America's debt is trivial.

[Moxie]

Wages are naturally bid up to a living level, or the entire workforce would die and the wealthy would suffer a lower standard of living due to less productivity. We all know, a happy worker is a productive worker. That is why capitalism replaced obvious slavery.

Slavery didn't cause the workforce to die either. Some people will work 80 hours a week in a sweatshop if they feel that is their only option to stay alive. That doesn't usually lead to a "happy worker" though.

The United States was able to become the economic powerhouse of the world with minimum wage laws and a populace that wanted a relatively high standard of living.


Let the Minimum Wage Increase Stand - FOXBusiness.com

Minimum wage trends: Understanding past and contemporary research

:costumed-smiley-087

 

[guerilla]

The United States was able to become the economic powerhouse of the world with minimum wage laws and a populace that wanted a relatively high standard of living.

That's not only illogical, it is ahistorical.

The first federal minimum wage legislation was introduced in the US in 1938, during the depression.

You're completely missing the industrial revolution and latter 19th century.

You're also missing the research of a Robert Higgs, who has demonstrated that the return to prosperity after WWII was due to a swelling workforce of returning servicemen, the end of Hoover/Roosevelt price controls and diminished federal debt (budget slashed by 2/3rds).

Unemployment was not a social concern until the creation of the welfare state. That is because the welfare state creates unemployment (watch the video I posted).

Slavery didn't cause the workforce to die either.

Did I claim that slavery caused the workforce to die?

Nope.

I said that people were less productive under slavery.

Some people will work 80 hours a week in a sweatshop if they feel that is their only option to stay alive.

Yes, that is rational human action. And it is not unique to slavery. When capital is scarce, population growth rises and children are also pressed into labor. The less capital intensive an economy is, the more likely birth rates are rising (India), and the more capital intensive an economy is, the less likely birth rates are rising (Japan).

 

[Rusky]

Low wage isn't a permanent thing. Its a ladder - a skill ladder.
The reason so many teens are out of work, is because they should be making $4-5/hr with their skill set. My younger brother wants to work, but its really hard to find a job for a 14 year old. In the internet world he already started climbing the income ladder, the better he gets the more money he makes. By the time his 18 I can pretty much guarantee he will be making 2-3k a month (maybe more)(plus a bag full of knowledge). In the real restricted world, he will only start learning the fundamentals at the age.
So yeah I say minimum wage has to go.

 

[Moxie]

The first federal minimum wage legislation was introduced in the US in 1938, during the depression.

Yeah it's 2010 - the USA has kicked economic ass for years with a minimum wage. This would indicate that it is not as detrimental in a black/white way as suggested.

Unemployment was not a social concern until the creation of the welfare state. That is because the welfare state creates unemployment (watch the video I posted).

I didn't mention unemployment, but the last I heard the unemployment was lower in Mexico, yet they still want to come here.

Did I claim that slavery caused the workforce to die?

No, but you said :

"Wages are naturally bid up to a living level, or the entire workforce would die"


A large part of the modern economy is people buying things that they don't really need to live. People earning only enough to live aren't buying televisions or fleshlights.

 

[PhillipMarlow]

Isn't that simply a result of the dollar's buying power?

 

[guerilla]

Yeah it's 2010 - the USA has kicked economic ass for years with a minimum wage. This would indicate that it is not as detrimental in a black/white way as suggested.

Correlation is not causation.

I didn't mention unemployment, but the last I heard the unemployment was lower in Mexico, yet they still want to come here.

Relevance?

No, but you said :

"Wages are naturally bid up to a living level, or the entire workforce would die"

Yes, I did say that. Do you have any questions about it?

A large part of the modern economy is people buying things that they don't really need to live. People earning only enough to live aren't buying televisions or fleshlights.

How do you know what they need to live? Maybe without TVs they would be too depressed to work. Maybe fleshlights help nerds deal with psychological trauma and anxiety from lack of sexual opportunities.

Maybe people just like to buy things.

That's the thing about subjective value. You (or any planner, politician or bureaucrat) cannot decide what it is people need or at what price. Such information can only emerge in real time, on the market through the price discovery mechanism of voluntary exchange.

 

[popeye]

guerilla speaks...idiot leftist, socialist, welfare statist and communist should listen.

 

[Moxie]

Isn't that simply a result of the dollar's buying power?

A buying power that was able to happen in a nation with a minimum wage and high standard of living..

Correlation is not causation.

The point is that the richest nation ever was able to function that way despite a minimum wage. Arguments against a minimum wage are made in such a way as to suggest that economic development is stifled so much that this would not be possible. Real life examples of many prosperous nations with minimum wages prove otherwise.

