What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

[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.

 

[franznietzsche]

... 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 previous posts.

To: Hurkyll

There is clearly a problem of definition between what each of us is saying, which is not helping either of us to communicate.

Standard of living -- the common level of living.

Acceptable -- that which is generally accepted by society.

Right -- something that you are born with, that cannot be taken away (inalienable rights).

The "acceptable standard of living" in this country involves a private residence, a flat screen tv, a $40,000 car, two trips to Disneyland a year, health insurance, and all the food i can stuff into my face.

None of that is an inalienable right. Not a single thing, not even the food, much less that quantity of food.

Your right to breathe is a "god given" right (i use the term "god given" loosely, being an atheist, simply to signify that it comes with being born.). You do have a right to eat--if you have food, the food itself does not constitute a right.

You have no rights to material possessions. You have a right to work for them. You have no right to shelter--you have a right to build, or earn one.

This is how I define liberal vs Conservative(in the economic sense)--

liberal - believe you have a right to material

conservative - believes you have a right to earn material.

Now you know what i mean when i refer to "liberals."

 

[honestrosewater]

Nomocracy- rule of law.

Or more precisely, rule by contract. (Would you play a game without knowing and agreeing to all the rules up front?)

The government's only power is to create and enforce laws. Everyone knows and agrees to the laws up front. New laws do not take effect for some amount of time, so everyone can either agree to them or not. There are laws for what to do when someone doesn't agree to a law.

What could be fairer?!

Oh, before anyone asks, there are laws determining how laws are created.
There are laws for everything.

Happy thoughts,
Rachel

 

[Aquamarine]

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.

No, competition from the new jobs prevent this. Remember, unemployment has disappeared due to all the new jobs so workers are scarce.

Supply and demand means that the companies will pay just enough so that they make a profit. If they make a too large profit by not paying high wages, another company will be started that pay somewhat higher wages and takes away all the workers from the company with lower wages. If they pay to high wages, they will be unprofitable and will go out of business. So all companies will tend to pay a similar wage for a similarly skilled worker.

Regarding Bangladesh it is not possible for the companies to provide high wages due to the low GDP/capita.

 

[Smurf]

This is how I define liberal vs Conservative(in the economic sense)--

liberal - believe you have a right to material

conservative - believes you have a right to earn material.

Now you know what i mean when i refer to "liberals."

What about "believes you have the right to fair circumstances in which to earn material"

 

[franznietzsche]

Nomocracy- rule of law.

Or more precisely, rule by contract. (Would you play a game without knowing and agreeing to all the rules up front?)

The government's only power is to create and enforce laws. Everyone knows and agrees to the laws up front. New laws do not take effect for some amount of time, so everyone can either agree to them or not. There are laws for what to do when someone doesn't agree to a law.

What could be fairer?!

Oh, before anyone asks, there are laws determining how laws are created.
There are laws for everything.

Happy thoughts,
Rachel

This is different from the principle of the current system how?

 

[franznietzsche]

What about "believes you have the right to fair circumstances in which to earn material"

What is fair?

 

[Smurf]

No, competition from the new jobs prevent this. Remember, unemployment has disappeared due to all the new jobs so workers are scarce.

Explain.

Supply and demand means that the companies will pay just enough so that they make a profit. If they make a too large profit by not paying high wages, another company will be started that pay somewhat higher wages and takes away all the workers from the company with lower wages.

So if Enron suddenly lowers the wages of 500,000 workers in 34 states, then that's ok because a new company will just offer 500,000 new jobs with higher wages? or do you think 100,000 new companies will just start up with better wages than Enron is currently providing even though they didn't start up with wages equal to Enron when Enron was abiding the minimum wage?

 

[Smurf]

What is fair?

How about, if a town is dependant on a mine then the people there should have either previously been paid enough to be able to move somewhere else for work, or will be given the opinion of moving at the expense of the mine and/or state.

 

[franznietzsche]

How about, if a town is dependant on a mine then the people there should have either previously been paid enough to be able to move somewhere else for work, or will be given the opinion of moving at the expense of the mine and/or state.

Why?

That is what i consider a socialsit policy -- giving people what has not been earned. If they truly had not been paid sufficient to leave, then they should not have gone there to work. they are responsible for their own fate.

The government should not be responsible for people not planning for contingency in their lives.

