• 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!

Federal minimum wage rate.

bluesmoke said:
It’s already been proven that doesn’t work because that’s why govt established Medicare and Obamacare in the first place.
Click to expand...

?????They established Medicare and Obamacare and we and now we pay about 3-4 times what the rest of the civilized world pays. That s why they established them??? Do you want a soviet auto bureaucracy too so that Americans are forced to pay 3-4 times what the rest of the world pays for autos???
 
bluesmoke said:
And what is the fiduciary responsibility of a for-profit corp and officer in what you say? There is a legal fiduciary resp. of officers and corps to its stockholders that if failed to fulfill they can be held legally liable. Do you want to guess in what situations that is most likely to occur? Everything you say is secondary, at best, to the primary purpose of making a profit in the capitalist system. No contribution to society required. Profit required.
Click to expand...

(a) For a business that is quoted in financial markets, management has obligations to seek profit on behalf of shareholders. Your obligations are different when equity is private.
(b) This comment does not matter in the least bit: who is preventing you from doing things differently? No one is forcing you to not create other means of operating a business.
(c) If you don't give people something they enjoy, you don't make profits. It is possible to get profits by corrupting the government, though that generally means getting the government involved and not getting the government to not get involved.

bluesmoke said:
Capitalism itself has a tendency to centralize. For instance, by M & A that results in market dominance by fewer companies.
Click to expand...

The main reason businesses grow this large is because governments centralized power. The primary advantage revolves around legal issues: tax avoidance, issues pertaining to lawsuits and managing compliance to the ludicrous amount of regulations that exist. You can try to force laws meant to limit concentration as they have in Europe. It does limit concentration to some extent. On the other hand, most laws meant to protect competition tend to be implemented as a means to make entry difficult for new firms.

Of, maybe, you can bleed regulations dry in the right places and work to simplify many pieces of legislation to make having a large legal department a complete waste of money.
 
TheEconomist said:
(a) For a business that is quoted in financial markets, management has obligations to seek profit on behalf of shareholders. Your obligations are different when equity is private.
(b) This comment does not matter in the least bit: who is preventing you from doing things differently? No one is forcing you to not create other means of operating a business.
(c) If you don't give people something they enjoy, you don't make profits. It is possible to get profits by corrupting the government, though that generally means getting the government involved and not getting the government to not get involved.



The main reason businesses grow this large is because governments centralized power. The primary advantage revolves around legal issues: tax avoidance, issues pertaining to lawsuits and managing compliance to the ludicrous amount of regulations that exist. You can try to force laws meant to limit concentration as they have in Europe. It does limit concentration to some extent. On the other hand, most laws meant to protect competition tend to be implemented as a means to make entry difficult for new firms.

Of, maybe, you can bleed regulations dry in the right places and work to simplify many pieces of legislation to make having a large legal department a complete waste of money.
Click to expand...



“(a) For a business that is quoted in financial markets, management has obligations to seek profit on behalf of shareholders. Your obligations are different when equity is private.”

Private companies aren’t obligated to make a profit as the #1 priority? You kill me. There is still ownership that benefits from the profits of a privately held company via private investment. Everything is secondary to profit, including what is required by law as much a any private of public company can get away with.

“(b) This comment does not matter in the least bit: who is preventing you from doing things differently? No one is forcing you to not create other means of operating a business.”

Nothing is stopping anybody from doing whatever. Still, the purpose of any business is to make a profit and all whatever is secondary. You can do it to whatever extent does not affect profit that denies benefit to the benefactors of the business.

“(c) If you don't give people something they enjoy, you don't make profits. It is possible to get profits by corrupting the government, though that generally means getting the government involved and not getting the government to not get involved.”

Yeah. The way I would put it, though, is that the purpose of giving people something they enjoy is to motivate the employee to work better and/or maintain standards towards profitability. Yeah to the rest of what you say.

“The main reason businesses grow this large is because governments centralized power. The primary advantage revolves around legal issues: tax avoidance, issues pertaining to lawsuits and managing compliance to the ludicrous amount of regulations that exist. You can try to force laws meant to limit concentration as they have in Europe. It does limit concentration to some extent. On the other hand, most laws meant to protect competition tend to be implemented as a means to make entry difficult for new firms.”

