Thread: Communists, Capitalism and Social Liberalism

You're being very black and white about this. If someone kills another person, we're supposed to organize lynch mobs? Government enables the due process of law so we can determine who's guilty and escape partisan authority. Libertarianism is a step backwards. Even the most civilized and democratic indians were not libertarian, more like communist.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're being very black and white about this. If someone kills another person, we're supposed to organize lynch mobs? Government enables the due process of law so we can determine who's guilty and escape partisan authority. Libertarianism is a step backwards. Even the most civilized and democratic indians were not libertarian, more like communist.

The law existed before governments took it over, and it will continue to exist after governments disappear.

Originally Posted by cmind

The law existed before governments took it over, and it will continue to exist after governments disappear.

Um... this is definitively false. Laws created the idea of government and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

There is no job lower then 8 dollars (I think California's law is like 7.45 or something) because it is illegal to establish such a job. Realize the implications of what you are saying, corporations have to assess the marginal revenue product that workers bring to their business. You base how much value they bring to the company versus the cost of bringing them on. Therefore people (take California for example) who bring value less then 8 dollars an hour are unemployable because it costs more to take them on them what they produce. Basically you are taking steps out of the ladder making it harder for underprivileged people to be employed. Do you not want them to be able to have jobs? Did it ever occur to you in your misguided thoughts on the law of iron wages that people who's margin revenue produce is less then the minimum wage would be employed therefore not causing wages to supposedly come crashing down and giving these individuals a wage, a source of income? Some source of income is better then none.

So I ask again, why do you not want to make minimum wage laws at 50 dollars an hour? Or 100? You know the first thought that pops into your mind is "well because then no one would have a job" and you would be right! So why is it that 50 dollars is unacceptable but 10 dollars is? What about the people who are below that 10? They are getting screwed and they are the truly poor!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Um... this is definitively false. Laws created the idea of government and vice versa.

Once again you prove your ignorance:

Lex mercatoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, you just don't understand the definition of government. Even Lex Mercatoria only works if there's some sort of established, legitimized governing body.

And LM - Once again, there is no single job in the US worth less than 10 dollars unless the company is trying to earn more profit by exploiting low wages. kthx

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You're being very black and white about this. If someone kills another person, we're supposed to organize lynch mobs? Government enables the due process of law so we can determine who's guilty and escape partisan authority. Libertarianism is a step backwards. Even the most civilized and democratic indians were not libertarian, more like communist.

Not at all. There would be methods of community ostracization as well as rehabilitation centers to deal with criminals. We could organize businesses so that they would work together to ostracize a criminal so that they would have no means of survival if they committed a serious enough crime like murder(we can do this through providing incentives and by boycotting businesses that don't comply). While at the same time offering a far more humane mode of incarceration where they could learn skills as well as learn why what they did is wrong, basically working on getting them to be compassionate, to see it from the victims perspective.

My point about Indians was that Indians had a completely different way of life. Good luck getting even 3000 people to go back to that way of life. In an anarchic system there's nothing stopping you from setting up a local communist community, you just can't force people to join it.

How is libertarianism or anarchism a step backwards? Having no courts would be a step backwards but that's not what I'm proposing. I'm just proposing that we get rid of groups that can use force against people and replace them with groups that actually do a good job of holding people accountable for damage they cause to others as well as the environment.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

There is no job lower then 8 dollars (I think California's law is like 7.45 or something) because it is illegal to establish such a job. Realize the implications of what you are saying, corporations have to assess the marginal revenue product that workers bring to their business. You base how much value they bring to the company versus the cost of bringing them on. Therefore people (take California for example) who bring value less then 8 dollars an hour are unemployable because it costs more to take them on them what they produce. Basically you are taking steps out of the ladder making it harder for underprivileged people to be employed. Do you not want them to be able to have jobs? Did it ever occur to you in your misguided thoughts on the law of iron wages that people who's margin revenue produce is less then the minimum wage would be employed therefore not causing wages to supposedly come crashing down and giving these individuals a wage, a source of income? Some source of income is better then none.

