• 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!

Higher Minimum Wage Coming Soon

Keynsian economics necessarily depends on government intervention yes? Which necessarily negates private control of industry yes? which is defacto ownership yes? Then how logically is it anything but socialism. Again, you can't be honest here so good bye.

This is bullsh!t. Aside from your repeated misspellings of "Keynesian" and obvious misunderstanding of the economic theory (mere "intervention" does not constitute Keynesianism), 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." Any suggestion that such an economic system is the prevailing norm in this country is simply blatantly wrong. The problem, of course, is that you know absolutely nothing about political theory or economy but want to pretend as though you do. :shrug:
 
Minimum wage increases serve as one means to ensure our baseline consumers can keep consuming.
been covered already, the price increases from minimum wage catch up to it, and also affects those who earn middle class wages, purchases suffer a net loss.
 
This is bullsh!t. Aside from your repeated misspellings of "Keynesian" and obvious misunderstanding of the economic theory (mere "intervention" does not constitute Keynesianism), 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." Any suggestion that such an economic system is the prevailing norm in this country is simply blatantly wrong. The problem, of course, is that you know absolutely nothing about political theory or economy but want to pretend as though you do. :shrug:
:coffeepap Got anything else? You are rehashing the debunked, Keynsian economics depends on government intervention, it's in the theory, this takes away from the customer base, those are taxpayers, government intervention is final assertion of ownership and THAT IS SOCIALISM.
 
:coffeepap Got anything else? You are rehashing the debunked, Keynsian economics depends on government intervention, it's in the theory, this takes away from the customer base, those are taxpayers, government intervention is final assertion of ownership and THAT IS SOCIALISM.

Here's how reasoned debate works:

1. You advance Claim A.

2. I issue a rebuttal to Claim A.

3. You respond to my attempt to rebut to Claim A. You do not simply repeat Claim A over and over again in a grating manner. You either stop or issue a sound response.
 
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."

And so a socialist messiah in the White House took possession of General Motor, to the detriment of both the car company and the nation.
 
And so a socialist messiah in the White House took possession of General Motor, to the detriment of both the car company and the nation.

And of course partial governmental (not collective) ownership (and a lack of direct management so much as overarching partial control) of one specific company in one specific industry that forms a mere component of the means of production and distribution as a whole doesn't equal "socialism." Why is this so ****!ng difficult? :roll:
 
And so a socialist messiah in the White House took possession of General Motor, to the detriment of both the car company and the nation.
But don't you see? That doesn't count because it's not "real" socialism, like Anarcho-libertarian-socialists preach. THAT is why it isn't counted by the "real" socialists. :rofl
 
Why is this so ****!ng difficult? :roll:
It's only difficult because you aren't getting that you are using the same arguments over and over, and they have been beaten.

p.s.- And NOW, I'm done with you.
 
And of course partial governmental (not collective) ownership (and a lack of direct management so much as overarching partial control) of one specific company in one specific industry that forms a mere component of the means of production and distribution as a whole doesn't equal "socialism." Why is this so ****!ng difficult? :roll:

Because we're not ****ing stupid. It's the results that count, not the religious purity. Fascism, socialism, communism, all entail complete eventual loss of freedom, and economic disaster, and they're all based on the same system of Original Lie and they all discount human nature to reach that inevitable end - totalitarianism.

And they all suck like a turbocharged vacuum cleaner on steroids.
 
But don't you see? That doesn't count because it's not "real" socialism, like Anarcho-libertarian-socialists preach. THAT is why it isn't counted by the "real" socialists. :rofl

Yeah, I've noticed. We're not allowed to say that socialism never works and never can work because we're not allowed to point to all the failures of socialism throughout socialism's long history of failure and murder, because it's not "real" socialism.

Therefore, we should forget all the failures, forget all the mistakes of socialism in the past, and strive to repeat all the failures and all the mistakes, but this time fail and err like real socialists.
 