Yes, I did say that. Do you have any questions about it?

How do you know what they need to live? Maybe without TVs they would be too depressed to work. Maybe fleshlights help nerds deal with psychological trauma and anxiety from lack of sexual opportunities.

Maybe people just like to buy things.

LOL, excuse me if being able to buy televisions isn't the first thing I think of when someone mentions workers dieing and slavery.

That's the thing about subjective value. You (or any planner, politician or bureaucrat) cannot decide what it is people need or at what price. Such information can only emerge in real time, on the market through the price discovery mechanism of voluntary exchange.

We can look at nations where people voluntary work for low wages and estimate what they would be able to buy. We can then look at all the nations with minimum wages and compare their buying power and lifestyles.

Assuming there was no welfare or minimum wage, would you get rid of the borders so all the jobs could be filled by workers willing to work for the lowest wages?

 

[guerilla]

A buying power that was able to happen in a nation with a minimum wage and high standard of living..

Correlation is not causation.

Real life examples of many prosperous nations with minimum wages prove otherwise.

What do examples of poor nations with minimum wage laws prove then?

Remember, correlation is not causation.

We can look at nations where people voluntary work for low wages and estimate what they would be able to buy. We can then look at all the nations with minimum wages and compare their buying power and lifestyles.

But that is not equal circumstances, so you can't prove your case with it. It's like comparing an apple and an orange, and saying "this orange is a better apple!"

Ceteris paribus, which nation will have more total output and employment, the one with a minimum wage floor, or the one with free employment? Reason out the case for us.

Did you watch the video I posted?

 

[Moxie]

^ You're reading too much into my words or just eager to argue.

The school nurses and such at many schools used to inform the students that if anyone did drugs, they were basically going to soon die or end up in prison. If a student pointed out that their uncle did drugs and is now a lawyer, that doesn't mean the student is necessarily saying that drug use is a causation for becoming a lawyer.

You sometimes frame your theories on here in a way that is a bit similar to the anti-drug programs of the past. If we brought someone from 1,000 years ago into the present and showed them much of your arguments, they might be convinced that no nation could ever come close to being prosperous with minimum wages, unions, public education, etc. Reality is what it is, though.

 

[guerilla]

The school nurses and such at many schools used to inform the students that if anyone did drugs, they were basically going to soon die or end up in prison. If a student pointed out that their uncle did drugs and is now a lawyer, that doesn't mean the student is necessarily saying that drug use is a causation for becoming a lawyer.

No, he is doing what I am doing. You're the nurse, making a correlation error, and I am pointing out the error by demonstrating there is an exception.

You sometimes frame your theories on here in a way that is a bit similar to the anti-drug programs of the past. If we brought someone from 1,000 years ago into the present and showed them much of your arguments, they might be convinced that no nation could ever come close to being prosperous with minimum wages, unions, public education, etc. Reality is what it is, though.

You're continuing to make the correlation error. And now the refuge of every scoundrel, the "reality argument". That somehow reality overcomes logic, and therefore I am anti-reality.

The problem is, you're not reasoning out how higher prices or limiting growth makes people wealthier. I'm interested for you to focus on the argument, not on me.

In order to do that, provide a logical progression from limiting the size of the workforce, creating artificial scarcity of wages = increased prosperity over a free labor market.

If you can't do that, then attacking the roots of my ideas, associating me with negative stereotypes etc, are just rhetorical tricks.

In other words, make your argument or stop attacking mine dishonestly.

By the way, if you stopped to think about the argument you are making, it has enormous consequences. It means that you believe that a socialized economy is more prosperous than a free one. That you should not have the right to choose education, exchange partners, prices etc. You really, really want to think it over.

And I'll ask again, since you keep dodging it. Did you watch the video?

 

[vinny lingo]

I watched it. Then watched parts 1 and 3. Good stuff.

 

[GreeLee]

I don't think he's taking in to account the leverage that China actually has on us. 90% of the products being sold are made in China. China would only have to stop their exports, and our economy would be done.

 

[redwings0921]

There was a question on the SAT today that was almost like someone wanted to slip us how fucked we are. In laymens terms it was "our country is 4*10^9 dollars in debt and our population is xxxxx. What is the amount that each person would have to pay to remove the debt? and it was something like 17k lol

 

[teguh123]

The leftist does have a point. But minimum wage cause huge market distortion.

Why learn to be a programmer if you can make quickly with minimum wage?

Many drug dealers earn less than a minimum wage because there is no job for them.

In general businessman

1. Get paid latter
2. Take financial risk
3. Often has to invest huge amount of work or money in front with no money or immediate reward.

