Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 203

Thread: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

  1. #151
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    But we deduce from things that we know are true.



    I told you that real world evidence is prone to lurking variables. Look at government spending.
    I don't see how you can say that wages stagnated in the 80's because of increases in military spending and you are completely ignoring the deregulation in that time!

    Deregulation would more directly effect wages then military spending levels. You can't be using that for the exuse of stagnant wages. Mediun wages were also stagnant under Clinton, and during that time Clinton cut military spending.

    Deregulation has to be the reason, no question about that.

    Not always harmful, but always inefficient.
    If it is inneficent then it IS harmful.

    I'd say that our economy grew DESPITE that tariff. Real world evidence doesn't help either of us, but deduction helps me.



    Economic reasons force me to be against all intervention.
    Heres my real world evidence.

    After the War of 1812, government intervention was helpful. Therefore, there is one instance of benenficial government intervention... in a mixed economy.

    Tariff of 1816
    "The recently concluded War of 1812 forced Americans to confront the issue of protecting their struggling industries. The British had stashed large quantities of manufactured goods in warehouses during the war, but when peace was achieved in 1815, a flood of these goods was dumped on the American market. New England manufacturing concerns found it almost impossible to compete with the cheap foreign imports."

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    When did I say or imply such, no, I said the leadup to what we have now is the path, that includes the government assuming majority share ownership of GM, that IS the definition of public ownership. MW by itself is not socialism, it is an overall symptom of overregulation, which is the government making business decisions through law, which IS the definition of defacto ownership. You wrapped this up by mentioning a mixed economy, which is exactly what I have been saying, it isn't a free market, it isn't capitalism, which was what Uretha was asserting as a failed system.
    Capitalism merely requires the private ownership of the means of production, the utilization of markets as the means of resource allocation (rather than economic planning, for example), and the presence of wage labor. Socialism, by contrast, requires the public ownership and management of the means of production. Government ownership is not sufficient because of the detachment of state officials from direct public control in the republican political system, and thus, the absence of legitimate participatory management. However, we don't even have government ownership of the means of production at present; we have government ownership of part of a company that forms part of an industry that is merely part of the means of production as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You are the self-proclaimed socialist libertarian here, not me.
    I am, though the term "socialist libertarian" is somewhat redundant, because all libertarians must be socialists and "libertarian" capitalists are frauds, and the term is purely oxymoronic. But libertarianism or socialism has nothing to do with the minimum wage.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Socialism is any degree of public ownership, don't try to wiggle out of this.
    That definition is incorrect; socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production and distribution in their entirety or vast majority, and governmental ownership schemes may not constitute legitimate "public" ownership. As noted by the American Heritage Dictionary, socialism is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    History disagrees with you, the most regulated portions of market history are the least productive, protectionism as you are defining it does not work, the two times regulation should exist or immediate public safety(clear and present danger) OR to prevent fraud.
    This is getting somewhat tiresome. Protectionism in fact bolsters market exchange in many areas, one of the most obvious examples of which being the fact that state protection of infant industries will maximize dynamic comparative advantage in the long run through securement of the appropriate and sufficient development of such industries. It doesn't surprise me to see that you've ignored everything that Chang said about strategic trade policy, though it is an unfortunate example of empirical research being dismissed in favor of preconceived ideological dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    No, that is the textbook definition.
    That is the accurate definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Card and Krueger was a stupid study. It's another example of the futility of economic research.
    I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times. In Card and Krueger's 2000 reply to Neumark and Wascher, they came off better.

    A comparison of fast-food employment growth in New Jersey and Pennsylvania over the period of our original study confirms the key findings in our 1994 paper, and calls into question the representativeness of the sample assembled by Berman, Neumark, and Wascher. Consistent with our original sample, the BLS fast-food data set indicates slightly faster employment growth in New Jersey than in the Pennsylvania border counties over the time period that we initially examined, though in most specifications the differential is small and statistically insignificant.
    And as I mentioned, even if Deere, Murphy, and Welch's research was sound, it does not constitute a "rebuttal" to the premise that there are oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, because the very focal point of that premise is that such skewed conditions will render the general nature of labor markets heterogenous. By contrast, the textbook model necessitates more rigidly homogenous conditions that could not adequately explain the deviation illustrated by Card and Krueger, nor by Dickens, Machin, and Manning in Britain.