I won't indulge the two of you in perpetuating this derailment of a thread about the minimum wage; it's apparent enough that there's been no satisfactory response to my arguments. However, you most certainly have been rebutted nonetheless right here. :2wave:
 
When this was last mentioned, you responded by posting an opinion piece from pseudo-anarchist Murray Rothbard, which didn't contain any valid consultation of empirical research or even sound theory, IIRC.

If you're going to just ignore my sources then I'll do the same.
 
Here's an ... argument to play with.

One of the US's most important assets is our consumer base. Our own economy and much of the rest of the world is dependent on our ability to buy products. This asset allows us powerful leverage in our dealings with the world at large.

Minimum wage increases serve as one means to ensure our baseline consumers can keep consuming.

A consumer economy is a phony economy and that is why we are in a recession.
 
Aside from that, what you don't seem to understand is that even if the research that indicates that higher minimum wages cause a greater degree of unemployment in some contexts is sound, that would not invalidate my arguments that there are oligopsonistic conditions in labor markets that could cause the minimum wage to have no effect on employment whatsoever or to cause an increase in employment. The very nature of such deficiencies as monopsony power renders labor markets heterogenous in nature. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for increases in employment in correlation with increases in the minimum wage that can be derived from the textbook model of the labor market.

Again this shows that economic research is inherently flawed. Minimum wage was not the only variable that changed from before the study and after the study.

I’d never claim that there was no competition. I'm merely saying that monopsonistic and oligopsonistic conditions exist in labor markets in that firms are faced not by infinitely elastic labor supply curves but by upward sloping labor supply curves. If they were faced by infinite elasticity, then the entire workforce would quit when wages were reduced by a cent, which is clearly nonsensical. I certainly belief that market competition in the capitalist economy is far more restricted than it would be in the socialist economy due to factors of concentration, but that isn't pertinent to my point about monopsony power.

So unless the system is perfect, you won't accept it? Besides, capitalism gets better and better with more laborers, more companies, more globalization, and better transfer of information.

Then you'll agree that the rightists who usually attribute the economic success of the West to capitalism and free market principles are incorrect? Personally, it seems to me absurd to claim that capitalism "has never truly existed," given that that claim is necessarily dependent upon a "pure" conception of capitalism that doesn't exist outside of the economic spectrum of the textbook, and practical reality necessitates consideration of actual conditions and the applicability of appropriate labels to those actual conditions. And I'd say that an economy that involves the private ownership of the means of production, the usage of markets as the primary means of resource allocation, and the institution of wage labor is capitalist in nature.

We've been very close to capitalism before, and because we tried to be capitalistic we were successful. But now we've openly rebelled against socialism and instituted many programs that try to redistribute wealth, all the while increasing the real tax burden per person over the years. It's no wonder that we're not nearly as successful as we used to be. We don't have anything now that even resembles capitalism.

I do. But if you hadn’t posted the Murray Rothbard link, I wouldn’t have had to. :shrug:

Rothbard uses logic and deduction, your people use research that almost inherently flawed.

Actually, it serves its purpose, and the response you offer is desperately utopian and assumes perfect information and monitoring in the capitalist firm, conditions that do not exist outside of the textbook.

It is the essence of a successful business. You hire the best. If you don't then a competitor will. Frauds are eventually found out and are fired. But I guess if it doesn't happen immediately then you're not satisfied.

Beyond the stage of the new entries into the labor market simply being naturally overwhelmed is the stage of established firms engaging in unfair business practices such as underselling, which constitutes an exploitation of inequitable and unbalanced conditions of entry that any libertarian should oppose. For instance, this letter of John Stuart Mill makes the point well:

If you're not getting paid enough then the competition would want to undercut the other businesses and pay enough to attract you while still making a profit.

Even more than that, any consistent proponent of legitimately competitive market exchange should oppose the conditions of the capitalist economy. As noted by Vanek, "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." Since market socialism, for example, is characterized by small, worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives, effective market competition can be coordinated while granting effective equality of opportunity to participants.