 

[franznietzsche]

Supply and demand means that the companies will pay just enough so that they make a profit. If they make a too large profit by not paying high wages, another company will be started that pay somewhat higher wages and takes away all the workers from the company with lower wages. If they pay to high wages, they will be unprofitable and will go out of business. So all companies will tend to pay a similar wage for a similarly skilled worker.

I have to agree with Smurf's response to this(partially).


The first sentence of that is simply wrong.

What is true is that if the company lowers wages too much, people will leave in search of a company that does pay better, but that does not mean that one wil magically manifest itself.

However assuming that there is not a monopoly, then yes, competition with other companies to keep workers will keep wages up.

An important partof the free market systemis that it is not a monopoly. If all sectors of the economy were held in a monopoly, then mandate minimum wages would be necessary, but monopolies are not free market.

 

[Smurf]

Well Franz under certain circumstances I would agree that the people should have looked after themselves, but if the Corporation affected the village (assuming it existed before the mine opened) in a way that it could not sustain itself after it left, it is the fault of the corporation for doing it, and/or the fault of the state for not setting up correct parameters under which the mine should opperate and/or for not educting the people enough that they could tell this wasn't a good contract.

 

[Aquamarine]

Explain.

So if Enron suddenly lowers the wages of 500,000 workers in 34 states, then that's ok because a new company will just offer 500,000 new jobs with higher wages? or do you think 100,000 new companies will just start up with better wages than Enron is currently providing even though they didn't start up with wages equal to Enron when Enron was abiding the minimum wage?

If a large company suddenly lowered its wages people there would start to leave at first opportunity. Some would start new companies, some would go to other already existing companies, some would go to new companies started by others. If the large company insisted on keeping the wages lower than what others are paying, they would soon have no employees left.

The minimum wage only affects 2% of the population.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well Franz under certain circumstances I would agree that the people should have looked after themselves, but if the Corporation affected the village (assuming it existed before the mine opened) in a way that it could not sustain itself after it left, it is the fault of the corporation for doing it, and the fault of the state for not setting up correct parameters under which the mine should opperate and/or for not educting the people enough that they could tell this wasn't a good contract.

That is not the scenario aquamarine set out: he said there was no other reason than the mine or the support of the miners. So there would have been no town.

 

[Aquamarine]

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.

What are you complaining about? The poor in the US have many times the income of those in India. And for example almost all have a color television. Something many of the poor in India have never seen. Or the luxury of being fat, which the poor in the US have, while certainly not those in India.

 

[franznietzsche]

What are you complaining about? The poor in the US have many times the income of those in India. And for example almost all have a color television. Something many of the poor in India many have never seen. Or the luxury of being fat.

I don't think the poor appreciate the luxury of being fat.

Sorry,couldn'tt resist.

 

[Aquamarine]

I have to agree with Smurf's response to this(partially).


The first sentence of that is simply wrong.

What is true is that if the company lowers wages too much, people will leave in search of a company that does pay better, but that does not mean that one wil magically manifest itself.

However assuming that there is not a monopoly, then yes, competition with other companies to keep workers will keep wages up.

An important partof the free market systemis that it is not a monopoly. If all sectors of the economy were held in a monopoly, then mandate minimum wages would be necessary, but monopolies are not free market.

An above average profit will attract competitors. This can be prevented for a time with for example patents or trade secrets. But for a mature industry, the profits of surviving companies have a tendency to return to the mean over time. But it is true that this doesn't happen magically or at once.

 

[Aquamarine]

How about, if a town is dependant on a mine then the people there should have either previously been paid enough to be able to move somewhere else for work, or will be given the opinion of moving at the expense of the mine and/or state.

If for some reason the mine went into bankruptcy at once and without warning, there may be people who have no savings and may need help with relocating. This may be a responsibility of the state but in general I think that private charity can solve most of such problems if taxes are very low.

Regarding the value of real estate in the town, this is not the responsibility of the state any more than losing money due to the stock market speculation is.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is different from the principle of the current system how?

Assuming you mean the current system in the US...
Citizens do not have to 1) know all the laws nor
2) explicilty agree to be subject to the laws.

Also, the "spirit" of the nomocracy, in my view, is that the law determines every government action. So a law granting absolute power to someone to do as they please would be technically allowed but contrary in spirit. In other words, a "true" nomocracy would have as one of its laws that every government action must be determined by law.

The US system is similar to a nomocracy by coincidence, not because it's a federal republic.

 

[Zlex]

Hell; why don't we just make minimum wage $1000/h?

Then everyone will be rich...right?

 

[Smurf]

no we'd just have prices skyrocket and in response there would be massive inflation.