Minimum Wages

[Pateris]

Cartman,

The market does control the highest wage. How much someone is paid in a free market is dependent on an agreement between the worker and the employer. No one is forcing the employer to pay that wage. They choose to.

[Hugo]

his is why he divided his subject into "a class in itself" and "a class for itself". You should know better. It suggests that a person (proletariat) can be enslaved (by the bourgeoisie) yet not recognize it.

As an anarchist, you say the same thing, but you are unable to explain why people accept their own oppression.

No, that's been explained many times. I would suggest you try reading some anarchist texts before you start posting based on ignorance. Whether or not Karl Marx has a similar theory doesn't really prove anything except that a broken clock is right twice a day.

After all, anarchists argue that we are all enslaved by government, yet most people believe the state to be legitimate. Why? Why are we on this forum all not anarchists?

Because anarchy in a state of government is a public goods problem. Everybody personally stands to gain from government or can see a way in which they could stand to gain, so they are either happy with the status quo, or interested in manipulating government to get their own way rather than in abolishing it altogether. Altruism is relatively rare, therefore, anarchism is relatively rare.

If Marx was such a moron, then why is most of the world (esp. industrialized states) governed by redistributive governments? Seems to me he has a legacy.

Hitler, too, had a legacy. Many dictators around the world have modelled themselves on him, pursued absolute power and military conquest, and sought to murder thousands or millions based solely on ethnicity or for political power. See Kosovo, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, Chile, etc. What does that say about Hitler? Would you defend him and his legacy?

Of course not, which demonstrates my point: the influence of a man alone is not a justification for his ideas.

Back to practical matters though, what surprises me is that all of you right-wing Conservative types seem to believe that a minimum wage is wrong, but at the same time argue against maximum wages (i.e. a free market in the NHL which the players advocate).

A maximum wage does not represent a free market. Would the market be free if there was an upper limit on, say, the amount of food you could purchase in a week?

[Cartman]

I wonder how many people here work for minimum wage and want to see it eradicated?

[August1991]

Lol August1991, you trust the most rich man in the world, bill gate, but you dont trust politicians ?

IMV, you've asked a good question, Bakunin. But the issue really isn't trust. Politicians have power; corporations don't. By power, I mean the ability to take anything from me at any time without my consent.

I give my credit card to Wal Mart voluntarily. Jean Charest has a copy of my credit card in his office and he uses it whenever he wants to. (Admittedly, he has to ask Yves Séguin's permission.)

Corporations and governments are different animals; except maybe in places like Gagnon.

August,

Explain to me why "the market" should dictate the lowest wage but not the highest wage.

The NHL player market is prone to collusion since there some 600 "suppliers" (in a legal cartel) and about 25 "buyers" (in a single association). This isn't a market; it's a game of chicken. The players and the owners both want the big prize. They're fighting over it. (Markets don't work that way at all.)

In fact though, there should be collusion between the players and the owners. They should co-operate. The NHL (owners/players together) offer entertainment. On any given Saturday night, the NHL competes with Hollywood, the NBA, satellite TV, reading a book, local jazz club, having sex and posting on Internet forums.

To make the NHL attractive, there should be closely matched teams with games decided in the last minute or in overtime. IOW, the best players should be spread across all teams. If the team owners with lots of cash get all the good players at high salaries, the NHL as a whole suffers. (It becomes European football, sort of.)

Cartman, markets are not examples of competition. They are examples of cooperation. IME, the Old Left has never understood this point.

I wonder how many people here work for minimum wage and want to see it eradicated?

I wonder how many people can't get a job (or work fewer hours than they would like) because of minimum wage laws.

Minimum wage legislation hurts the unemployed to the benefit of those with a job.

(Posters to this forum are hardly representative of anything so I'll open the sample to everyone.)

----

Cartman, what would happen if it were illegal to sell any used car for less than, say, $5000?

[Bakunin]

IMV, you've asked a good question, Bakunin. But the issue really isn't trust. Politicians have power; corporations don't. By power, I mean the ability to take anything from me at any time without my consent.

I give my credit card to Wal Mart voluntarily. Jean Charest has a copy of my credit card in his office and he uses it whenever he wants to. (Admittedly, he has to ask Yves Séguin's permission.)

Corporations and governments are different animals; except maybe in places like Gagnon.

I think we can agree that they have a different kind of power and both can be a threat.

In fact, they are playing a different role but they are the same threat. Its just like we have seen in the sponsorship scandal. Private company give money to the party in power and the government take our money to pay back that company or for laws and stuff like that.

I give my credit card to Wal Mart voluntarily

I don't want to give my credit card to wal mart but soon i wont have the choice since all other store that can't compete with them because the laws arent strict enough will disapear. In fact its already happening... wal mart have the monopoly of many goods in my city.

All im saying is we cant live in a completly free market if we still want to be free because if all the company eat each others and merge and etc... Its already becoming a mafia like market... whats happening with oil will soon happen to other goods, and it will weaken the economy, especially the occidental one.

Its exaclty like in real life, if there are no rule to keep our society from falling appart, well it wouldnt work well.

[Slavik44]

A banknote is a piece of paper that says, "This piece of paper can be exchanged for x amount of gold." If you wrote one of these yourself, the BMW dealer would laugh at you. If, on the other hand, you had a piece of paper from the Bank of Nova Scotia Gold Warehousing service stating that it was worth 70oz. of gold (about $40,000 US), they might well accept that.

Well then would yoou not agree that there is meanign to what is on the paper, I woudl argue money is not paper it is the meanign and the value attatched to what is on the paper, which makes it much much moe then just a few sheets of printer paper.

The minimum wage causes unemployment. Without a minimum wage, everybody who is willing to work for a market wage will find work. However, when the minimum wage is fixed at $5 per hour, every worker whose labour is worth less than $5 per hour will be unable to find work.

This is borne out in practical experience. The last time the US government raised the minimum wage by 50 cents, about half a million minimum-wage workers lost their jobs.

Whats your point, your on Auto-reply Hugo and it shows. In your reply you talked abot how minimium wage causes un-employment. However for what you quoted me on I wasn't refuting wether or not minimium wage caused un-employment. I was sayign that having minimium wage set standards ont he market

I simply stated that having minimium wage ensured that the market for work wasn't degraded to a horrible point when people got desperate, so desperate. Although it seems logical that we should let people work for whatever they are willing to work for, these few peopel can in-turn punish the rest of society by driving down the value of labour and when only 6-10% of the population is un-employed I would rather not screw over 90% of the population to allow for a few extra people to be exploited.

Markets do determine wages, but minimum wage law is an externality that distorts market outcomes.

Again /auto reply off

please hugo. I made the arguement that either minimium wages have an affect or they don't have an affect, you cannot imply that they have no affect and then imply getting rid of it would have any form of affect. If you are tryign to tell me minimium wage affects the market, you won't have a hard time convincing me of this, I already agree. We simply just disagree on what form of affect it has.

Failed? Since the advent of capitalism the human race entered an unprecedented era of peace and an unparalleled rate of economic growth and betterment of the welfare of the common man. Since interventionism has been introduced, our pace of economic progress has been slowed and even stagnated, the pre-20th-Century peace has been broken by the two most destructive wars in human history and dozens more amounting to well over a hundred million war dead, and the governments of the world have committed more than three hundred million murders against their own citizenry.

Capitalism as a whole has not failed, and that is not what I meant when I made tthat satement. I ment that Capitalism has changed from what it was in the early days to what it is today and that it has changed because it came up inadequate and change was neccasary. you then go on to say that it had un parralleled growth despite the fact most economic historians claim that economic growth to GDP during the industrial revolution never exceeded 2%. Which is why many people prefer not to use the word industrial revolution, and choose industrialization is it was mroe a slow never ending journey. Now you talka botu wars and government is evil good for you, I am nto goign to convince you government is evil or that it isn't evil but I will say that government is only human.

Karl Marx was, without doubt, an absolute moron except in his ability to evangelise. Upon reading his work it becomes clear that he has no understanding of history, human nature and psychology, economics, politics and so forth. In fact, he even refutes himself! He states that people argue positions based upon their class origins. All that is necessary, he claims, is to expose the author as a bourgeoisie and he is refuted. Karl Marx is a bourgeoisie, ergo Karl Marx refutes himself.

Very interesting arguement, to bad it isn't true. the reason for this is simply the bastardization of the word middle class/burgoise. Now Karl Marx originally studied Law/philosphy however he coudln;t get a Job in sucha field and turned to journalism. Karl Marx's kids went to private school, thanks to Engels, not thanx to Marx. So wha tis my point, simply this if I was alawyer by the definition of burgoise I am not a member of such a class I am simply a rich member of the working class as that is what I do. As a journalist or as a lawyer I sell my work, a member of the bourgoise is a factory owner, a BUISNESSMAN. That is the strict definitionof the word, the 19th century definitionof the word, and the Marxian definitionof the word. So unless you have confused Marx with engels you are wrong. Now as for you claim he has no understanding of human nature I belvie you are leaving out the fact he is a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today. I don't like Karl Marx and I belvie he was wrapped up in his own dogma, but again you refutued him based on incorect information, and that woudl be what I am opposed to.

Adam Smith wrote a long time ago and has since been refined and corrected. I would suggest that you read some capitalist texts written within the last century.

Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off, I would ahve to go back to the 19th century to read books based on no-government intervention inthe economy. I belvie oyu are in a select group with a few other ostriches, who ahven't realized that almsot any moder economics book recognizes that some government intervention in the Economy is and can be benificial.

There cannot be an economic theory with defined parameters. One can predict a certain number of factors, however, economics is a field of human endeavour, and humans are frequently illogical and irrational and often don't do what one would expect. Therefore, any economic theorem has at least one massive and forever unknowable variable: human action.

well thank you for that Hugo, is there any other way youw oudl like to further my arguement? I used ot think when people attacked a post in part rather than in whole they missed important parts of the arguement, thankfully you missed hte part where Iw as triyng to tell August economics in the real world is not an exact science and there are certain thigns we cannot account for, but if you want to say this is also true in an economics text book, I will not stop you.

I think you do not understand how the market works. If you leave it alone, it will run itself without any planning required. The choices of a million producers and consumers will automatically steer it in the best direction (remember that "best" is subjective).

certainly it will run itself, but remember best is subjective and what you define as best I don't.

Now, hands up who got a mortgage, car loan, or credit card without being approved for credit first? No credit provider will loan to somebody whose ability to repay is in serious doubt.

Your point being, I was using that to argue agaisnt the theory that workign for less will AUTOMATICALLY causes prices to fall to a greater extent then your wages did. As while a bank may provide you with what you need to buy the car, it can inturn allow people to spend money that they other wise would not ahve had, causing prices on smaller goods not to drop with the elimination of minimium wage.

This is a false dilemma. Your rambling about pies and efficiency vs. equity is rubbish, there are no such dilemmas. You don't understand what opportunity costs are. "Efficiency" and "equity" are subjective terms and thus not useful for economic calculation. Trade-offs are judged on an individual basis. My friend buys a big-screen TV for $3000, he has judged that the TV is an acceptable trade for all the things that $3000 may have bought him. I don't buy the TV, I have judged that a TV is worth less than all the things $3000 might buy me. Do you understand this?

Well actually oppurtunity cost is what you give up to get. My understandign of this is what causes me to argue against eliminating minimium wage because what we Get by eliminating minimium wage is not greater then what we give up. However Eficiency and equity are very much economic terms now let me flip open my economics text book to the first fricken chapter

Princple number one: People face trade offsAnother trade off society faces is between efficiency and equity. Efficiency means that society is getting the msot it can fromits scarce resources. Equity means the bennifiets of those resources are distributed fairly among societies members. In other words efficiency refers to the size of the economic pie and equity refers to how the pie is diveded. Often, when government policies are designed these two goals conflict

So my arguement stands no minimium wage may be efficient, but minimium wage is more equitable. If your definition of better is more efficient, well then no minimium wage is better, but I belive the equity of the market is better making minimium wage something I support.

[ndpnic]

Marx had some very GOOD ideas.

You would only understand them if you care about your fellow man, and are not a Capitalist Hypocrit.

[Hugo]

Well then would yoou not agree that there is meanign to what is on the paper, I woudl argue money is not paper it is the meanign and the value attatched to what is on the paper, which makes it much much moe then just a few sheets of printer paper.

Money is paper. What gives it value is the reputation of the issuer of that paper. A few sheets of printer paper from the Federal Reserve can have a lot more value than the banknotes in your wallet.

Whats your point, your on Auto-reply Hugo and it shows.

In my defence, I must point out that your spelling and grammar are atrocious (which contravenes the rules of this forum) and it is quite hard to decipher the meaning behind your words.

I was sayign that having minimium wage set standards ont he market

That is unnecessary, because the market set its own standards. If you disagree, I invite you to show me the act of government which defines the many complex standards involved in your computer (PCI, VGA, USB, AGP, SDRAM, ATX, etc).

I simply stated that having minimium wage ensured that the market for work wasn't degraded to a horrible point when people got desperate, so desperate.

I don't understand. You're saying that earning nothing is better than earning a little?

please hugo. I made the arguement that either minimium wages have an affect or they don't have an affect, you cannot imply that they have no affect and then imply getting rid of it would have any form of affect.

You're not listening. Markets determine wages. Minimum wage laws have an effect at the bottom end of that market. If the minimum wage was abolished, anybody earning above minimum wage would not be (directly) affected.

ou then go on to say that it had un parralleled growth despite the fact most economic historians claim that economic growth to GDP during the industrial revolution never exceeded 2%.

What are their names? Do you know that Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek disagrees with you? What about John Clapham, R. M. Hartwell, W. H. Hutt, Donald McCloskey, etc.?

I don't believe you know a single economic historian who claims that. But by all means prove me wrong. I'll require at least 6 names, and at least one will have to have won a Nobel prize for you to win this particular duel of citation.

So unless you have confused Marx with engels you are wrong. Now as for you claim he has no understanding of human nature I belvie you are leaving out the fact he is a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today.

Hitler has been "a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today."

I don't like Karl Marx and I belvie he was wrapped up in his own dogma, but again you refutued him based on incorect information

You have not proven that. In your incoherent rambling I think I can make out that although Marx was a member of what Communists call the "bourgeoisie" it does not matter because he was not specifically a factory owner - despite the fact that Communist thinkers despise the class that Marx belonged to and believe that merely belonging in that class refutes a person's arguments?

Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off, I would ahve to go back to the 19th century to read books based on no-government intervention inthe economy.

Well, excuse me while I laugh my ass off at your pitiful ignorance. Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and many, many more are still writing right now.

certainly it will run itself, but remember best is subjective and what you define as best I don't.

Ah. Then tell me why your definition of "best" is superior to mine and should be imposed on me by force, please.

Your point being, I was using that to argue agaisnt the theory that workign for less will AUTOMATICALLY causes prices to fall to a greater extent then your wages did.

But it is an idiotic point. You claimed that people would build up massive debts, and completely failed to realise that debts are built up from creditors, who do not, as a rule, allow people to build up debts they cannot possibly repay.

My understandign of this is what causes me to argue against eliminating minimium wage because what we Get by eliminating minimium wage is not greater then what we give up.

Prove it.

However Eficiency and equity are very much economic terms now let me flip open my economics text book to the first fricken chapter

What is it, Economics for Dummies? Big Bird Teaches Keynesianism? Learn Price Elasticity with Barney?

Efficiency and equity are indeed economic terms. I never said that they were not. What I said was that they were subjective. Read before you reply in future.

So my arguement stands no minimium wage may be efficient, but minimium wage is more equitable.

Why is equitable better?

ou would only understand them if you care about your fellow man, and are not a Capitalist Hypocrit.

"Hypocrite" has an "e". You don't have a point here, so I'll just correct your spelling and wait until you can formulate an actual argument.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Why is equitable better?

A lot of people don't believe in all-out anarchy. Some desire a functioning society that we can live peacably in. Nobody really wants to be in a position to say "The peasants are revolting".

By dropping minimum wage altogether, the 'bottom drops out' of society in various ways. Standards of living would drop dramatically for those who would take this kind of work. Shanty towns with open sewers, for example. The owners of the factories employing people at 10 cents an hour would certainly have to move either uphill or upstream from places like this. Property values near such places would plummet. Physical force of some sort would become necessary to keep them from squatting in your yard, or moving next door, living 10 to a bedroom.

QUOTE 

So unless you have confused Marx with engels you are wrong. Now as for you claim he has no understanding of human nature I belvie you are leaving out the fact he is a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today.

Hitler has been "a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today."

Hardly comparable. Marx was an economist, Lenin was the brute. Marx's theories may have 'died on the table' if it weren't for Lenin.

[Big Blue Machine]

Minimum wages shouldn't go below 8 dollars per hour. But they shouldn't go above 9.50. Minimum wage should be a respectable amount but people shouldn't live of it.

[Slavik44]

Money is paper. What gives it value is the reputation of the issuer of that paper. A few sheets of printer paper from the Federal Reserve can have a lot more value than the banknotes in your wallet.

Not at all Hugo, MONEY IS NOT PAPER IT IS THe VALUE ATTACHTED TO PAPER.

In my defence, I must point out that your spelling and grammar are atrocious (which contravenes the rules of this forum) and it is quite hard to decipher the meaning behind your words.

Hugo, in one of the Baning transfats threads on this forum, someoen made a few misconceptions about what you were posting, and used those to attack your arguements, I.E the marijuani thing in that thread. Simply save the time, ask if you don't know wha tI am saying, instead of argueign against something I havent said.

That is unnecessary, because the market set its own standards. If you disagree, I invite you to show me the act of government which defines the many complex standards involved in your computer (PCI, VGA, USB, AGP, SDRAM, ATX, etc).

Hugo, you know very well that what you have posted is absolutley useless to your arguement. One computer or the Computer Market is much smaller then the whole economy of a country and to me limited government involvement does nto include telling Dell, wether or not they should use DDR or SD ram.

I don't understand. You're saying that earning nothing is better than earning a little?

Actually you understand perfectly.

You're not listening. Markets determine wages. Minimum wage laws have an effect at the bottom end of that market. If the minimum wage was abolished, anybody earning above minimum wage would not be (directly) affected.

It still has an AFFECT, and I would also argue that it does affect people earnign higher wages.

What are their names? Do you know that Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek disagrees with you? What about John Clapham, R. M. Hartwell, W. H. Hutt, Donald McCloskey, etc.?

I don't believe you know a single economic historian who claims that. But by all means prove me wrong. I'll require at least 6 names, and at least one will have to have won a Nobel prize for you to win this particular duel of citation.

Why do I need 5 plus a Nobel prize winner to Justify my stance? Besides that wha tis the deal with a nobel Prize winner? You know Gandhi never won the Nobel Peace prize, while yassar Arafat did, does that mean Arafat is a better humanitarian then Gandhi? Anyways you could go to this websiteHere to look at the history of GDP Growth rates. When Your done that you coudl also look here for projected future growth rates and compare them to past growth rates. Perhaps you coudl read a chapter in a text book by William Simpson and AMrtin Jones (Europe 1783-1914:Industrialization of Europe and its affects). You could check this link out which anylizes the GDP growth in early industrialized Britain. If you like you can go to the CIA world factbook and compare those figures to those of the present United Kingdom. I really don't see why I need to go any further than thsi I ahve REAL DATA that prooves you wrong and that is all I need.

Hitler has been "a major contributor to sociological perspectives even today."

Whatever makes oyu happy Hugo...

You have not proven that. In your incoherent rambling I think I can make out that although Marx was a member of what Communists call the "bourgeoisie" it does not matter because he was not specifically a factory owner - despite the fact that Communist thinkers despise the class that Marx belonged to and believe that merely belonging in that class refutes a person's arguments?

No, but nice try Hugo. Marx was not a member of the Bourgoise hugo. To be a member of that class is to be a buisness owner Karl Marx was a poor ass journalist propped up by Engels, Karl Marx was not a burgoise.

Well, excuse me while I laugh my ass off at your pitiful ignorance. Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, Thomas DiLorenzo, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and many, many more are still writing right now.

well uhmm...good reading eh? but to be honest with you my simple blanket statement was ismply to make a point the view you hold that absolutley no government intervention in the economy is the best possible out come is a minority.

Ah. Then tell me why your definition of "best" is superior to mine and should be imposed on me by force, please.

T ell me where I said my definition of best, was better than yours and wher ei sai dI woudl force it upoun you, infact I started posting in this thread to defend my definition of best, agaisnt people who wanted to impose their definition of best on me.

But it is an idiotic point. You claimed that people would build up massive debts, and completely failed to realise that debts are built up from creditors, who do not, as a rule, allow people to build up debts they cannot possibly repay.

I did nto claim people would build up massive debts you inferred that they would, I simply claimed it has the possiblity to slightly distort the market. Please stop distorting what I say.

Prove it.

Certainly In Canada and America are Citizens on average are better off then they have ever been.

What is it, Economics for Dummies? Big Bird Teaches Keynesianism? Learn Price Elasticity with Barney?

Efficiency and equity are indeed economic terms. I never said that they were not. What I said was that they were subjective. Read before you reply in future.

You implied they were rubbish, actually you said they were rubbish, rubish as defined in the dictionary means:

Refuse; garbage.

Worthless material.

Foolish discourse; nonsense

Which would mean at the very least they are pointless economic terms, and most likely not economic terms. But hey whatever, to answer your question it was not written by Big Bird, It was written by N. Mankiw a Proffesor at Harvard University of course he is must be a complete dumb ass in comparison to your heavy hitters like Thomas DiLorenzo from Loyola College of Maryland.

Why is equitable better?

Why is efficiency better?

[Hugo]

First off, Slavik:

Research Your Post 

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument. 

It is very difficult to understand you. I will try, though.

Not at all Hugo, MONEY IS NOT PAPER IT IS THe VALUE ATTACHTED TO PAPER.

It was August's point. I was trying to explain to you what he meant, apparently, I was unsuccessful as you still do not understand.

Non-commodity-based currency is just paper, and paper does not have much value as you can buy 500 sheets for a few dollars. Money has value not because it is intrinsically valued, but because the government says it has value. Do you now understand?

Simply save the time, ask if you don't know wha tI am saying, instead of argueign against something I havent said.

Your clarifications are as confusing as your original points. I am not going to request clarification on every single point you make (they are all rambling, incoherent, and filled with grammatical and spelling errors), if I believe I have deciphered your point I will answer it.

If you do not wish people to misunderstand you, I would advise you to take some remedial English classes and maybe use a spell-checker.

Hugo, you know very well that what you have posted is absolutley useless to your arguement. One computer or the Computer Market is much smaller then the whole economy of a country and to me limited government involvement does nto include telling Dell, wether or not they should use DDR or SD ram.

You act as though my example was my entire argument. It is not. My argument is that where standards are necessary, they will be established without the force of law. For instance, why are all ATM cards the same size or shape? Why is paper made in pre-set sizes? Why do refrigerators work at around the same temperature?

Actually you understand perfectly.

So, you are telling me that earning nothing is better than earning a little? Well, by all means, FedEx me everything you own, right now! You will be better off afterwards, by your standards.

Why do I need 5 plus a Nobel prize winner to Justify my stance?

