Thread: Communists, Capitalism and Social Liberalism

Because if you impose a minimum cost for work then obviously that lowers the number of people you can employ.

Minimum wage sustains the middle class and prevents near slave-like worker exploitation as is the case in China.

How do you figure? People on minimum wage aren't middle class.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Minimum wage sustains the middle class and prevents near slave-like worker exploitation as is the case in China.

Again, you clearly don't understand what minimum wage is. It's not a law that says everyone must get paid a certain amount of money regardless of employment (as disastrous as that would be). It is a law that says it's illegal to hire someone if their wage would be below X dollars per hour. Meaning anyone who provides less than X dollars per hour of profit to the employer legally cannot be hired. So if the minimum is $10/hr, and your unskilled labor is worth $7/hr, then it is illegal to hire you for that wage. Does this make it more clear? I guess we'll see.

When the government decided no labor in the area can exist legitimately below that pay-grade, they are making a decision not to outlaw the abundant amount of jobs that exist below that paygrade but to affirm that all those jobs exist minimally at a bottom line because in the competition of industry, the only way to stop companies from going to extreme lows with wages as a means of remaining competitive is to outlaw the practice.

The problem with the minimum wage is, it increases unemployment. So on one side, you can let everyone work, but for less, or let only some people work, but for more. Which one is better? (We can solve unemployment hassles by lowering the minimum wage, but most 1st world citizens refuse to work for such small amounts; they'd rather not work at all. Take for example farm labour, unemployed Americans refuse to work in those positions, but immigrant labourers are willing to work for sub-minimum wage jobs.)

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Things are not so complicated. The minimum wage, for instance, ensures people get paid at least a certain amount of money so corporations aren't forced by competing corporations to inevitably drop the wages to their competitive conclusions. Environmental protection laws serve to stop corporations from exploiting the environment because otherwise, in order to remain competitive, companies would be forced to do as much damage to the environment as their competitors.

But you are under the notion that the iron law of wages is acceptable. It is not. Corporations do not need to decrease wages in order to increase profits. Also what about those people who cannot work because of the minimum wage? Their marginal revenue product is lower the that established wage so they cannot find a job. Also on the topic of environmental "dumping," I am all for working toward a clean environment so too should corporations if they were actually held accountable for their dumping through the court system. Look at the Yucca Mountain, the Federal government itself is dumping waste in Nevada. How can you sue if the government is the one doing it?

There are other methods of reducing unemployment and plenty of places with both healthy minimum wages and unemployment rates. Anybody who doesn't think that employers would take advantage of their employees in the search for added profit needs a reality check.

Places with healthy minimum wages and unemployment rates often subsidize employment opportunities to reduce that unemployment. Somewhere along the line, SOMEONE is paying for it. It's all about whose pockets the money is coming from.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But you are under the notion that the iron law of wages is acceptable. It is not. Corporations do not need to decrease wages in order to increase profits. Also what about those people who cannot work because of the minimum wage? Their marginal revenue product is lower the that established wage so they cannot find a job. Also on the topic of environmental "dumping," I am all for working toward a clean environment so too should corporations if they were actually held accountable for their dumping through the court system. Look at the Yucca Mountain, the Federal government itself is dumping waste in Nevada. How can you sue if the government is the one doing it?

The reason corporations dump is because there's nothing to stop them and it's more cost effective. They would do it with or without minimum wage. When you're thinking from the perspective of the bottom line, every advantage possible is on the table. This includes, unfortunately, filling peoples heads so thick with propaganda they forget why these regulations were put here in the first place.

Could you give me one example of a job that cannot exist because of minimum wage?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But you are under the notion that the iron law of wages is acceptable. It is not. Corporations do not need to decrease wages in order to increase profits. Also what about those people who cannot work because of the minimum wage? Their marginal revenue product is lower the that established wage so they cannot find a job. Also on the topic of environmental "dumping," I am all for working toward a clean environment so too should corporations if they were actually held accountable for their dumping through the court system. Look at the Yucca Mountain, the Federal government itself is dumping waste in Nevada. How can you sue if the government is the one doing it?