A centralized govt makes it easier for M&A and business centralizing because they need fewer approvals to do so and get whatever they want than rather than having to go through more Fed govt depts or more different states. If govt were less centralized, business would still do their best to get larger and centralize for efficiencies. All for profit/cost control to centralize, not centralize or decentralize. If centralization of govt results in greater conformity to and more legal requirements, that may be a factor in the decision-making process to centralize or possibly decentralize. Any part of a law that inhibits competition, like making entry difficult for new firms, would be a big positive for big business.

“Of, maybe, you can bleed regulations dry in the right places and work to simplify many pieces of legislation to make having a large legal department a complete waste of money.”

Maybe. I don’t know about “bleed regulations dry”, but I’m all for legislation simplification. Large corps and lobby groups, though, usually do their best to make what is put in their for them as complicated and hidden as possible.
 
TheEconomist said:
who is preventing you from doing things differently? No one is forcing you to not create other means of operating a business.
Click to expand...

This is a good point! We are all free to operate charities or run businesses as charities if we want. A liberal does not like what free people do. A liberal wants a libNazi govt to force people to do things at gun point.
 
bluesmoke said:
Everything is secondary to profit, including what is required by law as much a any private of public company can get away with.
Click to expand...

really, all you can get away is offering the best jobs and products in the world if you want to survive. Try going into business and offer slightly substandard jobs and products. Can you guess what would happen if you focus on anything other than the best jobs and products in the world? Do you offer job or product contributions to make to society?? Do you let others far more caring than you bare the burden of creating always better jobs and products to lift us farther and farther from poverty??
 
bluesmoke said:
Still, the purpose of any business is to make a profit
Click to expand...

repeating it does not make it true; it makes you a parrot. A business in a free society is free to operate for any purpose it wants. Profit is best though since it is only way for society to know where to invest and grow. Without profit information businesses would have no idea what to do. They would be like soviet businesses. They would collapse and we would all die.
Do you feel a slow libcommie socialist death with no profit information is a good thing?
 
Last edited:
Excerpted from, https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ases-fueling-faster-wage-growth-those-bottom/
"Sure enough, the data suggests that people are not just getting paid more because there is more competition for their services. They are getting paid more because laws now require employers to pay them more.
But when you break those low-wage workers into two groups — those who live in states that have raised their minimum wage in the past three years and those in states that have not — the relationship between policy changes and wage gains becomes clearer. Our analysis of Labor Department data shows that before 2016, wages for lower-paid workers rose across the country at more or less the same pace. In 2017, things began to change. Wage growth in states that increased minimum wages began to accelerate".
////


The extent of the Minimum wage rate’s effect upon jobs’ rates are proportional and inversely related to the differences between the minimum’s and the jobs’ rates; lower rates are more, and higher rates are lesser affected by the minimum rate.
Minimum rate’s affects upon the 40 percentiles of U.S. employees earning the lowest wage rates, range from critical to substantial. Refer the cited Washington Post's article. Respectfully, Supposn
 
Right wingers merely indulge their right wing fantasy when alleging they are for free market capitalism.

1929 already happened. A central bank saved us. Mogadishu was a modern example of a capital possibility production frontier but fell after only a few years. They could have used a central bank, but that would have required the socialism of Government.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Wage growth in states that increased minimum wages began to accelerate".
Click to expand...

pure liberal ignorance of course. if wages go up prices go up so no net benefit is possible. if we could make a net gain by arbitrarily raising the price of labor we could raise the price of everything and forget about free market pricing altogether. Libcommies lack the IQ to understand capitalism so propose 1000 ways to interfere with the free market as if they know more than the free market
 
danielpalos said:
They could have used a central bank, but that would have required the socialism of Government.
Click to expand...

1. That's not socialism by any stretch of the imagination, unless you re-defined the term;

2. I don't know who exactly is the lunatic on the left who insisted on calling welfare programs "socialist." Walking around with a hammer and sickle is as idiotic and hainous as walking around with a swastika. In fact, it's probably worse: the only real difference between Nazis and socialists is that Nazis didn't kill as many people and did not sugarcoat their agenda.
 
TheEconomist said:
1. That's not socialism by any stretch of the imagination, unless you re-defined the term;
Click to expand...

well, Sanders is a socialist and would make use of the central bank in a different way than most. Sanders would inflate to magically create employment. Bernanke conversely used the central bank to mimic capitalism or the gold standard.
 
Last edited:
TheEconomist said:
2. I don't know who exactly is the lunatic on the left who insisted on calling welfare programs "socialist."
Click to expand...

??? welfare is certainly not a capitalist solution to poverty, rather, it is a solution that is non market based and can be termed socialist.
 