So I ask again, why do you not want to make minimum wage laws at 50 dollars an hour? Or 100? You know the first thought that pops into your mind is "well because then no one would have a job" and you would be right! So why is it that 50 dollars is unacceptable but 10 dollars is? What about the people who are below that 10? They are getting screwed and they are the truly poor!

Does anyone profit from the minimum wage, how does it effect other businesses and other areas of the market?

People have sometimes called that I live under Communist Socialist goverment. I find that offending. Social Democrachy yes, and we live by Nordic model, but well.. let us just say some people are very trigger happy with the word Communism.

Am I mistaken or are people still very much clinging with that Cold War type Communism vs Capitalism scenario? I have heard some Americans calling Canadas healthcare "Communist healthcare" as well...

We pay more taxes than in USA. Last time I checked the average monthly pay here was 2600€/month and about 33% goes to the taxes. In return we get many safety nets that exists so that when life fucks you up you don't land head first to the concrete. There will be people who will say that it is ridicilous. Maybe so, but I think it tells about a person and a society where the focus is. Is it about who can claim most of the coin to themselves or about taking care of members of society? I like our model. Yes, there are persons who abuse this model. People who stay unemployed for reason. Immigrants who don't want to work. Perhaps. But it is more complex than just that.

We do not have a law for minimun wage. Neither has Denmark or Sweden. The labour unions negotiate minimum wages for each field of work separatetly. Although, now when everything around Europe is EU, EU and EU, I think there has been some talk to change it to law enforced like rest of the Europe. I am not very fond of that, considering the ongoing economic situation. There is much critic on both sides considering law of minimum wage.

On spoilers the characterizations of Nordic model. Is there something else than high taxes that someone finds unaccetable?

Spoiler for Nordic Model:

Economic publications, such as "The Nordic Model - Embracing globalization and sharing risks", characterize the system as follows:

* An elaborate social safety net in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare.
* Strong property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business.
* Public pension schemes.
* Low barriers to free trade. This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programmes, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.
* Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.
* Low levels of corruption. In Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index all five Nordic countries were ranked among the 11 least corrupt of 178 evaluated countries.
* High degrees of labour union membership. In 2008, labour union density was 67.5% in Finland, 67.6% in Denmark, and 68.3% in Sweden. In comparison, union membership was 11.9% in the United States and 7.7% in France.
* Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination, while Finland is ranked the least flexible. The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms. At the same time, reforms and favourable economic development seem to have reduced unemployment, which has traditionally been higher. Denmark's Social Democrats managed to push through reforms in 1994 and 1996.
* Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflects very high public spending. One key reason for public spending is the very large number of public employees. These employees work in various fields including education, healthcare, and for the government itself. They often have lifelong job security and make up around a third of the workforce (more than 38% in Denmark). The public sector's low productivity growth has been compensated by an increase in the private sector’s share of government financed services which has included outsourcing. Public spending in social transfers such as unemployment benefits and early-retired programmes is high. In 2001, the wage-based unemployment benefits were around 90% of wage in Denmark and 80% in Sweden, compared to 75% in the Netherlands and 60% in Germany. The unemployed were also able to receive benefits several years before reductions, compared to quick benefit reduction in other countries.
* Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway in comparison to the OECD average.
* Overall tax burden are among the world's highest; 51.1% of GDP in Sweden, and 43.3% in Finland, compared to 34.7% in Germany, 33.5% in Canada, and 30.5% in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

No, you just don't understand the definition of government. Even Lex Mercatoria only works if there's some sort of established, legitimized governing body.

And LM - Once again, there is no single job in the US worth less than 10 dollars unless the company is trying to earn more profit by exploiting low wages. kthx

Why is it 10 dollars? Justify your assertion.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Does anyone profit from the minimum wage, how does it effect other businesses and other areas of the market?

Cartelized labor (Unions) do because it keeps competition out of the labor market (which is the goal of unions, not that I am against that, just compulsive unionism and government privileges). Would you be surprised if I told you that many of the burgeoning labor unions in the 19th century were against child labor and for the establishment of child labor laws? Now you may think "well that's progressive and good" and perhaps some of them thought so also but there is a implication of eliminating competition in factory jobs. No doubt someone here is going to complain that I want to reduce children to slavery but my belief is that you should allow children who wish to work to work. You do not force them out of the labor pool or force them in.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why is it 10 dollars? Justify your assertion.