But to reiterate my environmental question that everyone ignored... how do you sue, or even inspect corporations with no government? This is just a problem that's been bugging me for the longest. I don't know how libertarians address environmental exploitation under their model, besides that they're accountable to "dollar votes", which is only good reason to cover-up. I'm legit curious, not trying to prove a point.

Yucca mountain is such a drop in the bucket. It is definitely pollution as a result of human activity, and I'm not defending it, but the consequences of nuclear energy is a different debate that I see both sides of the argument on. But why get indignant about that specifically? It seems selective, to me. Yucca Mountain is not secret, and it's directly caused by/in support of commercial activity. There are so many other issues that are carried out and covered up by the private sector, including by American corps acting internationally. Are those "enabled" by over-regulation like bad banking is?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The reason corporations dump is because there's nothing to stop them and it's more cost effective. They would do it with or without minimum wage. When you're thinking from the perspective of the bottom line, every advantage possible is on the table. This includes, unfortunately, filling peoples heads so thick with propaganda they forget why these regulations were put here in the first place.

Could you give me one example of a job that cannot exist because of minimum wage?

Ok if you are under this notion that corporations are constantly looking to dump to reduce production costs and they are getting away with it then what does that say about the government itself? Do you honestly think that you need only put the right people in charge and they will not be susceptible to corruption from corporations? Would you at least concede the fact that greater enforcement of property rights would be the bulwark against this tendency?

The point I was making about minimum wage is that they exclude workers who may not necessarily be employed because their marginal revenue product is below what would be considered the minimum wage. Example: The minimum wage in California is 8 dollars meaning that everyone who could be employed at 7.99 and below cannot be employed. How is this benevolent? It is raising the cost of highering people to the point where they cannot get a job.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

But to reiterate my environmental question that everyone ignored... how do you sue, or even inspect corporations with no government? This is just a problem that's been bugging me for the longest. I don't know how libertarians address environmental exploitation under their model, besides that they're accountable to "dollar votes", which is only good reason to cover-up. I'm legit curious, not trying to prove a point.

Yucca mountain is such a drop in the bucket. It is definitely pollution as a result of human activity, and I'm not defending it, but the consequences of nuclear energy is a different debate that I see both sides of the argument on. But why get indignant about that specifically? It seems selective, to me. Yucca Mountain is not secret, and it's directly caused by/in support of commercial activity. There are so many other issues that are carried out and covered up by the private sector, including by American corps acting internationally. Are those "enabled" by over-regulation like bad banking is?

I pick Yucca because it is the greatest example of corporations and government working together thus disproving the notion that governments are holding back corporations from dumping. How can one say "more regulation is needed" when the very regulators themselves are letting it happen and who will regulate the regulators? The people? They are all ready subservient to the government.

On the topic of courts and suing, I will put forth an article that can better explain it then I ever could though if I had to summarize it then I would call it a system of private courts that would loosely be based upon common law. Courts could be held in absentia and be something akin to arbitration we have today. Of course I am open to hearing your thoughts on bettering the court system or any ideas you think might improve upon this.

For a New Liberty
It starts on pg 267 of the book.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ok if you are under this notion that corporations are constantly looking to dump to reduce production costs and they are getting away with it then what does that say about the government itself? Do you honestly think that you need only put the right people in charge and they will not be susceptible to corruption from corporations? Would you at least concede the fact that greater enforcement of property rights would be the bulwark against this tendency?

The point I was making about minimum wage is that they exclude workers who may not necessarily be employed because their marginal revenue product is below what would be considered the minimum wage. Example: The minimum wage in California is 8 dollars meaning that everyone who could be employed at 7.99 and below cannot be employed. How is this benevolent? It is raising the cost of highering people to the point where they cannot get a job.

Time and time again I've offered solutions to remove as much corruption as possible from government. I don't expect the system to be perfect. But no government at all would be a disaster.

And no, the minimum wage law in California is basically claiming there is no such thing as a 7.99 job. It's saying absolutely any job where you employ someone legitimately and intend to declare their wages is at least an 8 dollar job. That doesn't mean you can't offer someone 5 bucks to mow your lawn. You just can't open a lawn mowing business where you pay all your employees only 5 dollars. No one should be paid less than 10 dollars for an hour of work in a legitimate business.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I pick Yucca because it is the greatest example of corporations and government working together thus disproving the notion that governments are holding back corporations from dumping. How can one say "more regulation is needed" when the very regulators themselves are letting it happen and who will regulate the regulators? The people? They are all ready subservient to the government.

On the topic of courts and suing, I will put forth an article that can better explain it then I ever could though if I had to summarize it then I would call it a system of private courts that would loosely be based upon common law. Courts could be held in absentia and be something akin to arbitration we have today. Of course I am open to hearing your thoughts on bettering the court system or any ideas you think might improve upon this.

For a New Liberty
It starts on pg 267 of the book.

Alright, thanks for the reading material. I'll give it a look when I get the chance. Could you indulge me in a few more questions, for now?

Libertarians claim to oppose collectivism. Obviously, being members of a social species, this can't absolutely true. So what is it? Is the best way to say it that you're opposed to coerced collectivism?
Next question: Is capitalism not coerced collectivism?
Finally, under free market capitalism, is it predicted that power (capital) will or will not be able to be concentrated into small groups, as we are seeing now?

Bailouts are regulation; tax breaks are incentivized regulation; the Fed's monetary policy is regulation; the Fed's interest rate-setting policies are regulation; (the only purpose OF the Fed was regulation!) Seems to me that regulation isn't working. I'm not saying the other options WILL work better, but this one doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Time and time again I've offered solutions to remove as much corruption as possible from government. I don't expect the system to be perfect. But no government at all would be a disaster.

And no, the minimum wage law in California is basically claiming there is no such thing as a 7.99 job. It's saying absolutely any job where you employ someone legitimately and intend to declare their wages is at least an 8 dollar job. That doesn't mean you can't offer someone 5 bucks to mow your lawn. You just can't open a lawn mowing business where you pay all your employees only 5 dollars. No one should be paid less than 10 dollars for an hour of work in a legitimate business.

Yea cops are not going to go after law mowers but hey you never know, they are shutting down kids lemonade stand because they do not have permits. Concerning your point of 10 dollars an hour, why stop at 10? Why not make it 50? Or 100 dollars an hour? Why arbitrarily pick 10?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Alright, thanks for the reading material. I'll give it a look when I get the chance. Could you indulge me in a few more questions, for now?

Libertarians claim to oppose collectivism. Obviously, being members of a social species, this can't absolutely true. So what is it? Is the best way to say it that you're opposed to coerced collectivism?
Next question: Is capitalism not coerced collectivism?
Finally, under free market capitalism, is it predicted that power (capital) will or will not be able to be concentrated into small groups, as we are seeing now?

Well you have to be careful what you mean by collectivism. It means different things to different people. What I think it is and perhaps may be extended to those who agree with me is that collectivism is the regulation of power from the individual to the group. By interacting, like we are here, or by trading, such as in a freed market capitalist system you are still retaining your individual power to make choices for yourself. Like a club for example. Say I join the local Rotors club or something. I agree to live by their rules and bylaws (which is set down for the collective) but it is my choice and I can exit out of that system if I wanted too. See that is really the underlying gripe with libertarians. The ability to exit. We do not have that in government. I cannot say "I do not want to be an American citizen anymore" yet still retain property that is rightfully mine. I know a lot of gripers who scream "love it or leave it" are going to take issue with this idea. Anyways, back to the point. You can be a libertarian and still love baseball or team based sports. It is not that we are atomistic, at least in my interpretation. In fact I like to think of libertarianism as the most tolerable of "social contracts" and I really hate to use that word. You do not see very many consistent libertarians who are trying to get gay marriage banned or drugs banned or religious laws passed even though they may dislike gay marriage or drugs or atheism. It is a live and let live policy.