James972 said:
This is a good point! We are all free to operate charities or run businesses as charities if we want. A liberal does not like what free people do. A liberal wants a libNazi govt to force people to do things at gun point.
Click to expand...

the right wing is worse with their alleged subscription to a work ethic from the "Age of Iron", and their denial and disparagement of the Poor who may be unemployed in an at-will employment State.
 
Last edited:
TheEconomist said:
1. That's not socialism by any stretch of the imagination, unless you re-defined the term;
Click to expand...

Everything must be "accounted for in economics". Government must be social-ism. Our Government is of the People, by the People, and for the People. The public sector provides public goods and public services. Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy. We have a mixed-market economy. A public social sector and a private capital sector.
 
TheEconomist said:
2. I don't know who exactly is the lunatic on the left who insisted on calling welfare programs "socialist." Walking around with a hammer and sickle is as idiotic and hainous as walking around with a swastika. In fact, it's probably worse: the only real difference between Nazis and socialists is that Nazis didn't kill as many people and did not sugarcoat their agenda.
Click to expand...

Just politics as usual. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics; they only allege to be for Capitalism in socialism threads. Otherwise, Capitalism; What is that sayeth the Right Wing. Government usually solves all problems for the Right Wing.
 
The minimum wage in Seattle is now $16.39, or $15.75 if in a small business.

Unemployment in Seattle is 1.89%.

View attachment 67272766
 
jpn said:
The minimum wage in Seattle is now $16.39, or $15.75 if in a small business.

Unemployment in Seattle is 1.89%.

View attachment 67272766
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State means solving for homelessness in our first world economy, and enabling small business to more reasonably pass some costs to higher paid Labor creating more demand and paying more Taxes.
 
The best wealth creator is a free market economy.

The health of a democracy can be measured by the extent to which the fruits of its economy is shared by all the participants of that economy--owners, workers, consumers. The broader the wealth distribution, the healthier the democracy.
 
jpn said:
The best wealth creator is a free market economy.

The health of a democracy can be measured by the extent to which the fruits of its economy is shared by all the participants of that economy--owners, workers, consumers. The broader the wealth distribution, the healthier the democracy.
Click to expand...

How well was Capitalism working before 1929?
 
jpn said:
The minimum wage in Seattle is now $16.39, or $15.75 if in a small business.

Unemployment in Seattle is 1.89%.

View attachment 67272766
Click to expand...

Actually, it is higher, and generally around 2.2-3%, depending on statistics used. But the issue is much more complex, and simply using a percentage is not really a good measure.

Generally that statistic is made by comparing the labor force, with those not in the labor force due who collect unemployment. If you do not collect that aid, you are not unemployed. Decide to quit work and move, you are not unemployed. Decide to simply retire because you can not find a job, you are not unemployed. Been on so long you fall off the system, you are no longer unemployed.

And interestingly, there is only 1 real growth area in Seattle Employment, that is "Leisure and Recreation".

When looking at healthy growth, you need to look at several indicators. Mining, Farming, Construction, "Professional Trades", manufacturing, transportation, those are important indicators of growth or shrinking economies. And in most of those areas, Seattle tends to peak at certain times, then enter a slide before it peaks again then slides back down.

Most of the unemployment rate now for December are preliminary, and the "December Bump" rarely lasts. Generally those were temp or seasonal people brought in for the holidays, and most are back looking for work by February.

Access Denied
 
danielpalos said:
How well was Capitalism working before 1929?
Click to expand...

It was great at creating wealth, but economic theory and government regulations were inadequate to control it and democracy was inadequate at spreading the wealth.

Since then we've learned how to ease the boom-bust cycle, and how to regulate the worst practices of the market, including exploitation of labor, consumers, and the environment. (We know how, but sometime lack the political will).

We were great at redistribution of wealth after WWII, but as conservative power has increased, that redistribution has weakened and wealth has polarized again.
 
jpn said:
It was great at creating wealth, but economic theory and government regulations were inadequate to control it and democracy was inadequate at spreading the wealth.

Since then we've learned how to ease the boom-bust cycle, and how to regulate the worst practices of the market, including exploitation of labor, consumers, and the environment. (We know how, but sometime lack the political will).

We were great at redistribution of wealth after WWII, but as conservative power has increased, that redistribution has weakened and wealth has polarized again.
Click to expand...

The Poor really were, dirt poor back then. Yellow journalism woke up, for a reason.

Life in the Iron Mills - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom