News What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

[Smurf]

In this thread everyone get's to express what kind of alternative Government you think we should have?

Rules are:
No arguing for Democracy
No arguing for Republic
No arguing for Fascism
No arguing for Communism

Why:
Because we've tried those before, (except maybe communism according to some, but whatever) and this thread is to find an Alternative, a New Shiny idea of a Government.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/List_of_forms_of_government

 

[Smurf]

I personally support http://www.wordlist.org/an/Anarcho-syndicalism.html .

 

[loseyourname]

Well, that's about exactly the opposite of what I would propose.

Ideally, I would eliminate just about every role of government outside of foreign relations, contract enforcement, currency printing, and national defense, although even here I would like the military to rely more on the production of technology that can be applied to civilian use rather than on taxation and deficit spending. I'd like to see the majority of decisions made locally and see federal government just about completely abolished, sort of a town-hall approach to government, with each municipality deciding for itself how to spend its own money and what rules it will live by. I'd like to see public services provided by private investment and user fees wherever possible, again in lieu of taxation. All taxation that does exist would ideally be applied only to transactions between private entities and public entities, eliminating income and corporate taxes. An important part of privatizing most government functions, and also allowing the market to operate under the best conditions, would be full disclosure of business activities, including expense reports, for all companies, not just those listed on public stock exchanges. I'd probably leave this function to the government as well. This way, we can bring about the only true democracy, one based on the principals of capitalism, where you vote with your dollar, giving it to whoever does the job best, instead of giving half to a public beast that misspends it without repercussion.

 

[Smurf]

Why Capitalism?

 

[loseyourname]

Because when it operates under ideal conditions, it is the only fair system of exchange of goods and services ever devised.

 

[Smurf]

That is simply untrue.
Ever tried in the west? True.
Most Successfull in exploiting the world? True.

But there are a million and one economic systems that have been devised that just havn't been tried yet because they would take power away from the corporations.

 

[BobG]

Interesting list.

Wouldn't doulocracy (rule by slaves) be problematic? What if they outlawed slavery? Or would political candidates sell themselves into slavery to raise campaign funds? (Reminds of the SNL skit about how Dole's resignation from the Senate might affect the Clinton/Dole Presidential campaign )

A strumpetocracy (rule by strumpets) or a pornocracy (rule by harlots) would make for an interesting campaign.

I'd lean towards a mesocracy. Better than the stochastic foolocracy we have today.

 

[wasteofo2]

Because when it operates under ideal conditions, it is the only fair system of exchange of goods and services ever devised.

What are ideal conditions for capitalism?

Around the time of the industrial revolution, the government had very few restrictions on buisness. As a result, the wages workers were paid were ridiculously low, children as young as 4 were working to help support their families, there was no reason for buisnesses to spend any extra money to protect their employees from work-related accidents, buisnesses had no accountability for their actions, and thus they took no precautions to protect the environment.

I think you need a strong/fair central government to keep corporations in check. Without government mandating minimum wage, environmental restraints, work place safety etc., corporations have no reason to not exploit people if it'll make them more money.

 

[loseyourname]

What are ideal conditions for capitalism?

Fair competition standards and full disclosure of all business practices.

I think you need a strong/fair central government to keep corporations in check. Without government mandating minimum wage, environmental restraints, work place safety etc., corporations have no reason to not exploit people if it'll make them more money.

Sure they do. The only way for any company to remain in existence is for them to sell their product or service. When they operate according to fair competition standards (no collusion, kickbacks, etc., all strictly regulated by an impartial third-party committee that is not politicized) and under full disclosure, they have every reason not to exploit anybody.

That is simply untrue. Ever tried in the west? True. Most Successfull in exploiting the world? True.

I suppose this depends on what you mean by fair. By fair, I mean that this is the least coercive and aggressive of any economic system.

 

[plover]

Sure they do. The only way for any company to remain in existence is for them to sell their product or service. When they operate according to fair competition standards (no collusion, kickbacks, etc., all strictly regulated by an impartial third-party committee that is not politicized) and under full disclosure, they have every reason not to exploit anybody.

How do you get companies that see this as in their best interest? The ones we have now fight transparency kicking and screaming.

And how do economies of scale operate? If governmental decisions are all local and but corporate decisions can be global, you'd end up with a kind of corporate feudalism, with your proposed central governments sort of serving the role the church played in medieval feudalism.

 

[franznietzsche]

Technocracy with capitalist economic philosophy (as opposed to socialist).


If your IQ is over 140, you matter, if not, get back to work.

 

[vanesch]

In this thread everyone get's to express what kind of alternative Government you think we should have?

Rules are:
No arguing for Democracy
No arguing for Republic
No arguing for Fascism
No arguing for Communism

A favorite goes to random technocracy, where people with the right competences in the domain are given political responsability by random choice (lottery). It is actually very close to the actual way of functioning of the European administration. Legislation comes out, but there are no faces on it, no parties on it. It just happens

 

[vanesch]

Technocracy with capitalist economic philosophy (as opposed to socialist).

I'd like to see both, actually. No matter what capitalists (or socialists for that matter) say, a simplistic ideology never works optimally in all circumstances. Some things work better with a capitalist ideology, others with a socialist ideology, and sometimes you'll have to think up another alternative. There's no magic rule that solves all problems in one sentence.

 

[franznietzsche]

I'd like to see both, actually. No matter what capitalists (or socialists for that matter) say, a simplistic ideology never works optimally in all circumstances. Some things work better with a capitalist ideology, others with a socialist ideology, and sometimes you'll have to think up another alternative. There's no magic rule that solves all problems in one sentence.

I'll rephrase:

Technocracy: But you don't get what you don't earn. Period.

 

[vanesch]

I'll rephrase:

Technocracy: But you don't get what you don't earn. Period.

Do you do the same thing to your kids ?

 

[franznietzsche]

Do you do the same thing to your kids ?

If i had kids, yes. They don't get allowances for chores, they do chores because they are alive. They have to learn that nothing is free. If they choose to do extra things for money, then so be it, but nothing in this world is free,and they have to learn that.

I've seen nine year olds with $200 cd players (not so common now that they are cheaper) listening to someofthe fouestl music, becuase their parents just give them what they want.

I have a friend who works at best buy and routinely has parents who come and pick things up, at their child's request while the kid is at school so they kid can have it when he gets home. Heck no.

You have to earn your keep in this world, and learn to not expect it to be given to you by anyone, the government least of all.

Now back to more political territory:

Before one of themore vapid liberals trys it, i will just say that no, if one is mentallyretarded or parapalegic or otherwise genuinely disabled i don'tthink that they should starve because they cannot function. But a normal healthy person who does nothing but wait to be given something without working, does deserve to starve.

 

[vanesch]

But a normal healthy person who does nothing but wait to be given something without working, does deserve to starve.

Glub !



Can you imagine he/she's maybe between a rock and a hard place ? Like after having been beaten up by her man, left alone with 4 children, on the street, of which two are ill and nothing to live off ? Things like that ?

 

[franznietzsche]

Glub !



Can you imagine he/she's maybe between a rock and a hard place ? Like after having been beaten up by her man, left alone with 4 children, on the street, of which two are ill and nothing to live off ? Things like that ?

I'm speaking in generalities. General rules. You are dealing with exceptions. As i made the point about people genuinely disabled there are exceptions, but the rule is you earn what you get, you don't go to others looking for handouts and freebies just because you're lazy.

 

[Smurf]

Franz, I think it is a common misconcenption that Socialism is going to give people everything for free, I don't know the dictionary definition off the top of my head but I've been called a socialist more often than not and I don't think people should get money for not doing anything either. My socialism is about exceptions.

 

[vanesch]

I'm speaking in generalities. General rules. You are dealing with exceptions. As i made the point about people genuinely disabled there are exceptions, but the rule is you earn what you get, you don't go to others looking for handouts and freebies just because you're lazy.

Well, then we agree. But if there is not some form of social coverage organised by the state, there's no way to handle these "exceptions". (that is what a long discussion with Aquamarine was about) It is typically one of the problems that pure, hard capitalism handles badly.
However, you'd be surprised what is the fraction of people in "socialist states" according to a typical US view, like many Western European ones who are supported by social wellfare, that are of the "exceptional case". It is true, however, that there is also a fraction based on laziness, or even downright abuse (in that they DO work, undeclared, and get their allowances on top of that, making easily $6000 a month cash). There should be a strong crackdown on that.
But nevertheless, there's more honest misery out there than you think, and it is often not the fault of the people (they just had bad luck for one or another reason, often one of the factors being born in the wrong place).