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    We haven't had anything close to capitalism since before Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt.
    According to the American Heritage Dictionary, capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." Now, yes, as to the inevitable objection, the "free market" in the strict laissez-faire sense does not exist in the current economy. But the free market in the strict laissez-faire sense has never existed, so unless you wish to claim that capitalism itself has never existed, there's no point in engaging in a trivial semantics quibble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The biggest problem with capitalism is greed? No, the biggest problem with human nature is greed; can't change human nature, no matter how much you "hope" for "change". As for the biggest problem with capitalism...it's that dopes like you don't understand it...
    Actually, it seems to be you that suffers from the severest misunderstanding. It's of course true that human nature cannot be altered and that greed and selfishness would be fundamental elements of human reaction to any economic system, but it's also true that greed and selfishness are uniquely problematic in the capitalist economy by means of the profit motive's inhibition of productivity maximization. For example, a standard ethical analogy involves the person who is interviewing candidates for the position of his immediate subordinate. One candidate seems as though he would perform relatively well, while the other candidate seems as though he would perform brilliantly. It is the interest of productivity that the superior candidate be hired, but it is in the interest of the interviewer that the inferior candidate be hired, since the superior candidate will likely soon progress to a point where he surpasses him. In the capitalist labor market as a whole, this manifests itself through resistance to more efficient organizational methods (namely, workers' ownership and management), by the financial and coordinator classes, since they would be eliminated if this more productive arrangement were to be enacted.

  3. #153
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Capitalism merely requires the private ownership of the means of production, the utilization of markets as the means of resource allocation (rather than economic planning, for example), and the presence of wage labor. Socialism, by contrast, requires the public ownership and management of the means of production. Government ownership is not sufficient because of the detachment of state officials from direct public control in the republican political system, and thus, the absence of legitimate participatory management. However, we don't even have government ownership of the means of production at present; we have government ownership of part of a company that forms part of an industry that is merely part of the means of production as a whole.
    The definition is what it is, and doesn't deal with absolutes. I can supply that definition for you if you need help.



    I am, though the term "socialist libertarian" is somewhat redundant, because all libertarians must be socialists and "libertarian" capitalists are frauds, and the term is purely oxymoronic. But libertarianism or socialism has nothing to do with the minimum wage.
    Bull. Libertarians believe in less government, socialism requires government control, unless you believe that the government should be at liberty to suppress freedom, but that would be stateism, not libertarianism.


    That definition is incorrect; socialism is the public ownership and management of the means of production and distribution in their entirety or vast majority, and governmental ownership schemes may not constitute legitimate "public" ownership.
    There is no such thing as legitimate public ownership of production in the U.S., it means they took it from someone in the private sector, which is where we are at, oh, and vast ownership can be described as many countries these days.
    As noted by the American Heritage Dictionary, socialism is "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community."
    Where did it mention a percentage? Care to try again?

    Agna, you are all theory and no substance, the fact is so was Chang, and many of the other "research" you've brought out, none of these theories accurately invalidate the need for competition and quick adjustment in economics, all of which central planning cannot do. You keep mentioning protectionism as if it is some great philisophical salve, the fact is it props up potentially harmful companies while whittling away at established companies that may have a better output, it's yet another failure of giving bureaucrats any power in the market.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 07-12-09 at 04:29 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #154
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I don't see how you can say that wages stagnated in the 80's because of increases in military spending and you are completely ignoring the deregulation in that time!
    No one said wages stagnated, in fact they were increased. 1980's wages could suffice in the market because things were closer to their actual value, including the dollar, things were less expensive because:

    Deregulation would more directly effect wages then military spending levels. You can't be using that for the exuse of stagnant wages. Mediun wages were also stagnant under Clinton, and during that time Clinton cut military spending.
    This is a laugher, I don't know what kind of point you are trying to make, but this is a tangent and none of the points are related to each other, try to make your case without using stagnation, median wages, and the military in the same point, they aren't related and it gets confusing as to where you are trying to go.
    Deregulation has to be the reason, no question about that.
    Deregulation can deflate prices by taking "regulation tax" out of the equation, i.e. these are costs of compliance that get passed on to the rest of us, while basic public safety is acceptable, many of the regulations of the seventies were not only excessive, they existed as an additional burden and created not only inefficiencies(unnaturally) but also added costs(a bad thing during a time of inflation and joblessness), we are in a period with a party that is about to bring those back and then some, plus even HIGHER minimum wages, this is going to be bad.