If a person gives an hour of their day to a job they need a compensation that adds up to a livable wage if its a full time job.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

There is no job lower then 8 dollars (I think California's law is like 7.45 or something) because it is illegal to establish such a job.

I don't know what you're talking about?

The US min. wage is 7.25. Not too long ago it was only something like 5.50.

You base how much value they bring to the company versus the cost of bringing them on. Therefore people (take California for example) who bring value less then 8 dollars an hour are unemployable because it costs more to take them on them what they produce.

Would you like an example of a company that I know of that brings in less than an employees wage? I know this company well because I work for it.

You can make the argument that the employees wages sucked the company dry. Maybe my boss believed so, because she fired 99% of that staff. Did money all of a sudden start to flow back into the company? Hell no. Our sales dropped significantly. One person can't do the work of a team. I can't do customer service and production at the same time, it just doesn't work. And when phones weren't being answered, or products weren't being produced fast enough - well our sales just died.

All I know is, when we had a team our sales were significantly higher. And now that I've seen all aspects of the company, I would even argue our sales were high enough to cover everyone's wages and give profit for the boss.

What sucked the company dry was not employee wages - as employees are the profit producing backbone of a company (not a cost). What sucked the company dry was poor management. When our sales dropped my boss flipped out. And instead of trying to increase sales she tried to increase profit per item by raising the prices. We sell a single candle at maybe 2 inches tall, for $14. No one is going to buy that candle.

On the other hand, the factory I work in is shared by three sister companies. The most profitable company employs apx. 50 people. The majority make min. wage. The sales brought into the company each day range from 20k to 50k. Even if half of that is cost of production, it still means each employee brings in $1000 to $2500 a week, while only getting paid an avg of $300 a week.

Now this is a small made-in-america business that's considered relatively poor.

There are plenty of corporations out there where min.wage employees don't bring in $1000 of profit a week - BUT IN AN HOUR. Employees everywhere bring in more than they are being paid. When a company is sucked dry - its because of poor management.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Cartelized labor (Unions) do because it keeps competition out of the labor market (which is the goal of unions, not that I am against that, just compulsive unionism and government privileges). Would you be surprised if I told you that many of the burgeoning labor unions in the 19th century were against child labor and for the establishment of child labor laws? Now you may think "well that's progressive and good" and perhaps some of them thought so also but there is a implication of eliminating competition in factory jobs. No doubt someone here is going to complain that I want to reduce children to slavery but my belief is that you should allow children who wish to work to work. You do not force them out of the labor pool or force them in.

I agree. Mostly because I'd like to see something like the Lancaster schools crop up. Something where children become teachers or at least tutors. They would make money, become more knowledgeable in the subject and this would deal with the shortage of teachers.

Originally Posted by juroara

There are plenty of corporations out there where min.wage employees don't bring in $1000 of profit a week - BUT IN AN HOUR. Employees everywhere bring in more than they are being paid. When a company is sucked dry - its because of poor management.

While that's true some of the time it's not true all of the time. In most of those min wage jobs where employees are bringing in that kind of cash they themselves have almost nothing to do with it, it's all really successful management, people designing products and finding efficient ways of selling them etc. If the management was making the same as the people selling things they'd go do something else because people with skills want to be payed for them. The fact of the matter is that we need to change our culture not the laws. We can make this the nicest fairest consumer culture possible but it's still not going to be nice or fair really.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If a person gives an hour of their day to a job they need a compensation that adds up to a livable wage if its a full time job.

Whose idea of "livable" wage? An African might say $5 a day is quite livable. Who gets to decide this?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If a person gives an hour of their day to a job they need a compensation that adds up to a livable wage if its a full time job.

Should they dictate what is acceptable as a wage, or should you?

Originally Posted by juroara

I don't know what you're talking about?

The US min. wage is 7.25. Not too long ago it was only something like 5.50.