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, then we agree. But if there is not some form of social coverage organised by the state, there's no way to handle these "exceptions". (that is what a long discussion with Aquamarine was about) It is typically one of the problems that pure, hard capitalism handles badly.
However, you'd be surprised what is the fraction of people in "socialist states" according to a typical US view, like many Western European ones who are supported by social wellfare, that are of the "exceptional case". It is true, however, that there is also a fraction based on laziness, or even downright abuse (in that they DO work, undeclared, and get their allowances on top of that, making easily $6000 a month cash). There should be a strong crackdown on that.
But nevertheless, there's more honest misery out there than you think, and it is often not the fault of the people (they just had bad luck for one or another reason, often one of the factors being born in the wrong place).

Well, since you bring up bad luck, your example of the woman fleeingher abusive "man," that's not bad luck. Thats the culmination of bad choices. The situation her kids are in, that is bad luck. The situation she's in, is the result of her bad judgement.

You say we agree, in principle. The difference is, and smurf brings this up, is that you want to serve the exceptions first. I do not. The government is a failure when it comes to this sort of thing, because too many people who should not be helped, get helped, and too many people who should not be helped have lobbyists that are far to powerful, and i'msick of it.

My mother works at bank. She has people come in every other week to cash disability checks. More than half are for carpal tunnel syndrome. She has yet to see even one who has any difficulty driving to the bank, opening the door, walking to her desk, signing paper work, or any thing else. Now I'm sure a few might have just been able to conceal genuine pain, but you cannot tell me, a bunch of people, obviously healthy enough to still work, if they can go to the bank on their own they can work, deserve anything from the government.

 

[Smurf]

I think this is an example of the Government's inefficiency in dealing with scammers than the failure of the system in general. We have the same problems in Canada.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think this is an example of the Government's inefficiency in dealing with scammers than the failure of the system in general. We have the same problems in Canada.

The government is the system. The failure of the government is the failure of the system.

 

[Aquamarine]

What are ideal conditions for capitalism?

Around the time of the industrial revolution, the government had very few restrictions on buisness. As a result, the wages workers were paid were ridiculously low, children as young as 4 were working to help support their families, there was no reason for buisnesses to spend any extra money to protect their employees from work-related accidents, buisnesses had no accountability for their actions, and thus they took no precautions to protect the environment.

I think you need a strong/fair central government to keep corporations in check. Without government mandating minimum wage, environmental restraints, work place safety etc., corporations have no reason to not exploit people if it'll make them more money.

Does the industrial age argument never die?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317&page=1&pp=15

 

[wasteofo2]

Does the industrial age argument never die?

Are you attempting to tell me that if the government got rid of the regulations it has now, such as minimum wage, minimum working age, pollution restrictions, workplace saftey laws etc. that it would be fine and better than it was 100 years ago? From reading that, I got the sense that you feel that the corporate abuses of people was only a problem when we were just getting industrialized, and now such things wouldn't happen, since we're already industrial?

If that's what you're thinking, I can't help but think you're naive and trust too much in the goodness of people. Companies still break the law so that they don't have to institute proper pollution restriction, companies still pay workers pitiful wages because it saves them money, just to a lesser degree than they used to, because there are now laws in place to help people.

Capitalism is based on self-interest, trying your hardest to benefit yourself and whoever you happen to care about enough to give money to. I don't see how you could assume that people would not exploit others for their own self interest just because we're already industrialized.

 

[Aquamarine]

Are you attempting to tell me that if the government got rid of the regulations it has now, such as minimum wage, minimum working age, pollution restrictions, workplace saftey laws etc. that it would be fine and better than it was 100 years ago? From reading that, I got the sense that you feel that the corporate abuses of people was only a problem when we were just getting industrialized, and now such things wouldn't happen, since we're already industrial?

If that's what you're thinking, I can't help but think you're naive and trust too much in the goodness of people. Companies still break the law so that they don't have to institute proper pollution restriction, companies still pay workers pitiful wages because it saves them money, just to a lesser degree than they used to, because there are now laws in place to help people.