A programmer, or everyone else is effectively a businessman. Why invest $50k for college if you can just drive bus and get almost the same salary?

Naturally because of that, if salary is about the same, no body wants to be a businessman. So income is high for a businessmen to the point that things reach equilibrium.

If people works for me, I sometimes give them intensive to be a businessman to and be my partner instead. Which means they put and risk money too but in return get higher portion of the profit. Most of them initially refused and I do not even recommend them. What the market decide is always a fair decision.

What's interesting is eliminating minimum wage and allowing immigrant to compete will improve wealth for American in general. However, when those immigrant get naturalized and count as American too, then percapita income will drop even though you increase your wealth and the whole world's wealth.

Funny ha, how our way of measuring things will make things look bad while things are actually better.

Guerilla is right, correlation do not imply causation. However, it strongly suggest one one way or another. US gives minimum wage because it kick economic ass not the other way around.

The other country get poor because of corruption that happens due to governments' intervention in economy.

Milton Friedman suggest giving some minimum income to everyone.

Perhaps a lazy people in US does deserve more money than the poor in Indonesia because they don't join the commies army and try to turn the whole country into a communist. At least if they don't have kids I think they should. If they plenty of kids and they're parasitic, there will be no end to it.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

guerilla speaks...idiot leftist, socialist, welfare statist and communist should listen.

Is that your version of mutlivariable calculus...or maybe the layman's explanation of the Phillips Curve?

You are so funny....I love how you and friends use logic, reason and peer-reviewed research (backed by tangible credentials) to make points....

 

[papajohn56]

Is that your version of mutlivariable calculus...or maybe the layman's explanation of the Phillips Curve?

You are so funny....I love how you and friends use logic, reason and peer-reviewed research (backed by tangible credentials) to make points....

There's plenty of credible research into the subject of debt and nations and the damage it can cause.

 

[Moxie]

No, he is doing what I am doing. You're the nurse, making a correlation error, and I am pointing out the error by demonstrating there is an exception.


You're continuing to make the correlation error. And now the refuge of every scoundrel, the "reality argument". That somehow reality overcomes logic, and therefore I am anti-reality.

The problem is, you're not reasoning out how higher prices or limiting growth makes people wealthier. I'm interested for you to focus on the argument, not on me.

In order to do that, provide a logical progression from limiting the size of the workforce, creating artificial scarcity of wages = increased prosperity over a free labor market.

If you can't do that, then attacking the roots of my ideas, associating me with negative stereotypes etc, are just rhetorical tricks.

In other words, make your argument or stop attacking mine dishonestly.

By the way, if you stopped to think about the argument you are making, it has enormous consequences. It means that you believe that a socialized economy is more prosperous than a free one. That you should not have the right to choose education, exchange partners, prices etc. You really, really want to think it over.

And I'll ask again, since you keep dodging it. Did you watch the video?

guerilla = "minimum wage is bad!"

moxie = "even if it is, it hasn't been bad enough to prevent countries like the USA from becoming the richest in human history."

That's mostly all I've been trying to say. I'm not sure what's so confusing.

I watched the video. Yes, less expenses is more opportunity to hire people, but I'll just point out that minimum wage jobs are often fulfilling specific tasks that have a finite number. You can have people willing to work for free, but there is only so many minutes that can be spent stocking a grocery store.

 

[DirSP]

A buying power that was able to happen in a nation with a minimum wage and high standard of living..



The point is that the richest nation ever was able to function that way despite a minimum wage. Arguments against a minimum wage are made in such a way as to suggest that economic development is stifled so much that this would not be possible. Real life examples of many prosperous nations with minimum wages prove otherwise.



LOL, excuse me if being able to buy televisions isn't the first thing I think of when someone mentions workers dieing and slavery.



We can look at nations where people voluntary work for low wages and estimate what they would be able to buy. We can then look at all the nations with minimum wages and compare their buying power and lifestyles.

Assuming there was no welfare or minimum wage, would you get rid of the borders so all the jobs could be filled by workers willing to work for the lowest wages?

Hong Kong is a good example of a wealthy state without minimum wage. The lower wage people are still saving money to buy luxury goods, unfortunately. There is a market minimum wage of $3-$3.5USD. The problem is that there is a huge rich and poor gap.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Is that your version of mutlivariable calculus...or maybe the layman's explanation of the Phillips Curve?

You are so funny....I love how you and friends use logic, reason and peer-reviewed research (backed by tangible credentials) to make points....

Kind of like the global warming argument (lie) your side unabashedly parades right?

Your quick uninvited stab at popeye's post is indicative of the passion that comes with identifying with one of the mentioned groups.

Which is it?
The idiot leftist, the socialist, the welfare statist or the communist?