Monopolization is not inherently bad. Monopoly gotten to by good service and low prices is a great thing. Monopoly gotten to by government intervention is a bad thing. You have to make the distinction.

We can thus directly observe the profit motives of the financial and coordinator classes a whole causing them to resist the implementation of more productive organization schemes, since it would render them marginal or utterly useless, a reality well summarized by Herbert Gintis:

There is no other more productive organization scheme. None.

The fundamental conflict between profit and productivity maximization, and more broadly, between labor and capital, that is bound to exist and flourish in a capitalist economy is again revealed. David Schweickart has of course noted the uselessness of maintaining a financial class whose only purpose it is to hoard and lend capital, and he's also noted that "[f]or middle managers, the incentive to resist participatory schemes is even greater, because such changes often show many middle managers to be redundant. The resistance of middle management to participatory experiments, often bordering on sabotage, is well known and widely documented." We thus observe the lengths to which both powerful classes are willing to go in order to maintain their hegemony.

Hoard capital? You mean you actually believe that tripe? That's one of the easiest fallacies to debunk, but I guess that you already know that and don't because it doesn't meet your preconceived notions about the evil of the upper class.

Besides, the only reason we have a large finance based economy IS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION! It de-emphasized production.
 
A consumer economy is a phony economy and that is why we are in a recession.
Eh, not really, consumers drive markets, they contribute to the economy, when values are artificially inflated, whether it's government subsidies, fraud, or even the monetary system itself(I'm not a fan of the current backing, would rather a hard standard like gold or commodities) it's just asking for pain.
The market hits the reset button every once in a while and we get a reality check.
 
Last edited:
Eh, not really, consumers drive markets, they contribute to the economy, when values are artificially inflated, whether it's government subsidies, fraud, or even the monetary system itself(I'm not a fan of the current backing, would rather a hard standard like gold or commodities).
The market hits the reset button every once in a while and we get a reality check.

Of course we need consumers, but we want consumers to purchase only those things that they want to purchase. If there is government subsidization, then the economy is not meeting the needs of the people. There is no perfect measure of quality of life, so this is kind of hard for some people to understand.

A real economy would produce the things that people want, people would buy only as much as they want and would either invest or save the rest. You would have growth with technological innovations or through hard work (Say's Law: production creates its own demand). That way, we would only grow with production, and we would have no recessions or bubbles. We would have steady growth.
 
Of course we need consumers, but we want consumers to purchase only those things that they want to purchase. If there is government subsidization, then the economy is not meeting the needs of the people. There is no perfect measure of quality of life, so this is kind of hard for some people to understand.

A real economy would produce the things that people want, people would buy only as much as they want and would either invest or save the rest. You would have growth with technological innovations or through hard work (Say's Law: production creates its own demand). That way, we would only grow with production, and we would have no recessions or bubbles. We would have steady growth.
Completely agree here. I may have misread the point earlier.
 
Not double wages, decent wages.
Most supermarkets can afford it. Look at their profits.
You have been fooled into thinking low wages are essential to the functioning of capitalism. If that is true, then the system has failed.

Several supermarkets in my area have closed permanently.
Evidently they were paying too much.


You are not being very specific at all.

Is 3$ enough? 6$?, 12$, 20$?

Without hard numbers your argument has failed.
 
Is 3$ enough? 6$?, 12$, 20$?

Without hard numbers your argument has failed.

Depends on the area. I am all for having a min wage, but not by the federal government the way it is now.

Unless the federal government is going to go in and look at all 50 states and decide appropriately the min wage value (which we know they won't), it should be up to the states to decide that.

I can understand the federal government saying you will have a min wage, but then drop it there and leave it to the states to decide the amount.
 