Capitalism is based on self-interest, trying your hardest to benefit yourself and whoever you happen to care about enough to give money to. I don't see how you could assume that people would not exploit others for their own self interest just because we're already industrialized.

You fail to see that companies are competing for workers. They compete with wages, working hours, safety and so on. But the only way to get more of this is to increase GDP/capita. Since this was very low at the start of the industrial revolution, the companies could not give very much of those benefits. Read this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47769

 

[wasteofo2]

You fail to see that companies are competing for workers. They compete with wages, working hours, safety and so on. But the only way to get more of this is to increase GDP/capita. Since this was very low at the start of the industrial revolution, the companies could not give very much of those benefits. Read this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47769

Companies today, in this society, with all the restrictions and requirements that the government puts on them in order to keep them from exploiting workers, still pay wages that aren't enough to live off of. You're just naive if you have this image of CEO's as caring about people and wanting to help them out.

I think what you fail to see is that often, capitalism is self-destructive, and leads to monopolies on wages. When you have a steel mill or car manufacturing plant or something like that, and they employ the vast majority of the people in a small town, they can do whatever they want to the workers, and the workers will either have to deal with it or go find another job that may be dozens of miles away.

 

[Aquamarine]

Companies today, in this society, with all the restrictions and requirements that the government puts on them in order to keep them from exploiting workers, still pay wages that aren't enough to live off of. You're just naive if you have this image of CEO's as caring about people and wanting to help them out.

I am not assuming any caring CEO. The system assuming complete altruism is socialism. But the heartless CEOs are being forced to raise wages due to competition. Supply and demand.

And the regulations have not done good, they have decreased the average wage. Read the thread mentioned in my previous post.

 

[franznietzsche]

Companies today, in this society, with all the restrictions and requirements that the government puts on them in order to keep them from exploiting workers, still pay wages that aren't enough to live off of. You're just naive if you have this image of CEO's as caring about people and wanting to help them out.

I think what you fail to see is that often, capitalism is self-destructive, and leads to monopolies on wages. When you have a steel mill or car manufacturing plant or something like that, and they employ the vast majority of the people in a small town, they can do whatever they want to the workers, and the workers will either have to deal with it or go find another job that may be dozens of miles away.

Working a cash register isn't worth a wage to live off of. If you can train a chimpanzee to do it, its not worth a wage to live off of.

Those jobs pay so low because there is no competition for workers, the people working those jobs are easily replaced, so there is no reason to pay them well. Its like the grocery store workers in california that were demanding free healthcare. No one gets free health care, even the best paid people in the country.

Its not exploitation, its fair wages. That is of course where unions come in. INdividual workers are easy to replace, but 100,000 of them are harder to replace. That is the power of collective bargaining for wages.

Now take jobs that are not as easily replaced : well trained technicianss, engineers, architects. This people provide skilled labor, theirare fewer of them, and there is a higher demand-to-supply ratio. That means they get paid more, just because they are harder to keep.

 

[Aquamarine]

I think what you fail to see is that often, capitalism is self-destructive, and leads to monopolies on wages. When you have a steel mill or car manufacturing plant or something like that, and they employ the vast majority of the people in a small town, they can do whatever they want to the workers, and the workers will either have to deal with it or go find another job that may be dozens of miles away.

Regarding monopolies, again read the thread mentioned before.

Are you saying that it is a violation of human rights if someone must move in order to find a job?

 

[Smurf]

You think that it's ok if someone (who's dirt poor because they were getting paid minimum wage and just got fired) has to move dozens of miles away just to survive?

 

[Aquamarine]

You think that it's ok if someone (who's dirt poor because they were getting paid minimum wage and just got fired) has to move dozens of miles away just to survive?

Yes.

Are you saying that if a town lives on a mine that closes due lack of ore, then the state must provide welfare to the whole town for the rest of eternity so that no one is forced to move?

 

[Hurkyl]

Working a cash register isn't worth a wage to live off of.

If people can't live working a cash register, then how will there be any people working cash registers? Are you advocating just working them until they die, then getting new cashiers? Or are you advocating a "humane" form of slavery where a poor person has to spend nearly every waking hour working multiple jobs in order to live?


Sure, the cashier doesn't require tremendous knowledge or skill, but the fact is that, at the very least, an employee is being paid to dedicate well over a third of his waking hours to his employer, and quite possibly around half!