U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Minimum Wage Laws in the States
California is apparently 8 dollars/hour. So I was close.

Originally Posted by juroara

Would you like an example of a company that I know of that brings in less than an employees wage? I know this company well because I work for it.

You can make the argument that the employees wages sucked the company dry. Maybe my boss believed so, because she fired 99% of that staff. Did money all of a sudden start to flow back into the company? Hell no. Our sales dropped significantly. One person can't do the work of a team. I can't do customer service and production at the same time, it just doesn't work. And when phones weren't being answered, or products weren't being produced fast enough - well our sales just died.

So you were understaffed in what I am guessing is a service-based job and you use your bosses idiocy in dropping all of her employees in order to falsely accuse me of thinking that employee wages destroy profitability? I am confused here. Honestly I am.

Originally Posted by juroara

All I know is, when we had a team our sales were significantly higher. And now that I've seen all aspects of the company, I would even argue our sales were high enough to cover everyone's wages and give profit for the boss.

What sucked the company dry was not employee wages - as employees are the profit producing backbone of a company (not a cost). What sucked the company dry was poor management. When our sales dropped my boss flipped out. And instead of trying to increase sales she tried to increase profit per item by raising the prices. We sell a single candle at maybe 2 inches tall, for $14. No one is going to buy that candle.

Oh I see. You think that because I am against minimum wage means that I am against higher employee wages, is that right? Well your boss is an idiot. You do not increase the price of a commodity in order to increase its demand. That defies economic law and logic. You make the product more affordable, more enticing to the consumer. The more people you please, the greater the profit. For some reason business managers forget this very basic premise.

Originally Posted by juroara

On the other hand, the factory I work in is shared by three sister companies. The most profitable company employs apx. 50 people. The majority make min. wage. The sales brought into the company each day range from 20k to 50k. Even if half of that is cost of production, it still means each employee brings in $1000 to $2500 a week, while only getting paid an avg of $300 a week.

Now this is a small made-in-america business that's considered relatively poor.

There are plenty of corporations out there where min.wage employees don't bring in $1000 of profit a week - BUT IN AN HOUR. Employees everywhere bring in more than they are being paid. When a company is sucked dry - its because of poor management.

Yes but you also have to account for costs of production. You should bring up a specific example so this discussion can become more concrete.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I agree. Mostly because I'd like to see something like the Lancaster schools crop up. Something where children become teachers or at least tutors. They would make money, become more knowledgeable in the subject and this would deal with the shortage of teachers.

I am all for internships and apprenticeships. I do not know about kids becoming teachers, maybe tutors.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Should they dictate what is acceptable as a wage, or should you?

The community is the one that would suffer if their wages were so high that businesses left to find cheaper workers. The individual community is also the one that suffers if low-wages are forcing people to work multiple full-time jobs just to survive. It is therefore up to the community to find its own balance.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am all for internships and apprenticeships. I do not know about kids becoming teachers, maybe tutors.

I think they should interact with an adult teacher as well, but it apparently worked in the past. There are soooo many things that could be done to make schooling both more affordable and effective. Of course that's not in the governments best interest so it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The community is the one that would suffer if their wages were so high that businesses left to find cheaper workers. The individual community is also the one that suffers if low-wages are forcing people to work multiple full-time jobs just to survive. It is therefore up to the community to find its own balance.

HOw would you go about doing this? WOuld we democratically decide what each person gets paid every so often? Wouldn't this have drastic influences on what people chose to do? How do you do this without it being abused by certain people?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The community is the one that would suffer if their wages were so high that businesses left to find cheaper workers. The individual community is also the one that suffers if low-wages are forcing people to work multiple full-time jobs just to survive. It is therefore up to the community to find its own balance.

Through voting?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I think they should interact with an adult teacher as well, but it apparently worked in the past. There are soooo many things that could be done to make schooling both more affordable and effective. Of course that's not in the governments best interest so it's not going to happen.

Have to agree with you there.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

HOw would you go about doing this? WOuld we democratically decide what each person gets paid every so often? Wouldn't this have drastic influences on what people chose to do? How do you do this without it being abused by certain people?

Minimum wage is how I would do this.