    If it is inneficent then it IS harmful.
    No, inefficient is inefficient, it isn't good or bad, only the results are.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    More Repetition From You?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The definition is what it is, and doesn't deal with absolutes. I can supply that definition for you if you need help.
    I don't need help, but apparently you do. I don't pretend that only the "pure" or "absolute" form of something constitutes a manifestation of its existence (though the propertarians here do, as they deny that capitalism exists), but I do deny that a form of political or economic organization that is wholly antithetical to the proper definition of its label is a valid representation of that label.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Bull. Libertarians believe in less government, socialism requires government control, unless you believe that the government should be at liberty to suppress freedom, but that would be stateism, not libertarianism.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1058131641

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    There is no such thing as legitimate public ownership of production in the U.S., it means they took it from someone in the private sector, which is where we are at, oh, and vast ownership can be described as many countries these days.
    I'm not referring to legitimacy in terms of it being ethically sound (though capital accumulation is based on theft of surplus labor, so we could certainly call that "illegitimate" in a sense), but legitimacy in terms of it being an actual representation of the principle that's allegedly present. Government ownership is described by state socialists and misinformed anti-socialists as an actual manifestation of "public" ownership, but considering the divergence of interests between state officials and the actual general population, this definition does not hold.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Where did it mention a percentage? Care to try again?
    Percentage? A mere estimate will illustrate the obvious reality that "the means of producing and distributing goods" are not "owned collectively" and "political power" is not "exercised by the whole community." Partial governmental ownership (distinct from public ownership, you'll recall) of a specific firm in a specific industry that only constitutes a portion of the means of production is nowhere near public ownership and management of the means of production as a whole. Care to try again?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Agana, you are all theory and no substance, the fact is so was Chang, and many of the other "research" you've brought out, none of these theories accurately invalidate the need for competition and quick adjustment in economics, all of which central planning cannot do. You keep mentioning protectionism as if it is some great philisophical salve, the fact is it props up potentially harmful companies while whittling away at established companies that may have a better output, it's yet another failure of giving bureaucrats any power in the market.
    I'm afraid you've offered a perfect description of your own tactics. You continue to make baseless claims about the minimum wage's impact on employment while merely referring to textbook theory, and have said nothing as to alternative theory that involves focus on oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, or more importantly, the empirical research that validates that theory. You've ignored the theoretical implications of the infant industries argument, and more importantly, Chang's empirical insights as to how state protectionism was a fundamental element of American development after the Civil War. I certainly oppose central planning, but that's unfortunately simply a necessary facet of capitalism.

  6. #156
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: More Repetition From You?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I don't need help, but apparently you do. I don't pretend that only the "pure" or "absolute" form of something constitutes a manifestation of its existence (though the propertarians here do, as they deny that capitalism exists), but I do deny that a form of political or economic organization that is wholly antithetical to the proper definition of its label is a valid representation of that label.
    You are playing an absolutes game, and doing so to prove you are a "real" socialist whereas the "real" thing hasn't been tried yet, again, socialism is government ownership of resources, control is assertion of ownership.




    I'm not referring to legitimacy in terms of it being ethically sound (though capital accumulation is based on theft of surplus labor, so we could certainly call that "illegitimate" in a sense), but legitimacy in terms of it being an actual representation of the principle that's allegedly present.
    Theft of surplus labor? You've gotta be kidding, if you aren't I'm done with you, Marxist labor theory, another tenet of socialism and communism, is nothing more than a call to empty rhetorical populism and has NO value as far as numbers are concrerned, labor has a value, it is assigned when the agreement is reached between employer and employee, nothing about current labor theory honors that.
    Government ownership is described by state socialists and misinformed anti-socialists as an actual manifestation of "public" ownership, but considering the divergence of interests between state officials and the actual general population, this definition does not hold.
    Incorrect, if someone must ask permission to allocate their resources towards investment and hiring, it is a government(populous) declaration of true ownership, that is not a mis-respresentation.



    Percentage? A mere estimate will illustrate the obvious reality that "the means of producing and distributing goods" are not "owned collectively" and "political power" is not "exercised by the whole community." Partial governmental ownership (distinct from public ownership, you'll recall) of a specific firm in a specific industry that only constitutes a portion of the means of production is nowhere near public ownership and management of the means of production as a whole. Care to try again?
    That's a nice long winded way of saying that socialism is subjective, thank you. If the government owns the means of production it is socialism, if the government asserts ownership without purchase(overregulation) it is ownership, there are no percentages in the definition, which is convenient for someone who wants to argue that we aren't in a heavy left economy, or that Keynes didn't advocate socialism, and it is likewise convenient when socialism fails in any given form because it allows people the leeway to say "we haven't tried it yet", it's all bunk. Venezuela only owns a few sectors of it's market, yet it is socialist, Cuba owns the entire enchilada, and it is socio-communist, Russia, similar, China owns the bulk of it's assets, yet is privatizing......and still communist, get it yet?