 

[Aquamarine]

Data from the most recent census, however, reveal that those who are officially classified as "poor" by the United Statesgovernment possesses a surprising amount of wealth.[2] The official "poor" are not that poor after all. For example, for those persons classified as "poor," 46% own their own home and 76% have air conditioning. More than 66% of the "poor" have more than two rooms of living space per person. In fact, the average "poor" United States citizen has more living space that the average citizen (not "poor" citizen) living in Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom; 97% of the official American "poor" own a color television and over half own more than one; 62% of the "poor" have either cable or satellite television. Far from being undernourished, the "poor" have a greater obesity problem than the rest of the population. The most common hardship that most poor people face is making late rent and utility payments.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1603

Higher GDP/capita increases the living standars for all, including the poorest.

 

[franznietzsche]

If people can't live working a cash register, then how will there be any people working cash registers? Are you advocating just working them until they die, then getting new cashiers? Or are you advocating a "humane" form of slavery where a poor person has to spend nearly every waking hour working multiple jobs in order to live?


Sure, the cashier doesn't require tremendous knowledge or skill, but the fact is that, at the very least, an employee is being paid to dedicate well over a third of his waking hours to his employer, and quite possibly around half!

Teenagers working in their parents houses work cash registers. They don't ahve to live off of it. If you can train a gorilla to speak sign language, you can train it to work a cash register (its just pushing a given button in response toan associate stimulus). And if a gorilla can do it, it not worth a "living wage."

Why pay a living wage to a forty year old when they can be easily replaced by a 16 year old who will work for much less? That job is not worth a living wage.

 

[franznietzsche]

Data from the most recent census, however, reveal that those who are officially classified as "poor" by the United Statesgovernment possesses a surprising amount of wealth.[2] The official "poor" are not that poor after all. For example, for those persons classified as "poor," 46% own their own home and 76% have air conditioning. More than 66% of the "poor" have more than two rooms of living space per person. In fact, the average "poor" United States citizen has more living space that the average citizen (not "poor" citizen) living in Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom; 97% of the official American "poor" own a color television and over half own more than one; 62% of the "poor" have either cable or satellite television. Far from being undernourished, the "poor" have a greater obesity problem than the rest of the population. The most common hardship that most poor people face is making late rent and utility payments.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1603

Higher GDP/capita increases the living standars for all, including the poorest.

The poor have it damn good in this country,as i have said before. They whine about being less fortunate, but if they, and they're political champions were really so righteous they'd be a hell of a lot more concerned with the truly less fortunate.

A bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Aquamarine]

Teenagers working in their parents houses work cash registers. They don't ahve to live off of it. If you can train a gorilla to speak sign language, you can train it to work a cash register (its just pushing a given button in response toan associate stimulus). And if a gorilla can do it, it not worth a "living wage."

Why pay a living wage to a forty year old when they can be easily replaced by a 16 year old who will work for much less? That job is not worth a living wage.

As my previous post shows, it is ridiculous to claim that the poor cannot live on their wages. They have a much higher living standard than most of the people in the world.

 

[franznietzsche]

As my previous post shows, it is ridiculous to claim that the poor cannot live on their wages. They have a much higher living standard than most of the people in the world.

I was agreeing with you on that post. My point was that they don't deserve the "living wage" that democratic party rhetoric espouses, based on the labour they contribute.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why pay a living wage to a forty year old when they can be easily replaced by a 16 year old who will work for much less? That job is not worth a living wage.

Because a person has a right to life.

There are unskilled workers who must support themselves. Thus, there must be unskilled work that pays enough to support an unskilled person.

And if a gorilla can do it, it not worth a "living wage."

And why is that?

 

[franznietzsche]

Because a person has a right to life.

There are unskilled workers who must support themselves. Thus, there must be unskilled work that pays enough to support an unskilled person.




And why is that?

Right to life is not a right to money. It is a right to breathe. And that is all.

No, just because there are people who can't do anything worth paying for does not mean they should payed. If a cash register doesn't pay well enough, then they need to take the initiative and get better job. If they don't, its their funeral.