Because I gave you five names, one of which had won a Nobel laureate in the field of economics, who refute your argument. You have not provided a single name despite your claim that you know all these mysterious economists who back up your nonsense. You lose this point.

Anyways you could go to this websiteHere to look at the history of GDP Growth rates.

Already refuted here.

In fact, you'd do well to review that thread, and this one. Most of your nonsense has already been shown for what it is there.

I really don't see why I need to go any further than thsi I ahve REAL DATA that prooves you wrong and that is all I need.

Right back at you.

In fact, your first link is invalid because it does not go back far enough and does not look at figures in enough detail. For instance, by 1870 the Industrial Revolution was old news in Britain, but taking figures for Western Europe as a whole is fallacious because non-industrial nations like France and Spain drag down the figures from industrial ones such as Britain and Germany.

Your second link is similarly worthless. It makes projections for the year 2020, 2050 and 2100, but these are absolute and complete guesswork. No serious economist makes a prediction for more than ten years out because there is absolutely no way to be accurate.

Your third link makes the fallacy of restricting himself to a very narrow selection of sources (most of his citations are of himself), and ignoring those that dispute him (e.g. McCloskey) without offering a reason why.

Marx was not a member of the Bourgoise hugo. To be a member of that class is to be a buisness owner

Add a dictionary to your shopping list.

Bourgeoisie:

bour·geoi·sie     P   Pronunciation Key  (brzhwä-z)

n.

1) The middle class.

2) In Marxist theory, the social group opposed to the proletariat in the class struggle.

Marx was of the middle class. QED.

but to be honest with you my simple blanket statement was ismply to make a point the view you hold that absolutley no government intervention in the economy is the best possible out come is a minority.

Ad populum fallacy, Slavik. At one point the minority held the viewpoint that the earth was round and that it orbited the sun, that bleeding and leeches were bad for your health as opposed to good for it, that bad smells did not cause plague, and so forth.

T ell me where I said my definition of best, was better than yours and wher ei sai dI woudl force it upoun you, infact I started posting in this thread to defend my definition of best, agaisnt people who wanted to impose their definition of best on me.

You are advocating a mixed economy. That means that your idea of "best" - redistributivism - must be imposed by force, with taxation and police men. QED again.

I did nto claim people would build up massive debts you inferred that they would, I simply claimed it has the possiblity to slightly distort the market.

This is what you said:

I think the major problem with this suggestion is two pronged and largely intertwined, we have buisness owners beign short sighted, and peopel buying on credit. The idea that prices willd rop if peopel can't afford them depends on the fact that peopel only spend the money they have, which well people go beyond that. Show of hands who here bought there hosue upfront? Who here bought there car upfront? Who here owes moeny on their powerline? Master card? visa? That right there is the major problem, with eliminating minimium wage and hoping that while wages drop the price of the product drops as well. As logn as peopel can buy on credit, or not pay until 2006 at the brick, buisness owners will see no reason to lower their prices until it is to late.

Are you done making a fool of yourself yet?

Certainly In Canada and America are Citizens on average are better off then they have ever been.

And this is because of redistributivism? Then you must believe that the citizens of the USSR were far better off than either! I assume you'll provide figures to show me how the average Soviet citizen lived in a bigger house, drove a nicer car, ate more food and of better quality, and so forth, than an American citizen?

You implied they were rubbish, actually you said they were rubbish,

No. This is what I said:

This is a false dilemma. Your rambling about pies and efficiency vs. equity is rubbish, there are no such dilemmas.

If you bother to read that, you will notice that I am not saying the terms are rubbish, merely that your false dilemma between them is rubbish.

Why is efficiency better?

Where did I say it was?

[Hugo]

By dropping minimum wage altogether, the 'bottom drops out' of society in various ways. Standards of living would drop dramatically for those who would take this kind of work.

Based on what? You act as though the price mechanism does not exist. Labour is a market. If what you say is true, then every product and commodity should cost ten cents (to borrow your figure), including limousines, mansions and Learjets, because according to you there is absolutely no restriction on the downward mobility of a price.

[Slavik44]

It was August's point. I was trying to explain to you what he meant, apparently, I was unsuccessful as you still do not understand.

Non-commodity-based currency is just paper, and paper does not have much value as you can buy 500 sheets for a few dollars. Money has value not because it is intrinsically valued, but because the government says it has value. Do you now understand?

I never posted to tell you what gave money value, but that it had value, and was more then simply paper. I associate the governments or banks backing of the sheet of paper to make it money, with out that I wouldn't define it as Money I would define it as a sheet of paper. To say

Money is paper is a blanket statement that ignores the fact that money has value. Although that value is not from the picture of the queen on the paper, it still has a higher worth then paper.

You act as though my example was my entire argument. It is not. My argument is that where standards are necessary, they will be established without the force of law. For instance, why are all ATM cards the same size or shape? Why is paper made in pre-set sizes? Why do refrigerators work at around the same temperature?

That is an excelent arguement Hugo, however you don't need to convince me that the refrigerator market can run with out government interference. I need to be convinced that the whole economy of a country can run and run better with out government. I define better as

1) a higher GDP growth rate

2) a more equitable division of Said GDP

3) increased Industrial production growth rate

all three woudl need to be met, to convince me that we don't need government to set, atleast, some standards.

So, you are telling me that earning nothing is better than earning a little? Well, by all means, FedEx me everything you own, right now! You will be better off afterwards, by your standards.

I never said having nothing is better then having a little I said earning nothing is better then earning a little. Besides if I gave you my computer we wouldn't be able to have this fun discussion. My arguement is saying however that if minimium wage was eliminated, people would work for less. Originally this would not affect anyone making more than minimium wage. However after a period of time it would start to affect, un-skilled labourers and then travel further up to affecting lets say semi-skilled labourers, to the point that eliminating minimium wage would hurt more people than it helps.

Because I gave you five names, one of which had won a Nobel laureate in the field of economics, who refute your argument. You have not provided a single name despite your claim that you know all these mysterious economists who back up your nonsense. You lose this point.

Already refuted here.

In fact, you'd do well to review that thread, and this one. Most of your nonsense has already been shown for what it is there.

Right back at you.

In fact, your first link is invalid because it does not go back far enough and does not look at figures in enough detail. For instance, by 1870 the Industrial Revolution was old news in Britain, but taking figures for Western Europe as a whole is fallacious because non-industrial nations like France and Spain drag down the figures from industrial ones such as Britain and Germany.

Your second link is similarly worthless. It makes projections for the year 2020, 2050 and 2100, but these are absolute and complete guesswork. No serious economist makes a prediction for more than ten years out because there is absolutely no way to be accurate.

Your third link makes the fallacy of restricting himself to a very narrow selection of sources (most of his citations are of himself), and ignoring those that dispute him (e.g. McCloskey) without offering a reason why.

Could you please provide me an exact quote, from McCloskey that tells me Britains GDP growth rate during the 1700's and early 1800's, because untill then this point is no ones, I want the DATA you are using to make your claims of astronomical GDP growth rates during the industrial revolution, not a list of names, I was kind enough to provide you my data for review you can do the same.

Add a dictionary to your shopping list.

Did you know that the term idiot was invented by the greeks to refer to someoen who had no interest in politics? Obviously if I called you an idiot today, I probabley would not be refering to your lack of interest in politics. Since the development of the word "idiot" its meaning has changed over time. It now means

person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years

1)The middle class is not a fixed category within Marxism, and debate continues as to the content of this social group.For Marxist views on this class, compare bourgeoisie. Note that this is not the same thing as middle class.

2)In Marxist theory, the bourgeoisie is defined as that class in commodity-producing capitalist society which owns the means of production;

Ad populum fallacy, Slavik. At one point the minority held the viewpoint that the earth was round and that it orbited the sun, that bleeding and leeches were bad for your health as opposed to good for it, that bad smells did not cause plague, and so forth.

Your right but those minorities shifted to the majority because what they belived was found correct. Similarily those majorities shifted to the minority becasue what the belived was found to be incorrect. Now in the early stages of Capitalism, Liberals subscribed, very much so, to an individualistic, laissez faire capitalism. Popular belief was that the poor were poor because they were lazy, they were not thrifty, they didn't live by Victorian ideals. Popular belief dictated that if you left the economy alone it woudl fix itself. That is not popular belief in todays world, so like people who belive the earth is flat- you have gone from Majority to minority.

You are advocating a mixed economy. That means that your idea of "best" - redistributivism - must be imposed by force, with taxation and police men.

and if we were to take down such an economy it would also require legislation or a revolution, it would require change, that would have to happen in some way and it would agian piss off alot of people.

Are you done making a fool of yourself yet?

I don't know, are you done being a self rightes Snob? (look I even put a question mark in for you) I read through that original post, and found no instance where I claimed massive debts, I did claim that people would go well beyond there means for imediate re-payment of such goods. For instance as long as you have a master card, if you wages drop by a dollar/hour your purchasing habbits are not likely to change, although they probabley should, this would at the very least delay the response of the market to re adjustit it self acordingly to the change in wages.

And this is because of redistributivism? Then you must believe that the citizens of the USSR were far better off than either! I assume you'll provide figures to show me how the average Soviet citizen lived in a bigger house, drove a nicer car, ate more food and of better quality, and so forth, than an American citizen?

No If I told you it is better to be hot than cold, then you told me you were going to throw me in the sun and make my life better, you would be taking something to the extreme and acting like a little child. The key phrase to remember for this is everythign in moderation.

If you bother to read that, you will notice that I am not saying the terms are rubbish, merely that your false dilemma between them is rubbish.

I wouldn't call it a false dilemma, economics states that people face trade offs, I simply am stating that such trade offs include that between efficiency and equity.

Where did I say it was?

are you telling me it isn't?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

because according to you there is absolutely no restriction on the downward mobility of a price.

Sure there is a limit, and that limit is zero. Labour is not a 'market' as much as it is a raw material. It is only treated as 'marketable value' if you are in an industrialized First World country. Factories providing goods for consumption in those First World countries are still sometimes wont to use slavery, or, if they are generous, 10-15 cents an hour. Then, upon export, the goods created by slavery are 'marked up' (to attain profit margin) some 5,000%. The 'downward mobility' is only limited in N. America by minimum wage. There is no such thing in most Asian countries. Thus there is extreme poverty in many countries even when most labourers work full time. The proponents of the abolishment of minimum wage seem to want to import that kind of misery here. Not exactly sure why.

[August1991]

Then, upon export, the goods created by slavery are 'marked up' (to attain profit margin) some 5,000%.

What stops a competitor from stepping in and "only" taking a 4900% mark up?

The 'downward mobility' is only limited in N. America by minimum wage. There is no such thing in most Asian countries.

The race to the bottom is the perspective of sellers (workers).

From the perspective of buyers (employers), it's rather a race to the top. ("Good help is so expensive nowadays.")

Forced to, you might work for $1/day if you had no other choice except to starve. But you ignore the possibility of another employer who will offer you $1.50. Then the race is on.

The proponents of the abolishment of minimum wage seem to want to import that kind of misery here. Not exactly sure why.

Huh? Do you mean that if Asian countries adopted a minimum wage of $8/hour, they'd be rich?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

What stops a competitor from stepping in and "only" taking a 4900% mark up?

They do now, I believe they are called 'Keds' rather than 'Nike'.

But you ignore the possibility of another employer who will offer you $1.50. Then the race is on.

The other employer would be a fool if he went beyond $1.10. The other employer also has a 'market defined limit' as to how many people he/she could possibly employ. Further, to aquire investment and shareholder confidence, he/she must be working to maximize profit and return on investment, and this cannot be achieved by giving more to the workers, for it directly reduces profit margins.

Huh? Do you mean that if Asian countries adopted a minimum wage of $8/hour, they'd be rich?

They might become better off if that $8 dollars came directly out of the 5,000%. Micheal Eisner might have to suffer a bit, perhaps only making $30,000/hr (24/7) instead of $60,000/hr, but the world might actually become a better place. We wouldn't have to see Suzanne Sommers in those stupid 'tear-jerking' UNICEF ads anymore.

However, if such a minimum wage for Asia were proposed, I think Pres. Bush would quickly become friends with the nearest Pol Pot, and the 'new gov't' would squash such a plan.

[Hugo]

That is an excelent arguement Hugo, however you don't need to convince me that the refrigerator market can run with out government interference. I need to be convinced that the whole economy of a country can run and run better with out government.

Consider the food industry. Clearly an essential service, the free market runs the food industry with little to no interference from government, and starvation is unheard of, while food is plentiful, great in variety and cheaper than ever before in human history.

Now take the examples of the postal service or the health service, run by the government. Both are a complete mess, with falling service levels, ever-greater costs, and so forth.

As Thoreau said, the only way in which government can help business is by getting out of the way.

a higher GDP growth rate

Be careful that you don't get obsessed with indicators rather than what they are supposed to indicate. The Soviets made this mistake, and proclaimed economic success when tractor manufacture rose although people in Moscow could not buy shoes.

a more equitable division of Said GDP

Wrong. The world-renowned psychiatrist should not get paid the same as the mailman. If you believe that they should merely be closer in wage, then be aware that the point you set is completely subjective and arbitrary, and therefore as indefensible as your statements on what the nicest colour or the best-tasting food is.

increased Industrial production growth rate

Again, don't make the Soviet error and get hung up on industrial figures. This is a post-industrial economy.

I never said having nothing is better then having a little I said earning nothing is better then earning a little.

Are your possessions bought with your earnings, or did they appear out of thin air for you?

My arguement is saying however that if minimium wage was eliminated, people would work for less.

Incorrect. Nobody currently working would be affected. The only difference it would make is that people currently unemployed would be able to find work.

Could you please provide me an exact quote, from McCloskey that tells me Britains GDP growth rate during the 1700's and early 1800's

McCloskey, Donald, "The Industrial Revolution 1780-1860: A Survey," The Economic History of Britain Since 1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). See pages 105-108.

Williamson, Jeffrey, Did British Capitalism Breed Inequality? (Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985). Page 18:

"unless new errors are discovered, the debate over real wages in the early nineteenth century is over: the average worker was much better off in any decade from the 1830s on than any decade before 1820"

I want the DATA you are using to make your claims of astronomical GDP growth

I already gave you the link. Stop wasting my time.

Since the development of the word "idiot" its meaning has changed over time.

Ah. So you mean that you ignore changes in language made over the last 150 years? Should I speak to you in Middle English - is that why you are so incomprehensible?

You know you're desperate for an argument when you start claiming that you are right because you use a different dictionary to the rest of the English-speaking world!

Your right but those minorities shifted to the majority because what they belived was found correct. Similarily those majorities shifted to the minority becasue what the belived was found to be incorrect. Now in the early stages of Capitalism, Liberals subscribed, very much so, to an individualistic, laissez faire capitalism. Popular belief was that the poor were poor because they were lazy, they were not thrifty, they didn't live by Victorian ideals. Popular belief dictated that if you left the economy alone it woudl fix itself. That is not popular belief in todays world, so like people who belive the earth is flat- you have gone from Majority to minority.

Well, the facts have proven the exact opposite of what you say. When we were laissez-faire, economic growth and the increases in real income and standards of living were staggering. However, socialism has failed completely (in Soviet Russia), the mixed economy has failed completely (in Sweden, facing a stagnant economy, low standards of living and massive public debt), and Keynesianism has failed completely (in Japan, where Keynesian economics led to a recession and Keynesian remedies completely failed to bring any measure of revival).

The flat-earthers are like the interventionists: clinging to an old, dead theory that has been proven wrong with empirical evidence time and time again but who just refuse to give up the ghost.

and if we were to take down such an economy it would also require legislation or a revolution, it would require change, that would have to happen in some way and it would agian piss off alot of people.

No, it would require an absence of legislation. Anyway, rejecting change because it is change just marks you out as a reactionary and a timid soul afraid of progress.

I read through that original post, and found no instance where I claimed massive debts, I did claim that people would go well beyond there means for imediate re-payment of such goods.

What you claimed was lunacy. You said that falling wages would not accompany falling prices because apparently, in your world, every credit provider has undergone a lobotomy and will keep on handing out ever larger loans to people who are increasingly unable to repay.

No If I told you it is better to be hot than cold, then you told me you were going to throw me in the sun and make my life better, you would be taking something to the extreme and acting like a little child. The key phrase to remember for this is everythign in moderation.

But the problem is that your position is logically indefensible. You say that a certain measure of interventionism is good, but there are absolutely no objective grounds for the point you establish. You might as well argue about what the most pleasant smell is.

I wouldn't call it a false dilemma, economics states that people face trade offs, I simply am stating that such trade offs include that between efficiency and equity.

If what you say is true, and you want more equity, then you are arguing for greater poverty, because the greater inefficiency will lead to smaller returns to be distributed amongst a greater number of people.

Basically, you advocate that everybody should be poor. I would suggest that you go to Bangladesh, which should by your criteria be a paradise: everybody is equal, and everybody is dirt-poor and struggling to survive.

are you telling me it isn't?

Stop wasting my time. I'm not playing word games with you, make a point or shut up. This particular argument started when you tried to put words in my mouth, so give it up. You got caught. Deal with it.

Sure there is a limit, and that limit is zero.

Ah. Then you must believe the price of everything is zero. Because if the price of everything is not zero, then your whole theory is refuted.

Labour is not a 'market' as much as it is a raw material.

And raw materials are bought and sold in... what? A meat grinder? A player piano? Or a market?

The labour market is indeed a market, and nobody argues that it is not. What you are doing is trying to twist around and claim that it is not because it is the only way you can get out of the massive self-contradiction you are caught in, but you just look more foolish because you are trying to claim that black is white.

The labour market has sellers (workers) and buyers (employers) trading for a commodity - labour. The price of labour varies by quantity purchased (i.e. hours of labour) and by quality purchased (i.e. the skill level of the labour). It will also be affected by all other market variables, such as relative supply and demand (a glut of supply will depress prices, while a dearth will raise them).

The proponents of the abolishment of minimum wage seem to want to import that kind of misery here.

What is actually happening in the Third World is an improvement in living conditions. People leave their fields where they live hand-to-mouth and go to the factory because it offers better than what they have.

Therefore, the proponents of minimum wage (including you) seem to want to banish the improvement of living conditions, if I may borrow your fallacy of prejudicial language for a minute.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's their fault they haven't received a higher paying, better job.

Prove it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Minimum wage legislation hurts the very people the Left supposedly wants to help.

Another highly suspect assertion in need of support.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Here is my theory:

"Power = Money"

Money has existed for about 6000 years or so. Power has existed for much, much longer. Your equation is wrong, Bakunin.

It oversimplifies but contains an essential element of truth. Money measures wealth, and wealth is power. There are other types of power, but wealth is certainly an important one.

[The Terrible Sweal]

A banknote is a piece of paper that says, "This piece of paper can be exchanged for x amount of gold." If you wrote one of these yourself, the BMW dealer would laugh at you. If, on the other hand, you had a piece of paper from the Bank of Nova Scotia Gold Warehousing service stating that it was worth 70oz. of gold (about $40,000 US), they might well accept that.

A central banknote is not a marker for a certain amount of gold or any other commodity. It is a representative of legal tender whose spot value depends on the willingness of the marketplace to trade for it.

In fact, my BMW dealer will take paper I create if he believes it will be honoured at the value he expects. A common example is a cheque. But I'll bet you $10 that if Bill Gates pulled up to a BMW dealer and offered his personal promisory note for a car, that would be acceptable too.

The minimum wage causes unemployment. Without a minimum wage, everybody who is willing to work for a market wage will find work.

Ah Hugo, always ready to substitute a simple theory for the complexities of reality. As for the first sentence there, consider the case of Ford Motors in the early days when they raised wages to the point the employee could afford a car. Guess what ... they all bought cars and the company got rich. Minimum wages do not 'cause unemployement', they establish a labor floor price which can have either a stimulative or depressive effect depending on the economy overall.

As for the 'market wage' argument, you need to recognize two things: first, below a certain level a wage will not be accepted no matter how poor someone is, and second, there are perfectly sensible reasons why a society may want to affect the market with a minimum wage.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As far as I know, laptops cost the same in Canada as in Sri Lanka.

Actually, a large number of products, particularly those manufactured in large volumes vary substantially in cost from market to market around the world. This is due to logistical, marketting, local preferences, and volume/margin imperatives affecting businesses. An example is the difference in the price of drugs between Canada and the U.S.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As for salary caps in professional sports, there is a reason why some sports have implemented them.

Because the owners can't seem to hold down salaries based on economics.  If the owners were all good business people, they would refuse to pay the ridiculous salaries and some players would be forced to accept lower wages.

But there must be an explanation for their behaviour. Are they bad businesses, poorly led? Or is the perceived demand (and thus price) for players real?

[Hugo]

A central banknote is not a marker for a certain amount of gold or any other commodity. It is a representative of legal tender whose spot value depends on the willingness of the marketplace to trade for it.

It depends on whether or not the issuing government is still keeping up the pretence of a gold standard. For instance, in the UK banknotes read: "I promise to pay the bearer on receipt the sum of X pounds."

Of course it's a lie, and commodity money is not used any more. So your point is correct.

As for the first sentence there, consider the case of Ford Motors in the early days when they raised wages to the point the employee could afford a car. Guess what ... they all bought cars and the company got rich.

Guess again.

Ford did not raise wages so that his employees could afford a car, he did it to combat absenteeism and high employee turnover.

Ford's employees were always getting paid more than minimum wage, so this point is wholly irrelevant to your argument anyway.

Minimum wages do not 'cause unemployement'

"Minimum-wage laws, an icon of the political left, are particularly damaging to low-income workers. Many are locked out of jobs. The Employment Policies Institute figures that the first 50 cents out of the $1 hike in the minimum wage in 1996 through 1997 cost 645,000 jobs... It's clear to everyone but the most die-hard socialists how this happens. Employers who can afford to pay four workers $5.00 an hour can't afford them all at $6.00 an hour. Somebody has to go. So, three are marginally helped -- a fourth is simply without a job. And the fifth, sixth and seventh don't get hired in the first place."

-- Investors Business Daily, 1999.

Unemployment for black teens in the USA is now at 30.1%, considerably higher than for white teens. Before minimum-wage legislation they were almost indistinguishable.

It is a fact that minimum wages cause unemployment. The theory is sound and it is proven correct by empirical facts (i.e. every time minimum wage is raised, unemployment goes up for low-wage earners, even amongst overall job-creation), and a theory that is proven correct is called a fact.

As for the 'market wage' argument, you need to recognize two things: first, below a certain level a wage will not be accepted no matter how poor someone is

Then why would we need a minimum wage law?

there are perfectly sensible reasons why a society may want to affect the market with a minimum wage.

Yes, unfortunately, they are misguided. Most leftists have their hearts in the right place but are woefully ignorant on the matters of which they preach, and when leftist policies are enacted they invariably make matters worse than they were before.

So it is with minimum wage. Leftists argue that it will help the poor and raise their standard of living, but in actual fact, what it does is make the poor unemployed and lowers their standard of living, and then places an additional burden on those still employed who must now pay their unemployment benefits.

It's also usually the case that leftists get hung up on figures and buzzwords, failing to comprehend what goes on behind them. For instance, only 15% of minimum wage earners live in a poor household (Cornell University study). To raise minimum wage - even if it did not cause unemployment - basically amounts to giving more money to the teenaged children of affluent households.