kick-start, I don't support cash transfers without some sort of structure and responsibility. Probably not ever, but definitely not to start. We have to realize that we're dealing with cultures which have been influenced by hundreds of years of colonialism, and where most people don't have much in the way of familiarity with how to manage money effectively. It will take time to counteract that.

I think it should be in infrastructure investment and business startups in developing economies, with schedules as to how (fast and much) ownership will be transferred to the workers, as well as incentive based pay for the workers on top of reasonable wages (will vary from market to market). Selling bonds to central banks to finance it.

Start the money lower on the ladder. It will find it's way up fast enough.

Obviously it would take a large shift in our national identity for this to have any chance at happening. As for me, I'll spend the rest of my life working towards it. No dip**** like HC, or even like KH, will convince me it's a bad thing to pay my workers based on their productivity rather than on how un-free they are to go where they want.

[dannubis]

That's largely a historical (nearly-dead) language with only about 2000 words and a few hundred thousand living speakers. It's not a complete language that one can be fluent in, and it isn't based on Xhosa, it's based on Zulu - because that's the actual home language of South African miners.

If molly bloom had done just a little bit more googling, he could have asked Kuciwalker whether he spoke Zulu, and I wouldn't have called him out. He could have also said Sotho. But he didn't. He wanted us all to be impressed with his in-depth knowledge of Africa, but instead he exposed himself as superficial and ignorant.

There are five provinces with big mining industries. North West, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Free State and KwaZulu-Natal. Look at the languages they speak. In which of these would Kuciwalker be expected to learn Xhosa? At best, in Free State, the Sotho speakers outnumber the Xhosa speakers 7:1.

Please stop misinforming people about geography just to defend molly bloom's pretentious overreach.

Misinforming ?

Unlike you, I was there. I spent several months in the Sishen and Grootegeluk mines. This "language" is used a lot to talk with one another (since a significant amount of the miners are nigerans it can't be a full fledged complex language). And it is in part based on Xhosa, I can tell you that. Besides Xhosa and Zulu belong to the same family of languages and are relatively similar.

So, please stop spouting uninformed inaccuracies about 1 detail taken out of context that doesn't even disprooves Molly's point.