If $7 per hour (which is lower than the minimum wage in california) is insufficient for pushing buttons on a cash register, there a lots of menial jobs that pay better, and do not require a vast degree of intelligence. Manual labour in general is not mentally taxing, construction firms pay as much as $25 dollars per hour. For those not even intelligent enough to perform that task (orto have avoided McDonalds enough to be physically capable) even telemarketers make good cash, at least here in California. I've met people making $52,000 per year between comission and hourly pay at those jobs. And that isn't skilled labour. There are unskilled jobs worth your "living wage." Something as pathetically simple as a cash register is notamong them.

 

[Hurkyl]

Right to life is not a right to money. It is a right to breathe. And that is all.

I think the minimum acceptable standard of living involves slightly more than being able to breathe.


I note that you seem to have abandoned your point in order to respond to mine -- you're now talking about what existing jobs do pay, rather than what you think they should pay. A telemarketer can be replaced with a computer about as well as a cashier can be replaced with a gorilla, so don't you think telemarketers are being overpaid?


And don't lose sight of the design goal: it's not good enough that merely some unskilled workers have access to jobs that can sustain them.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think the minimum acceptable standard of living involves slightly more than being able to breathe.


I note that you seem to have abandoned your point in order to respond to mine -- you're now talking about what existing jobs do pay, rather than what you think they should pay. A telemarketer can be replaced with a computer about as well as a cashier can be replaced with a gorilla, so don't you think telemarketers are being overpaid?


And don't lose sight of the design goal: it's not good enough that merely some unskilled workers have access to jobs that can sustain them.

Standard of living is not a right. What is acceptable does not constitute a right.

I don't see where i abandoned my point : A job working a cash register is not worth a "living wage."

I don't really care what telemarketers or cash register people arepayed, so long asit is in line with the service they provide to their employer, not to what the government thinks. I brought up the telemarketers because they are payed more than the government minimum, by the choice of the employer. That is a fair wage. Jacking up minimum wage for jobs that do notwarrant it based on the contribution to their employer is wrong.

The pay one gets should reflect how valuable you are to your employer. The person at the cash register can be replaced by anyone. The telemarketer on the other handis harder to replace because the job really sucks, but the employer needs someoneto do it,so they pay more. Same with the construction workers--manual labour is hard work, and many people would rather liveon government welfare than do work, sothey pay more to keepthemselves staffed. That is the free market at work.

This is what you more liberal morons can't seem to get. Free market wages would not make all wages zero, because the lower the wage, the less likely people will work for it. Yes, cash register jobs will pay very little. But any job that does not pay minimum wage is already at its free market position. AS someone pointed out, only 2% of the workforce works for minimum wage. There is no reason to raise that.

My entire family works in small businesses with 200 employees at minimum wage. Everytime minimum wage goes up, their prices have togo up. Thats just the way it is.

Every time minimum wage goes up, businisses that pay minimum wage must raise prices, or lay off workers. So either everyone takes an effective pay decrease or unemployment goes up. Realistically, its both that happen.

Raising minimum wage doesn't help anyone. If you're trying to living off of minimum wage, get up off your ass and start looking for a better job.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is what you more liberal morons can't seem to get.

You ever stop to think that when a person disagrees with you that they might not be a liberal moron? Politically, I'm just about as undecided as one can possibly get -- I argue not because I think I have a better stance, but because I find you unconvincing.

Standard of living is not a right. What is acceptable does not constitute a right.

You're wrong on the first count. Even by your own words a person has a "right to breathe", and that constitutes a standard of living. (A very poor one, of course) So, it is clear that all people have a right to some standard of living.

Now, breathing isn't enough to keep you alive -- at the very least you need food, drink, and shelter.


Here, I was using "acceptable" to mean that it meets the conditions of a right. For example, the ability to (legally) acqurie air, food, and shelter, and nothing else would be unacceptable. Whether "ability to acquire air, food, drink, and shelter" qualifies as acceptable is obviously a point to be debated with you.


Furthermore, it's not just good enough for each individual person to have the ability to live -- it has to be possible for everybody to live.

As a silly example to demonstrate this point, if you toss a can of air to a group of 20 people who would otherwise be unable to breathe, then each of them now has the ability to breathe. But that's not good enough because there is no possibility that all will live.

But any job that does not pay minimum wage is already at its free market position.

Wages aren't set in a vacuum. Do you not recognize the possibility that a job might pay a wage 50 cents per hour more than minimum wage not because that's the "free market position", but merely because it's a little more than minimum wage?

Furthermore, if the wages from a lot of jobs suddenly dropped to levels that are unacceptable, then there's suddenly a lot of demand for those other jobs -- by the law of supply and demand, it is clear that this would lead to reduced wages for other jobs.

 

[Smurf]

The poor have it damn good in this country,as i have said before. They whine about being less fortunate, but if they, and they're political champions were really so righteous they'd be a hell of a lot more concerned with the truly less fortunate.

A bunch of hypocrites.

... What in the ****ing world has made you think it's damn good to be poor, and why are they better off in the USA than anywhere else?

 

[vanesch]

Yes.

Are you saying that if a town lives on a mine that closes due lack of ore, then the state must provide welfare to the whole town for the rest of eternity so that no one is forced to move?

There wouldn't be the need of providing welfare for the rest of eternity, just enough to allow those who are willing, to move, (you know, moving over, that costs money! If you have a house there, you've worked for it all your life and now it isn't worth a penny anymore because the town is dead) and to reconvert to other activities for those who want to stay, such as training gorillas to activate cash registers.

 

[Aquamarine]

... What in the ****ing world has made you think it's damn good to be poor, and why are they better off in the USA than anywhere else?

Read my second to this post.

Or read the section "Poverty in the United States", that shows that when measuring aboslute poverty, the poor in the US are very rich compared to those in India.
http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/348/4iie3489.pdf

 

[Aquamarine]

Wages aren't set in a vacuum. Do you not recognize the possibility that a job might pay a wage 50 cents per hour more than minimum wage not because that's the "free market position", but merely because it's a little more than minimum wage?

Furthermore, if the wages from a lot of jobs suddenly dropped to levels that are unacceptable, then there's suddenly a lot of demand for those other jobs -- by the law of supply and demand, it is clear that this would lead to reduced wages for other jobs.

The minimum wage cannot raise the wage level, and reducing it will not reduce the wage level. Quite the opposite.

I will quote myself:

The labor market works like any other market. Pay is decided by demand (employers) and supply (employees). Competition stops employers from giving too low a pay. On the other hand, employers will not pay so much that they make a loss.

What happens if there is a regulation that forces the lowest pay higher than in a free market? It means that there must be unemployment, employers will not voluntarily pay to make a loss. It also means that the unemployed must be supported by the rest of the population and that the unemployed will produce nothing, lowering the standard of living for the rest of the population.

Regulation like this only creates unemployment and decreased standards of living.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47769
So what would happen if the minimum wage regulation would disappear? There would be many new jobs created that are only profitable with lower pay. The unemployed would work. Those already working would pay less taxes. There would be more growth, increasing GDP/capita. Both due to lower taxes and more workers. The average wage would raise.

 

[Smurf]

Read my second to this post.

Or read the section "Poverty in the United States", that shows that when measuring aboslute poverty, the poor in the US are very rich compared to those in India.
http://www.iie.com/publications/chapters_preview/348/4iie3489.pdf

Your comparing it to India? That's why they're damn good, because they're not Indian? That's not an argument, If I said Germans had damn good cars and then compared them to an Indian car line, what would that prove.

 

[Smurf]

The minimum wage cannot raise the wage level, and reducing it will not reduce the wage level. Quite the opposite.

I will quote myself:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47769
So what would happen if the minimum wage regulation would disappear? There would be many new jobs created that are only profitable with lower pay. The unemployed would work. Those already working would pay less taxes. There would be more growth, increasing GDP/capita. Both due to lower taxes and more workers. The average wage would raise.

Except instead of creating new lower wage jobs, they would just lower the wages of their existing jobs, allowing them to exploit their own country as well as say.. bangladesh.

 

[Aquamarine]

There wouldn't be the need of providing welfare for the rest of eternity, just enough to allow those who are willing, to move, (you know, moving over, that costs money! If you have a house there, you've worked for it all your life and now it isn't worth a penny anymore because the town is dead) and to reconvert to other activities for those who want to stay, such as training gorillas to activate cash registers.

There are many mining towns that have no reason for existing except the mine. This applies to mines in extreme wether conditions like permafrost or desert. These towns cannot exist without the mine. So the only option is welfare for eternity, if for some reason people there should not move in order to work.