And of course partial governmental (not collective) ownership (and a lack of direct management so much as overarching partial control) of one specific company in one specific industry that forms a mere component of the means of production and distribution as a whole doesn't equal "socialism." Why is this so ****!ng difficult? :roll:

Yes, why is it so difficult for you to accept that socialism is the most evil philosophy and religion the world has ever seen? Other religions are honest when they openly sacrifice their virgins to the volcanos, misguided, but honest enough to publicly throw her into the bubbling lava or nail them to the tree. Socialism lies about everything, so even nice little virgins like you sacrifice your life to the Altar of Deceit without flinching.

Stealing is the essence of socialism. Stealing ONE company is prelude to stealing another one....let's call the next one....the Entire US Health Care Industry.
 
I won't indulge the two of you in perpetuating this derailment of a thread about the minimum wage; it's apparent enough that there's been no satisfactory response to my arguments. However, you most certainly have been rebutted nonetheless right here. :2wave:

We're not de-railing the thread.

Minimum wage is a tool of the goonions to raise their own overpriced labor wage scales, and minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the take home pay of the useless fool who's trying to live on it because he's too stupid to learn something useful.

Socialism is the politics of satisfying the wants of that useless fool because people who have skills to sell don't want to be robbed by the useless.
 
Depends on the area. I am all for having a min wage, but not by the federal government the way it is now.

Unless the federal government is going to go in and look at all 50 states and decide appropriately the min wage value (which we know they won't), it should be up to the states to decide that.

I can understand the federal government saying you will have a min wage, but then drop it there and leave it to the states to decide the amount.

One, an agency already exists to determine what the appropriate minimum wage for a job is. It's called the free-market. If an employer wants to pay a burger-flipper two bucks an hour, and can find a burger flipper who will do the job for two bucks an hour, that's a fair wage for that job.



Two, there's no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to interfere in wage/employment issues in the states.
 
One, an agency already exists to determine what the appropriate minimum wage for a job is. It's called the free-market.

You mean that same free-market that had no problem with child labor? The same free-market that decided blacks couldn't work "intellgient" jobs? The same free-market that if didn't have to would pay slave wages? Yeah, that free-market.
 
You mean that same free-market that had no problem with child labor?

Ah, the old chimera of child labor.

We're discussing minimum wage, which is another example of a law implemented by unions to goose up their wages without producing more.



The same free-market that decided blacks couldn't work "intellgient" jobs?

No, that wasn't a free market, that was a Democrat implemented constrained market.

The free market says the employer makes those decisions, and since it's his business if he doesn't want to hire the best person for a job, he doesn't have to.

You have a problem with people excercising their freedoms?

Of course you do.

The same free-market that if didn't have to would pay slave wages?

Slaves aren't paid wages.

Amazing how easy it is for people to program your verbal processes since you don't waste anytime figuring out what the code words and approved phrases they feed you mean.

If someone doesn't want to wash dishes for two bucks an hour, they do have the freedom to look elsewhere for work.

For some strange reason, most fast food joints pay more than the minimum wage.

Since you insist the minimum wage is essential, explain why jobs with absolutly zero skill requirements will pay more than the legally mandated minimum wage.

Yeah, that free-market.

Yeah, that free market.

Freedom, don't give it up without a fight.
 
Well tell me, if someone said "Hey, I have this really nice car here, I'll sell it to you for 50 cents", you wouldn't buy it? If you wouldn't buy it, why not? Do you presume yourself to be in a better position than the owner to make a decision as to what's in his/her best interest? And if you would buy it, wouldn't that be exploitative?

And tell me, what should kids starving in Ethiopia do? Just starve quietly because the moral complexity of using something a starving kid made makes you feel icky? I remember when I was in Nicaragua the subsistence farmers were all jealous of the sweatshop workers because relatively 75 cents an hour was more than the farmers made. Can it really be considered moral for rich people to constrain what poor people do to make themselves a living just so the rich people can feel good about themselves?
Outstanding post, although I'm afraid that conveying this point is probably futile.
 
Back
Top Bottom