On the topic of capitalism being coerced collectivism and the concentration of capital, I think you see this in corporatism which can also be called "crony capitalism" or fascism. It really started after WWI to be an enticing ideology because fascists saw the free market as too anarchistic and the upper elites/middle class thought Bolshevism was too vulgar. Capitalism was not planned and would produce what they would consider "inefficiency." They would see something like the shoe market and say "Why do we have Nike, New Balance, Skeetchers etc etc. We can have one company that is commissioned by the government to make all the shoes for everyone then we can all stop worrying about shoes and move onto better questions." Strangely enough, or perhaps not if you consider fascism a form of socialism, this idea for building markets between corporations and government got its start in the modern age from the socialist writer Henri de Saint-Simone. Anyways, the market if left to its own devices tends toward equilibrium but it never achieves it because it is never static. Let me give you an example: Let us say that there is a price fluctuation in the commodity of frisbees. People love frisbees, cannot get enough of them. So the price of frisebees goes up because the supply is decreasing and the demand is increasing. Also people are assigning their own utility value to the frisbees by saying "Oh I will buy a frisbee for 30 dollars because I value the frisbee more then the 30 dollars I give up." So realizing the profit opportunity, entrepreneurs start investing in the frisbee market these investments move to the producers of frisbees allowing them to obtain more capital to produce better and more frisbees so the people will buy them. Now suppose a month later, everyone is sick of frisbees. Well these producers are still making them in the hope that the consumer will still buy them. They cannot just stop on a dime. The market needs time to disseminate information. So while this is happening, supply of frisbees are going up while demand is going down. Suddenly you have too many frisbees. It is a challenge just to tell these frisbees so what they do is slowly move the price down in the hope that people's subjective utility changes (remember before about the 30 dollars) Now maybe its 25 dollars or 20 dollars maybe even down to 15. The price is dropping when it was once going up and this is called "market clearing." So knowing this about the market, that it constantly fluctuates and that entrepreneurs move to where there is a profit to be had and their investments lead to a better production of goods to meet the demands of consumers, the idea a concentration of a capital into a few hands is only valid if the entry into that market is blocked by an institution with the power to enforce such a blockage. Specifically, only the government can prevent entrepeneurs from entering into these markets and creating competition/the invest necessary to increase production to sustain the wants of the consumers.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yea cops are not going to go after law mowers but hey you never know, they are shutting down kids lemonade stand because they do not have permits. Concerning your point of 10 dollars an hour, why stop at 10? Why not make it 50? Or 100 dollars an hour? Why arbitrarily pick 10?

If this is seriously the argument you're trying to make then you are absolutely fucking retarded. Please try again.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If this is seriously the argument you're trying to make then you are absolutely fucking retarded. Please try again.

If it's so easy to debunk, why haven't you done so? Maybe because you can't.

It's a valid point, Dei. Why stop at $10? If your argument is that his argument is not "serious" enough then I say if that's seriously the argument you're trying to make then you are absolutely fucking retarded. Please try again.

See how far that gets you in a conversation?

Are you guys fucking kidding me? You don't understand the purpose of minimum wage? I feel like I should be teaching this to 1st graders.

A company needs to pay employees what their work is worth based on a cost scale. The employer asks themselves if its worth it to find someone else and train them, if they're going to expect the same amount of money anyways. For specialized jobs that require special training, it's all about finding the least expensive of the most qualified. For jobs that require no training, the pay-grade is based on the unemployment rate and competitive paygrades of other unskilled jobs. Without a minimum wage, unskilled laborers have no defense against exploitation. The community does not enforce a minimum wage to shoot themselves in the foot, they do it to stop companies from taking advantage of high worker supplies in order to save some pennies. Raising minimum wage above the lowest valued job would make it so it's no longer economically feasible to hire people in the first place. In my opinion, there is simply no job in California valued lower than 10 dollars.

Especially when you consider the fact that once you have a ten dollar minimum wage the federal reserve can just print more money and basically make that money worth $7 again.

Omnis, I think you are making the mistake of thinking that no government means no accountability. There would certainly still be groups to hold people accountable for doing bad things, they just wouldn't take peoples money at gunpoint in order to get funding.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Especially when you consider the fact that once you have a ten dollar minimum wage the federal reserve can just print more money and basically make that money worth $7 again.

Omnis, I think you are making the mistake of thinking that no government means no accountability. There would certainly still be groups to hold people accountable for doing bad things, they just wouldn't take peoples money at gunpoint in order to get funding.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming the only type of government is one that acts through gunpoint.

If there's a system in place to ensure unskilled laborers do not get exploited, that's government. Unless you can show me how unskilled laborers can naturally prevent this from happening. If they formed a general union of workers... that's government.

You're right though, federal reserve stops minimum wage from having any point.