    I'm afraid you've offered a perfect description of your own tactics. You continue to make baseless claims about the minimum wage's impact on employment while merely referring to textbook theory, and have said nothing as to alternative theory that involves focus on oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, or more importantly, the empirical research that validates that theory. You've ignored the theoretical implications of the infant industries argument, and more importantly, Chang's empirical insights as to how state protectionism was a fundamental element of American development after the Civil War. I certainly oppose central planning, but that's unfortunately simply a necessary facet of capitalism.
    If by baseless you mean backed up by economic law, and historical fact you'd be correct. Give one example of a minimum wage holding it's value, or mainaining full entry position employment, one. How about an example of a centralized economic system that has sustained itself for over 100 years without a major overhaul, I'll even allow you the waste and fraud inherent in those systems as lattitude.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #157
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I don't see how you can say that wages stagnated in the 80's because of increases in military spending and you are completely ignoring the deregulation in that time!

    Deregulation would more directly effect wages then military spending levels. You can't be using that for the exuse of stagnant wages. Mediun wages were also stagnant under Clinton, and during that time Clinton cut military spending.

    Deregulation has to be the reason, no question about that.
    To be honest, I don't know much about deregulation at that time. However, I do know that regulation still existed so the point is moot.

    And wages will not rise unless the real wages of people are going up. If government is sucking more money from people in real dollars per capita, then of course wages will not rise. We need to see a real cut in spending. Reagan cut taxes, he did not cut spending. Huge difference.

    If it is inneficent then it IS harmful.
    I was thinking of things like government police and military. They are inefficient, but I wouldn't say that they're harmful.

    Heres my real world evidence.

    After the War of 1812, government intervention was helpful. Therefore, there is one instance of benenficial government intervention... in a mixed economy.

    Tariff of 1816
    "The recently concluded War of 1812 forced Americans to confront the issue of protecting their struggling industries. The British had stashed large quantities of manufactured goods in warehouses during the war, but when peace was achieved in 1815, a flood of these goods was dumped on the American market. New England manufacturing concerns found it almost impossible to compete with the cheap foreign imports."
    Correlation does not prove causation. The economy did well and there was a tariff. So what? It does not prove that the tariff was the reason for the economy doing well. I can just as easily say that we would have been more competitive if it had not been for the tariff.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  8. #158
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times. In Card and Krueger's 2000 reply to Neumark and Wascher, they came off better.
    Except for just a few things:
    1. They're only looking at one industry. It may just happen that the jobs in that industry are worth more than the minimum wage.
    2. They don't take into account inflation.
    3. This is much more complete.

    And as I mentioned, even if Deere, Murphy, and Welch's research was sound, it does not constitute a "rebuttal" to the premise that there are oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets, because the very focal point of that premise is that such skewed conditions will render the general nature of labor markets heterogenous. By contrast, the textbook model necessitates more rigidly homogenous conditions that could not adequately explain the deviation illustrated by Card and Krueger, nor by Dickens, Machin, and Manning in Britain.
    Quit trying to prove your points via verbosity. You're basically trying to say that there is no competition in the markets which is complete nonsense.

    According to the American Heritage Dictionary, capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." Now, yes, as to the inevitable objection, the "free market" in the strict laissez-faire sense does not exist in the current economy. But the free market in the strict laissez-faire sense has never existed, so unless you wish to claim that capitalism itself has never existed, there's no point in engaging in a trivial semantics quibble.
    Capitalism has never truly existed, but we were close before anti-trust laws came about.

    Actually, it seems to be you that suffers from the severest misunderstanding. It's of course true that human nature cannot be altered and that greed and selfishness would be fundamental elements of human reaction to any economic system, but it's also true that greed and selfishness are uniquely problematic in the capitalist economy by means of the profit motive's inhibition of productivity maximization.
    See the nonsense?

    For example, a standard ethical analogy involves the person who is interviewing candidates for the position of his immediate subordinate. One candidate seems as though he would perform relatively well, while the other candidate seems as though he would perform brilliantly. It is the interest of productivity that the superior candidate be hired, but it is in the interest of the interviewer that the inferior candidate be hired, since the superior candidate will likely soon progress to a point where he surpasses him.
    And the boss of the person who is doing the interviewing would fire him for doing a bad job. The analogy does not work.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #159
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by lincoln View Post
    Why $10 an hour? Why not $35?
    Because $10 an hour is realistic and $35 an hour is not?
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  10. #160
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Because $10 an hour is realistic and $35 an hour is not?
    Why will $35 an hour not work?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •