• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Regulations vs free market

Regulations vs free market

  • I want a command economy!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Srrong regulations

    Votes: 10 31.3%

  • Mild regulations

    Votes: 13 40.6%

  • Free market

    Votes: 8 25.0%

  • Can't decide

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • Total voters
    32
Canell said:
That's my point - the minimum wage will rise. First because none will be willing to work for a loaf of bread, we are not in the 19c. Secondly because employers will have more money (if the government lowers taxes if they don't give subsidies) to give as wages. Finally, there could be minimal wage set by the government (although I'm not a big proponent of that) to guarantee people won't turn into slaves to greedy employers.
Click to expand...
Unless the unemployment rate is very low there will always be people willing to work for a loaf of bread.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Unless the unemployment rate is very low there will always be people willing to work for a loaf of bread.
Click to expand...

yeah people with signs on the side of the road is proof of that.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Unless the unemployment rate is very low there will always be people willing to work for a loaf of bread.
Click to expand...

So it's their problem to learn how to make decisions. :) In a week they will starve and demand higher wage instead of waiting for the nanny-state to take care for them.
Never mind, we had our statements. It's OK to have different points of view. Cheers! :)
 
Canell said:
That's my point - the minimum wage will rise. First because none will be willing to work for a loaf of bread, we are not in the 19c. Secondly because employers will have more money (if the government lowers taxes if they don't give subsidies) to give as wages. Finally, there could be minimal wage set by the government (although I'm not a big proponent of that) to guarantee people won't turn into slaves to greedy employers.
Click to expand...

Canell your line of thought used to be spot on...its not anymore and heres why. Wages have not gone up, because employers can move jobs to china were just now some workers have reached 4,000 a year 10s of millions work for under a 1,000 american. No american can compete with that.
Many jobs in america are underemployed jobs <part time etc> where you work everyday and cant make your life expenses.
It used to work just like you outlined but thats all gone. As profits soar they still fight to keep minimum wage low and not increase it.
 
Canell said:
So it's their problem to learn how to make decisions. :) In a week they will starve and demand higher wage instead of waiting for the nanny-state to take care for them.
Never mind, we had our statements. It's OK to have different points of view. Cheers! :)
Click to expand...

I dont see anyone demanding higher wage and getting it...do you
 
Canell said:
Hm? :)

By regulations I mean not the lack of any rules but all kinds of levers for price control by the government (subsidies, duties, tariffs, VAT, licences, permits, etc., etc).
How much market involvement of the government would you tolerate? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well permits and licenses are pretty important. I don't need a mechanic or air conditioner repair man very often. I'd like to know they have insurance and at least a baseline of knowledge to try and fix my things.

For subsidies and price control...I think they are easy to demonize but bumper crops in say agriculture shouldn't lead to mass closures of farms. It's a good thing we have plenty of food in this country.
 
lpast said:
I dont see anyone demanding higher wage and getting it...do you
Click to expand...

I like how everything EVERYTHING Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and Republicans do decreases the wages of workers. Whether it's regulation, Green stuff, importing cheap foreign workers, free trade, or anything else. There's not a single thing the 1st and 3rd parties do that actually increases the wages of workers, in a broad "promote the general welfare of the people" sense. (Like the auto bailout kept some people employed but at a fractional greater cost to all other workers in the form of taxes and debt)
 
Canell said:
So it's their problem to learn how to make decisions. :) In a week they will starve and demand higher wage instead of waiting for the nanny-state to take care for them.
Never mind, we had our statements. It's OK to have different points of view. Cheers! :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, one person will starve because the next guy will get his loaf of bread. That doesn't lead to change, it just leads to more poverty and starvation. Are you under the impression that no one starves in America? Or that no one freezes to death in winter? Has all the right-wing propaganda about food stamps and welfare gotten to you, too?
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
I dont see anyone demanding higher wage and getting it...do you
Click to expand...

Let's remove subsidies first, shall we? :)

No subsidies = less taxes = more money for employers (and people who pay taxes) = increased wages
No subsidies = more expensive food = starving low wage workers = I'm sorry, I can't work for $3 per hour, that can't even cover my food & shelter. Find another sucker, boss... if you can.

Come on people, it's common sense! Unemployment has very little to do with food subsidies.

MoSurveyor said:
Or that no one freezes to death in winter? Has all the right-wing propaganda about food stamps and welfare gotten to you, too?
Click to expand...

Tell you the truth I prefer food stamps to food subsidies. Then you know who receives what, the distinction is clear. Can't do that with subsidised food.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Do you honestly believe this? Or are you just being ostentatious?
Click to expand...

If you are an employer and nobody wants to sweep your floor for $3 per hour, won't you raise the wage? :confused:
Yes, I believe it.
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
If you are an employer and nobody wants to sweep your floor for $3 per hour, won't you raise the wage? :confused:
Yes, I believe it.
Click to expand...

With no unemployment...or food stamps....or welfare...then why would nobody sweep the floor for 3 bucks? If it's 3 bucks an hour and work to survive or die...people will take the 3 bucks.

Hence...more conservative/libertarian anti-labor polices.
 
Canell said:
If you are an employer and nobody wants to sweep your floor for $3 per hour, won't you raise the wage? :confused:
Yes, I believe it.
Click to expand...

But someone always will take the $3 in the real world and you know this. Especially if they're starving, I mean c'mon...there has to be some cognitive dissonance working here. If you were starving, you'd postpone eating for as long as it takes in order to get the guy to give you $4? That is ludacris and I don't buy it for a second.

And then to invoke the "nanny state"? How ideological can you get in one statement? Nanny state implies overbearing or excessive government assistance; assistance to a legitimately starving person is excessive?

Is this a libertarian syndrome? The absolute steadfast refusal to see the real world and preference for overly-simplified examples. And then to have the audacity to be all, "well, I'D do it!" when we all know damn well you wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
But someone always will take the $3 in the real world and you know this. Especially if they're starving, I mean c'mon...there has to be some cognitive dissonance working here. If you were starving, you'd postpone eating for as long as it takes in order to get the guy to give you $4? That is ludacris and I don't buy it for a second.
Click to expand...
So you're claiming that offering someone who is starving money for work, is bad?
 
RadicalModerate said:
But someone always will take the $3 in the real world and you know this. Especially if they're starving, I mean c'mon...there has to be some cognitive dissonance working here. If you were starving, you'd postpone eating for as long as it takes in order to get the guy to give you $4? That is ludacris and I don't buy it for a second.
Click to expand...

$3 was just an example. We can lower it to $1, if you wish and try again. ;)
If your rent is $500 and your food is $150, would you work for $300 when you can't even stay alive with that wage?
 
Mach said:
So you're claiming that offering someone who is starving money for work, is bad?
Click to expand...

No he's saying using the power of an employer and employee is skewed in favor of the employer. Than an employer can hold out longer and has less at stake than the floor sweeper who has to feed himself and his family. That economic coercion does exist.

There's plenty of history out there that shows how employers can abuse their employers generally done at the consent of the employeed because there's no alternative.
 
iliveonramen said:
With no unemployment...or food stamps....or welfare...then why would nobody sweep the floor for 3 bucks?
Click to expand...

Because it would null his ideas. As long as his theory is perfect on paper as a basic model, then it's true in all conceivable situations.

"Yup, when demand goes down, price goes up. So when employed people don't like their low wages, they'll just refuse to work until they are at $120k a year with full bennies! It's foolproof!"
 
Canell said:
Tell you the truth I prefer food stamps to food subsidies. Then you know who receives what, the distinction is clear. Can't do that with subsidised food.
Click to expand...
I don't know specifically what part of the Farm Bill you're referring to when you say "food subsidies". Are you talking about the price stabilization of farm commodities?
 
Canell said:
$3 was just an example. We can lower it to $1, if you wish and try again. ;)
If your rent is $500 and your food is $150, would you work for $300 when you can't even stay alive with that wage?
Click to expand...

Of course I would! And everyone here would, too.

Let me clarify for you; you're presenting me with three options. Option 1, work for less than my costs require. Option 2, refuse to work for less than my costs require or Option 3, look for a job that pays better, which is risky because there might not be another job out there. Or someone else could come by and take the $300 job, which leaves me worse off, becasue not only am I still at zero, now I don't even have the option of making $300 anymore. The choice is essentially would I take 0 dollars or $300 (or alternately, am I willing to be $650 in the red or $350 in the red?). Everyone would take the $300. You're saying everyone would take zero in hopes of making more down the road, possibly.

That is why you fail.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Of course I would! And everyone here would, too.

Let me clarify for you; you're presenting me with three options. Option 1, work for less than my costs require. Option 2, refuse to work for less than my costs require or Option 3, look for a job that pays better, which is risky because there might not be another job out there. Or someone else could come by and take the $300 job, which leaves me worse off, becasue not only am I still at zero, now I don't even have the option of making $300 anymore. The choice is essentially would I take 0 dollars or $300 (or alternately, would I take -$650 or -$350). Everyone would take the $300. You're saying everyone would take zero in hopes of making more down the road, possibly.

That is why you fail.
Click to expand...

I see, you're trolling me. :)
Lol, an American libertarian explains how good socialism (big government) is. Sorry, I don't buy that. ;)
 
Mach said:
So you're claiming that offering someone who is starving money for work, is bad?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I don't care how anybody makes their nut; any legit job is honorable, no matter what it is to how much it pays. I don't look down at people working in gas stations or McDonalds or waving signs at traffic. I like to see people making money, any amount. Which is I'm making my points on this thread.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Game set match.

I guess when all you got is calling me a socialist, you're all out of lines, huh?
Click to expand...

I give up, you win, congratulations. :)
And yes, subsidies are a socialist policy. The fact they are so widespread doesn't change that. Good buy. :peace
 
RadicalModerate said:
"Yup, when demand goes down, price goes up. So when employed people don't like their low wages, they'll just refuse to work until they are at $120k a year with full bennies! It's foolproof!"
Click to expand...

Actually it is foolproof. If you a labor market had 100 electricians, and 50 quit, than the 50 left would be earning considerably more money. I hear that's how the AMA keeps physician salaries high, by keeping the supply of doctors low.
 
Matt Foley said:
Actually it is foolproof. If you a labor market had 100 electricians, and 50 quit, than the 50 left would be earning considerably more money.
Click to expand...

Because the market for electricians is always constant? If a labor market had 100 electricians and 50 quit, the idea that the 50 left would make up the difference and keep the total earnings the same is only correct if the demand for electrical work had been constant. If the demand for electrical work shrunk and caused 50 electricians to quit, the demand isn't there to keep 50 electricians on at the same amount as 100.

I hear that's how the AMA keeps physician salaries high, by keeping the supply of doctors low.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was proposed in the book Profession and Monopoly...written 37 years ago. Pretty sure thing have changed a bit then. It's possible, but that seems like a lot of work to keep the entire nation's doctor supply low while demand is very high and inelastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom