McKenna To Minimum Wage Workers: Take A Paycut

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Republican Gubernatorial candidate Andy McKenna, son of millionaire business executive Andrew McKenna, feels that $8.00 an hour is just too much for minimum wage workers. According to the Daily Herald, cutting minimum wage is becoming a higher priority for some Republican candidates. In an interview with WBBM, McKenna called it a "problem" that Illinois minimum wage workers garner almost $1.00 more per hour than the federal rate. In 1979, the federal minimum wage rate was $2.90 per hour; in 2009 it's $8.00 an hour in Illinois. That might seem like a large jump in wages, but when converted back to 1979 dollars, the current minimum wage translates to $2.73. It may seem like workers earn more today, but their dollars have less buying power. Given the spiraling costs of health care and the reality that many minimum wage workers don't work full time, a reduction in the minimum wage by even $1 an hour could be problematic for Illinois families. Even when the minimum wage in Illinois dribbles up to $8.25 an hour, that's only $2.80 an hour in 1979 dollars, still less than what workers made 30 years ago.
With many low paid workers already struggling to meet basic needs, it's hard to see how any politician could sell them on taking a pay cut. And while supporters and opponents on either side of the minimum wage debate tend to exaggerate the benefits and costs of raising the minimum wage, research indicates that raising the minimum wage benefits the community as a whole. In fact, there is empirical evidence that states that have higher minimum wages tend to experience faster small business growth than those with lower minimum wages. But then a big-time businessman like Andy McKenna knows that, right?


http://mobile.chicagoist.com/2009/12/09/mckenna_to_minimum_wage_workers_tak.php

[#FF0000]

Me to McKenna: eat a dick

[greymatter]

How do you expect him to enslave people if they're not absolutely dependent on his employment? Damn, if you raised the minimum, they'd have to cut funding to publick schools to ensure that the slave pool doesn't get any smaller. If they cut funding to public schools, then people might get so fed up that they end up dumping the public school system altogether and setting up community co-ops where they teach your kid instead of telling them that they're stupid all day every day until they believe it. THEN where would we be? There would be no slaves to go around! We'd have a literate population full of confident people! Can't have that.

[rednordman]

What a cock! Im sorry I could not add anything to the topic. Seriously, is there any other motive other than pure greed to this statement? If it was a small and struggling buisness, I could understand. Ethically, even capitalists must understand that with large buisness paycuts to not go down well at all, and end up making the cooperations look selfish and faceless.

[Havet]

Is the only reason he proposes to cut wages is because of his "feelings"?

[Bud Struggle]

It's a pretty idiotic thing to say, I guess he just doesn't want to get elected.

I wouldn't mind so much if he made his own money--but a guy living off of Daddy's money, that's a bit much even for a cold hearted Capitalist like myself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Is the only reason he proposes to cut wages is because of his "feelings"?

is this all you morons have to offer in the way of defense for the anti-worker politics of the haute bourgeoisie?

[Drace]

Minimum wage too much?
I think they're comparing the minimum wage with the ones in China.

You gotta love the right win argument on this though.

"Minimum wage laws and high taxes on the rich is bad for the middle class because then the companies have no incentive to keep making money and makes companies move their jobs elsewhere."


I wouldn't mind so much if he made his own money--but a guy living off of Daddy's money, that's a bit much even for a cold hearted Capitalist like myself.

And US imperialism including rigging of elections, installing dictatorships, bombing countries, sanctions, supporting extremists and corrupt powers/dictatorships, mass poverty, starvation, inequality, exploitation isn't too much for you?

[Robert]

Minimum wage too much?

You're king for a day. You tell us what the ideal minimum wage in the USA should be, and how you calculate it.

Also, would it be the same for a mom and pop taco stand in rural, south Texas with 3 employees, and a Burger King in Manhattan?

If it's not too much, please assume that we don't want to destroy the economy in the process. (If we wanted to do that, then we would all agree that the minimum wage should be raised to $500/hour.)

[IcarusAngel]

Minimum wage should be like 15 to 20 an hour. Perhaps 25 an hour for large corporations who mostly make all their profits and stick it into a vault.

The only way you can even make 15 an hour without a college degree is at some union job, or a job working for the government in someway.

Capitalists economics is a lot of nonsense. A high minimum wage actually stimulates weak demand, creating more local jobs and strenthening the communities.

[Chambered Word]

Arseholes like McKenna really make me want to cry. :crying:

[Axle]

McKenna can go ahead and tell people to "take a paycut" as soon as he liquidates his fortune and lives on the $15,000 a year he thinks minimum wage workers deserve.

Until then he can get fucked, the worthless prick.

[Havet]

is this all you morons have to offer in the way of defense for the anti-worker politics of the haute bourgeoisie?

Is ad hom all you have to offer?


Minimum wage should be like 15 to 20 an hour. Perhaps 25 an hour for large corporations who mostly make all their profits and stick it into a vault.

I think the minimum wage should be forced to be $100/hour. Maybe even $1000/hour.

[Robert]

Several things fascinate me about minimum wage discussions, especially on this forum.

The first is that those who want it "higher" engage in no calculation, normative, mathematical, or economic, that I can discern. There is no test, no criterion. The minimum should simply be "higher," for everybody, no matter what they do, nor how many hours they work, their age, their seniority, or their skill level. This is as mindless as the conservative mantra (on the other end of the spectrum) that income taxes should be "cut." Conservatives don't say what the average income tax rate needs to be to keep roads paved, schools heated in winter, and policemen paid. They just want taxes "cut" because they are "too high."

The second thing is the failure to recognize that the existing national average wage (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html), was slightly over $20/hour in 2008. That's almost triple the minimum and gives the lie to the assumption that the capitalist only pays such wages as the law requires. If the minimum wage were lowered from the current $7.25 to $6.25, I do not see how it would affect the average worker already making $20/hour.

I don't call for a lowering of the minimum (though I wonder how lawmakers came up with $7.25/hour), but it has to be recognized that a balance has to be struck, a wage below which no employee will bother to work, and above which no employer will hire.

[Demogorgon]

The European decency threshold which is what the Council of Europe judges as the correct level for a minimum wage is 60% of average earnings. Obviously that is particularly geared to Europe where things like healthcare are free or highly subsidised so perhaps in America it should be set higher still. But that is how I would define the absolute minimum acceptable.

[Robert]

But that is how I would define the absolute minimum acceptable. Well, 60% of our average wage of $20/hour would be around $12.00/hour, an excellent way to increase unemployment, especially among new workers and students, who still live with their parents, looking for part time work.

Most of those with $20/hour jobs get health care insurance through their employer, though it is admittedly expensive.

Thanks at least for giving a number and something of a justification.

[Demogorgon]

Well, 60% of our average wage of $20/hour would be around $12.00/hour, an excellent way to increase unemployment, especially among new workers and students, who still live with their parents, looking for part time work.

Most of those with $20/hour jobs get health care insurance through their employer, though it is admittedly expensive.

Thanks at least for giving a number and something of a justification.
Do you have any evidence that an increase to that level would cause unemployment? Certainly empirical evidence shows that high minimum wages either through direct laws or Scandinavian style Government enforced Union Deals does not have much effect on employment.

The 60% figure is actually a bit on the low side. Many consider 68% to be the better figure.

[Skooma Addict]

Do you have any evidence that an increase to that level would cause unemployment?


Yes. The laws of Supply and Demand.

http://wiki.dickinson.edu/images/f/fe/Graph1.gif

[Demogorgon]

Ah no, I meant empirical evidence. See when what actually happens is contrary to what the theory holds, it is the theory that needs adjusting, not the reality. The supply and demand models used in an attempt to discredit the minimum wage are simplistic. It seems clear that below a certain point, such laws have little if any effect on employment. I can think of several good reasons why this may be the case, but while you dwell on what those might be, some empirical evidence if you please.

[Skooma Addict]

Ah no, I meant empirical evidence. See when what actually happens is contrary to what the theory holds, it is the theory that needs adjusting, not the reality. The supply and demand models used in an attempt to discredit the minimum wage are simplistic. It seems clear that below a certain point, such laws have little if any effect on employment. I can think of several good reasons why this may be the case, but while you dwell on what those might be, some empirical evidence if you please.
When what appears to actually happen empirically runs contrary to a law so basic as supply/demand, then you usually aren't taking all the variables into account. Employment can go up with an increase in the minimum wage. Nobody denies this. Nothing in reality contradicts the law of supply/demand. It is true that all other things being equal, a rise in the minimum wage will cause unemployment. There is also plenty of empirical evidence to support the claim that the minimum wage causes unemployment. One could argue that the old elevator man (Idk what the job is officially called) and the guy who pumped your gas were driven out of the market due to increases in the minimum wage.

The logic is simple, and if you think that the minimum wage won't cause unemployment, then why not have a 1000 dollar per hour minimum wage? You are correct that below a certain point that the minimum wage will have no effect on employment. For example, a 1 cent per week minimum wage will have no effect whatsoever. Only when a minimum wage becomes meaningless will it have no effect on employment.

So we should abolish the minimum wage.

[Demogorgon]

When what appears to actually happen empirically runs contrary to a law so basic as supply/demand, then you usually aren't taking all the variables into account. Employment can go up with an increase in the minimum wage. Nobody denies this. Nothing in reality contradicts the law of supply/demand. It is true that all other things being equal, a rise in the minimum wage will cause unemployment. There is also plenty of empirical evidence to support the claim that the minimum wage causes unemployment. One could argue that the old elevator man (Idk what the job is officially called) and the guy who pumped your gas were driven out of the market due to increases in the minimum wage.

Ah no, I said it contradicted your theory, not the theory of supply and demand in general. Supply and Demand is a fantastic tool, but as with all tools you have to use it properly to come up with the right theories. The first thing to bare in mind is that at minimum wage level both supply and demand is very inelastic hence there is going to be little effect even notwithstanding any other changes in the market.

Next of course is that fact that demand and supply are not static. Make a change in the market and behaviour will change. Better paid workers will buy more for instance perhaps allowing for employers to take on more and will of course provide more taxes allowing the Government to increase spending or decrease taxes/debt, something else which typically benefits employment.

Those are just two examples there, it is certainly possible to come up with more. The worst case scenario is a very slight decrease in employment and that isn't even likely. And given the benefits that come with a minimum wage, it is safe to say they outweigh that one potential disadvantage.

[Skooma Addict]

Ah no, I said it contradicted your theory, not the theory of supply and demand in general. Supply and Demand is a fantastic tool, but as with all tools you have to use it properly to come up with the right theories. The first thing to bare in mind is that at minimum wage level both supply and demand is very inelastic hence there is going to be little effect even notwithstanding any other changes in the market.

The minimum wage is a price floor. If your marginal value productivity is below this price floor, then employers will lose money by hiring you and paying you the minimum wage. I know that you know why a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage will cause unemployment. The exact same reason applies for a 10 dollar or a 5 dollar per hour minimum wage.


Next of course is that fact that demand and supply are not static. Make a change in the market and behaviour will change. Better paid workers will buy more for instance perhaps allowing for employers to take on more and will of course provide more taxes allowing the Government to increase spending or decrease taxes/debt, something else which typically benefits employment.

Governemnt spending does help employment, but the government does not operate under the profit/loss system like a private enterprise does. So these workers could be better used by private companies who stand to lose something if they employ workers inefficiently. But anyways, you are assuming that better payed workers will provide more in taxes than more workers who are payed slightly less. Although with capital accumulation (which would be sped up with the abolition of the minimum wage) the real wages of everyone will rise. So really there is no reason for there to be a minimum wage.

By the way, I remember reading a while back how Walmart at one point in time lobbied for an increase in the minimum wage. Coincidentally, Walmart already payed their workers above the minimum wage. The only reason they wanted to increase the minimum wage was so that their competitors who payed workers the minimum wage would suffer a loss.

[Demogorgon]

The minimum wage is a price floor. If your marginal value productivity is below this price floor, then employers will lose money by hiring you and paying you the minimum wage. I know that you know why a 100 dollar per hour minimum wage will cause unemployment. The exact same reason applies for a 10 dollar or a 5 dollar per hour minimum wage.

No it doesn't and I just explained the reason. It comes down to the elasticity of the demand and supply of labour. At low levels it is very inelastic but the elasticity increases the further up the wage scale you go. So at the kind of level we are talking about the effect is negligible and offset by the other advantages I gave you.

Although with capital accumulation (which would be sped up with the abolition of the minimum wage) the real wages of everyone will rise. So really there is no reason for there to be a minimum wage.

Now this is just rubbish. We have been seeing a decline in median real wages over time and a pretty nasty drop indeed amongst the lowest paid. In other words the exact opposite of what you claim is happening. Hence we do need a minimum wage.

[Skooma Addict]

No it doesn't and I just explained the reason. It comes down to the elasticity of the demand and supply of labour. At low levels it is very inelastic but the elasticity increases the further up the wage scale you go. So at the kind of level we are talking about the effect is negligible and offset by the other advantages I gave you.That is certainly not an economic law. There is nothing about low wage labor that makes it very inelastic. Its elasticity will change over time. If anything, it seems like you have it backwards. Why should low wage labor be inelastic when you can just pick up a day laborer off the streets? But as I said, wages are determined by MVP, and if your MVP is below the minimum wage, you will be unemployed. The higher the minimum wage, the more unemployed people there will be.



Now this is just rubbish. We have been seeing a decline in median real wages over time and a pretty nasty drop indeed amongst the lowest paid. In other words the exact opposite of what you claim is happening. Hence we do need a minimum wage.I can see why you would think this given your beliefs about the minimum wage. But the abolition of the minimum wage will result in higher capital accumulation and consequently higher living standards. This would be the result of a larger workforce.

[Demogorgon]

That is certainly not an economic law. There is nothing about low wage labor that makes it very inelastic. Its elasticity will change over time. If anything, it seems like you have it backwards. Why should low wage labor be inelastic when you can just pick up a day laborer off the streets? But as I said, wages are determined by MVP, and if your MVP is below the minimum wage, you will be unemployed. The higher the minimum wage, the more unemployed people there will be.
The notion of wages being the marginal contribution of the last worker is where marginalism goes wrong indeed. Quite apart from the fact that it is a sloppy attempt to dodge a charge of exploitation it does not reflect the way wages are actually determined. Anyway Those who can only get minimum wage jobs will take whatever they can get as a rule. Below a certain point they may not bother and just resort to benefits because there is no rational reason to work but other than that, they need a job and are in no position to bargain fairly, unlike higher paid people normally are. So the supply of labour is pretty constant with little elasticity.

Similarly the demand for it is based on the fact that people are required for certain jobs, either you higher them or the job does not get done. For instance either you have cleaners or your office gets dirty, you have checkout operators or your customers can't buy their goods and so forth. If the minimum wage was set to some wild level then employers might decide they would rather just shut up business than hire people but we are not talking about that kind of increase, are we? So as it stands, there will be very little change in employment.

And of course any slight decrease will be compensated for by the growth a well paid workforce normally brings.


I can see why you would think this given your beliefs about the minimum wage. But the abolition of the minimum wage will result in higher capital accumulation and consequently higher living standards. This would be the result of a larger workforce.
Once again empirical evidence shows the exact opposite. I am not speaking theoretically here. There has been a decline over the last three decades and it has in part been caused by deregulation of the labour market. And you want me to believe that going further still will reverse this?!

[Skooma Addict]

The notion of wages being the marginal contribution of the last worker is where marginalism goes wrong indeed. Quite apart from the fact that it is a sloppy attempt to dodge a charge of exploitation it does not reflect the way wages are actually determined. Anyway Those who can only get minimum wage jobs will take whatever they can get as a rule. Below a certain point they may not bother and just resort to benefits because there is no rational reason to work but other than that, they need a job and are in no position to bargain fairly, unlike higher paid people normally are. So the supply of labour is pretty constant with little elasticity.

Similarly the demand for it is based on the fact that people are required for certain jobs, either you higher them or the job does not get done. For instance either you have cleaners or your office gets dirty, you have checkout operators or your customers can't buy their goods and so forth. If the minimum wage was set to some wild level then employers might decide they would rather just shut up business than hire people but we are not talking about that kind of increase, are we? So as it stands, there will be very little change in employment.

And of course any slight decrease will be compensated for by the growth a well paid workforce normally brings.I disagree with you when you say that low wage labor is more inelastic. True, it depends on willingness to work, but I think that people who earn low wages are usually more desperate for work. I think that welfare may have an effect on elasticity though. Regardless, I do not see any benefits that would result from a minimum wage, so even the little employment that you admit would occur would be enough for me to oppose the minimum wage. There are currently many, many, many jobs that would exist if it were not for the minimum wage. Again, Walmart lobbied for an increase in the minimum wage for a reason....and it wasn't because they are good hearted people.

So if we abolished the minimum wage, do you think unemployment would go down? What do you think causes unemployment?


Once again empirical evidence shows the exact opposite. I am not speaking theoretically here. There has been a decline over the last three decades and it has in part been caused by deregulation of the labour market. And you want me to believe that going further still will reverse this?!I don't think that the decline in living standards has been caused by supposed deregulation. But anyways, I thought the minimum wage went up over the last three decades?

Edit: I have said everything I want to say, so I will let you have the last word.

[Havet]

We'll have that under socialism.

How?

[IcarusAngel]

The benefit of the minimum wage for workers is two fold. On one hand, it strengthens communities as shown by the empirical evidence. This allows workers to be stronger so they can start their own businesses and maybe workers will be more inclined to live together etc. like they do in Europe.

On the other hand, the failure of even a high minimum wage to provide for all of the needs of the workers shows the failures of capitalism.

So strengthening workers' rights, such as minimum wage, shows the pitfalls of the system and actually weakens it.

This is why "right" Libertarians like hayenmill are so opposed to modern logic and mainstream economics.

[Demogorgon]

There are currently many, many, many jobs that would exist if it were not for the minimum wage.
Seeing as you don't wish to continue this further, I will leave most of your post unanswered, but I will say here that there are many countries without minimum wage laws and not one of them has the "many, many jobs" that you describe.

Again the real world interferes with those lovely theories.

[IcarusAngel]

Ah no, I meant empirical evidence. See when what actually happens is contrary to what the theory holds, it is the theory that needs adjusting, not the reality. The supply and demand models used in an attempt to discredit the minimum wage are simplistic. It seems clear that below a certain point, such laws have little if any effect on employment. I can think of several good reasons why this may be the case, but while you dwell on what those might be, some empirical evidence if you please.

It's interesting on one hand Austrians reject science and claim that the empirical evidence is lacking some 'hidden variable' when it contradicts flawed Austrian axioms and theorms, whereas in real science a theory most hold for all cases and any scientist who finds evidence that theory is incorrect will thus modify the theory, and then on the other hand they reject the mathematical evidence and base cases that contradict their own supposed 'empirical evidence.'

[Skooma Addict]

The benefit of the minimum wage for workers is two fold. On one hand, it strengthens communities as shown by the empirical evidence. This allows workers to be stronger so they can start their own businesses and maybe workers will be more inclined to live together etc. like they do in Europe.

That makes no sense whatsoever.



This is why "right" Libertarians like hayenmill are so opposed to modern logic and mainstream economics.

You have no coherent definition of a right libertarian, nor do you know anything about mainstream economics. I don't think you have any idea what your saying when you claim that a person is opposed to modern logic.


It's interesting on one hand Austrians reject science and claim that the empirical evidence is lacking some 'hidden variable' when it contradicts flawed Austrian axioms and theorms, whereas in real science a theory most hold for all cases and any scientist who finds evidence that theory is incorrect will thus modify the theory, and then on the other hand they reject the mathematical evidence and base cases that contradict their own supposed 'empirical evidence.'

Your beloved mainstream economists also believe that the minimum wage causes unemployment.

[Havet]

There will be no capitalists to be pulling the strings to pocket the profits and thus the money will be distributed among the workers only.

How can a street cleaner produce enough to be worth $1000/hour, for example?

[Havet]

Why not?

Where does the money to pay him come from?

[Bud Struggle]

Where does the money to pay him come from?

The Bourgeoise, of course. :cool:

But then again if the street sweeper pwns his own broom--he owns the means of production and then he become the Bourgeois. Will we EVER rid ourselves of these damn Capitalists? :D

We have to realize that the only place the "means of production" actually exists is in the Capitalists head. Factories aren't the means on production. You can go into the rust belt and find a thousand "factories" all boarded up producing nothing. Anyone can take them over for a song--and produce what? Nothing. Because the "business" is in the head of the business owner. He can move the production anywhere he wants--and can do whatever he wants with the production.

The factories, the tools, the machines in the long run mean nothing. What makes money, what produces wealth is the business owner--and his idea.

[Havet]

The same place from where its coming from now: through consumer spending, trade etc.

Do you think a consumer is willing to pay $1000/hour to have the streets cleaned?

[IcarusAngel]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. By showing that capitalism cannot adequately provide people's needs you are showing what a flawed system it is.

If capitalism cannot provide provide people's needs even when the government is to a great degree providing support to the workers, as the state has tried to do in many 'state capitalist' societies, you show that it is inevitably flawed.


You have no coherent definition of a right libertarian, nor do you know anything about mainstream economics. I don't think you have any idea what your saying when you claim that a person is opposed to modern logic.

And what is it you have your degree in? You've claimed to be a philosopher, and an economist, but you've shown no evidence you've even passed college.

I've seen Austrian mathematical ability; most Austrians couldn't pass a pre-algebra course.



Your beloved mainstream economists also believe that the minimum wage causes unemployment.


This is just false. Many of them not only support a minimum wage but believe it INCREASES employment.

[Skooma Addict]

And what is it you have your degree in? You've claimed to be a philosopher, and an economist, but you've shown no evidence you've even passed college.

I've seen Austrian mathematical ability; most Austrians couldn't pass a pre-algebra course.


I don't know where I claimed to be a philosopher. Philosophy is an interesting subject, so I like reading about it. Same goes for economics. Your correct though, I have not passed college. I am currently in college. I have also passed pre-algebra.


This is just false. Many of them not only support a minimum wage but believe it INCREASES employment.

The minimum wage increases employment? I don't know how confused a person has to be to think that. But no, neoclassicals (the dominant school and hence mainstream) believe that the minimum wage causes unemployment.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't know where I claimed to be a philosopher. Philosophy is an interesting subject, so I like reading about it. Same goes for economics. Your correct though, I have not passed college. I am currently in college. I have also passed pre-algebra.

So you're lecturing people on knowledge after you've made innumerable idiotic statements on this forum (like claiming humans always know what's best for themselves) that have had to be corrected and also do not even have upper-division courses to back yourself up on anything.

I get my economics from the EPI, and the Center for Economic and Policy research, both of which are mainstream economic organizations and far more credible than "Mises forums."

Also from the wiki article:



The argument that minimum wages decrease employment is based on a standard supply and demand model of the labor market. A number of economists (for example Pierangelo Garegnani[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-13), Robert L. Vienneau[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-14), and Arrigo Opocher & Ian Steedman[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-15)), building on the work of Piero Sraffa (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Piero_Sraffa), argue that that model, even given all its assumptions, is logically incoherent. Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley [17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-16) argue, based on simulation results, that little of the empirical work done with the textbook model constitutes a potentially falsifying test, and, consequently, empirical evidence hardly exists for that model. Graham White [18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-17) argues, partially on the basis of Sraffianism, that the policy of increased labor market flexibility, including the reduction of minimum wages, does not have an "intellectually coherent" argument in economic theory.
Gary Fields, Professor of Labor Economics and Economics at Cornell University (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cornell_University), argues that the standard "textbook model" for the minimum wage is "ambiguous", and that the standard theoretical arguments incorrectly measure only a one-sector market. Fields says a two-sector market, where "the self-employed, service workers, and farm workers are typically excluded from minimum-wage coverage… [and with] one sector with minimum-wage coverage and the other without it [and possible mobility between the two]," is the basis for better analysis. Through this model, Fields shows the typical theoretical argument to be ambiguous and says "the predictions derived from the textbook model definitely do not carry over to the two-sector case. Therefore, since a non-covered sector exists nearly everywhere, the predictions of the textbook model simply cannot be relied on."[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-18)
An alternate view of the labor market has low-wage labor markets characterized as monopsonistic competition (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Monopsonistic_competition) wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more market power (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Market_power) than do sellers (workers). This monopsony could be a result of intentional collusion between employers, or naturalistic factors such as segmented markets, information costs, imperfect mobility and the 'personal' element of labor markets. In such a case the diagram above would not yield the quantity of labor clearing and the wage rate. This is because while the upward sloping aggregate labor supply would remain unchanged, instead of using the downward labor demand curve shown in the diagram above, monopsonistic employers would use a steeper downward sloping curve corresponding to marginal expenditures to yield the intersection with the supply curve resulting in a wage rate lower than would be the case under competition. Also, the amount of labor sold would also be lower than the competitive optimal allocation.
Such a case is a type of market failure (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Market_failure) and results in workers being paid less than their marginal value. Under the monopsonistic assumption, an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both wages (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Wages) and employment (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Employment), with the optimal level being equal to the marginal productivity (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marginal_productivity) of labor.[20] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Manning2003-19) This view emphasizes the role of minimum wages as a market regulation (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Regulated_market) policy akin to antitrust (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Antitrust) policies, as opposed to an illusory "free lunch (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Free_lunch)" for low-wage workers.

Another reason minimum wage may not affect employment in certain industries is that the demand for the product the employees produce is highly inelastic;[21] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-20) For example, if management is forced to increase wages, management can pass on the increase in wage to consumers in the form of higher prices. Since demand for the product is highly inelastic, consumers continue to buy the product at the higher price and so the manager is not forced to lay off workers.

Three other possible reasons minimum wages do not affect employment were suggested by Alan Blinder (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Alan_Blinder): higher wages may reduce turnover, and hence training costs; raising the minimum wage may "render moot" the potential problem of recruiting workers at a higher wage than current workers; and minimum wage workers might represent such a small proportion of a business's cost that the increase is too small to matter. He admits that he does not know if these are correct, but argues that "the list demonstrates that one can accept the new empirical findings and still be a card-carrying economist


Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, but others consistently confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects.


Clearly numerous economists, all smarter than Ludwig von Mises (aren't we all?), have challenged the conventional viewpoint with empirical evidence and data.

Furthermore, those that agree minimum wage causes unemployment among the low skills see other benefits from the minimum wage.

[Havet]

Since when did consumers pay by the hour? Even today, consumers pay $250 for a Nike shoe that was produced for less than $5 in some sweatshop in Indonesia. Now, we have the incoming money from consumers and trade going into the hands of the bourgeoisie who will pocket most of it since they own the means of production, but that will be over soon.

Try thinking about this: how do the bourgeoisie make their wealth? Does it come out of their asses?

You ignored both questions completely:

- How is a street cleaner worth $1000/hour?
- Who would pay such amount given cheaper alternatives?

[Skooma Addict]

So you're lecturing people on knowledge after you've made innumerable idiotic statements on this forum (like claiming humans always know what's best for themselves)Strawman.


I get my economics from the EPI, and the Center for Economic and Policy research, both of which are mainstream economic organizations and far more credible than "Mises forums."Obviously the EPI is more credible than the Mises forums.


Clearly numerous economists, all smarter than Ludwig von Mises (aren't we all?), have challenged the conventional viewpoint with empirical evidence and data.
Neoclassical theory holds that the minimum wage increases unemployment. Most economists are neoclassicals. Most neoclassical economists believe that the minimum wage increases unemployment. I can find an article from an institution just as credible saying that the minimum wage increases unemployment. Also notice how the economists (at least the ones I recognized) in your article were not neoclassicals.

I don't know how you could say that these people were smarter than Mises since you haven't read anything substantial by Mises or any of the economists mentioned in the article.

[IcarusAngel]

Several things fascinate me about minimum wage discussions, especially on this forum.

The first is that those who want it "higher" engage in no calculation, normative, mathematical, or economic, that I can discern.


It's actually the other way around. Clearly the people who believe the minimum wage increases employment and provides a better lifestyle are using the more complicated (and thus, likely correct) analyzations.

Most people who believe in "Austrian economics" use words and "axioms" to prove their case, or vague diagrams.

Rothbard for example was known for making mathematical errors a two year old could avoid.

[greymatter]

All we need to accomplish this goal of a 1000 dollar minimum wage is.... YOU GUESSED IT!

HYPERINFLATION

...soon coming to a wal-mart near you

[FSL]

How high is labor productivity in the US?

I 'm using 2008 as a year of calculation. All data used is retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ANHRS.

Labour force:154.3 million

Unemployment rate: 5.8%

Active workers are therefore: roughly 145,3 million

Annual average work hours: 1792

Work hours in total are 260377,5 million or
260.38 billion

GDP in billions of dollars was for 2008: 14440 billion dollars

Labour Productivity is GDP/work hours = 55.5 dollars.


Sooooo, the average worker is producing 55.5 dollars with every hour he devotes to working, is payed roughly 20 dollars on average and earns in many cases a minimum wage of 7.25 or a bit more dollars.
Can the worms who think that that is enough crawl back into their holes then?

(By the way, if you increase minimum wage you're also increasing demand for goods, too many variables might cause your head to explode though right?)

[Robert]

if you increase minimum wage you're also increasing demand for goodsIncrease it to what?


Labour Productivity is GDP/work hours = 55.5 dollars.I guess the answer to question #1 is:

$55.5/hour. There can be no justification for it being less than that. And he will no doubt keep his job at that rate. Indeed, consumption too will increase if we raised it to that level. And since jobs pay more, it will give individuals an incentive to work.

Looks like a win-win situation for everyone but the capitalist, though presumably he too can become a worker and earn 55.5/hour.

Everybody happy?

[Havet]

I ask you why is he not? Who are you to decide how much a street cleaner is worth?

It's not me who decides. Its unrestricted supply and demand, which we don't completely have yet.


Firstly there would be no "cheaper" alternatives to treating workers fairly and not treating them as shit. Yes, we'd use force (BOO... be scared) to enforce our socialist laws to ensure that this minimum wage is followed strictly. Let me make it clear that I'm not talking about some hippy anarchist communes here. The people who'd pay would be the workers' state. Sure, anarchist hippies may complain about "centralization" and "authoritarianism", but fuck them.

So how is your system better than the current one if it still deprives workers the full product of their labor and creates an upper class (the state) and a lower class (the workers)?

[IcarusAngel]

Increase it to what?

I guess the answer to question #1 is:

$55.5/hour. There can be no justification for it being less than that. And he will no doubt keep his job at that rate. Indeed, consumption too will increase if we raised it to that level. And since jobs pay more, it will give individuals an incentive to work.

Looks like a win-win situation for everyone but the capitalist, though presumably he too can become a worker and earn 55.5/hour.

Everybody happy?


I noticed you ignored the economists who provided a very reasonable explanation of why the minimum wage is needed - the economists who use "math, statistics" and other stuff you claim to favor.



By the way, perhaps Olaf can explain how market Libertarianism is actually "left-wing" (according to the wiki definition) since I can't ever get a straight answer out of hayenmill.

[IcarusAngel]

It's actually an insult to liberals to associate hayenmill with them.

He believes 'unrestricted supply and demand' (i.e. laissez-faire capitalism), which has proven itself to create an extreme rich and an extreme poor, somehow provides high wages. This is refuted by liberal economists.

There were numerous other problems with Gilded Age economists, the same type of problems we have today due to deregulation.

This isn't surprising since most people at the Libertarian Left website, a viscious, anti-worker, pro-ignorance website of Austrians, believe.

[Skooma Addict]

By the way, perhaps Olaf can explain how market Libertarianism is actually "left-wing" (according to the wiki definition) since I can't ever get a straight answer out of hayenmill.In my opinion at least, there is nothing left-wing about market anarchism. It isn't right wing either though. You can be a market anarchist and hold values typically associated with the left or the right.

That is if we are using my definitions that is. I try to stay away from the whole left/right thing though.

[Havet]

??? How is giving workers the full product of their labor equal to depriving of the same? You must be living on some other planet if you think this is what I said.

Increasing the minimum wage through a State means that you must get the money out of somewhere. Usually by tax. Tax is forceful, so you are depriving the taxpayer from the full product of his labor, because if he wished to stop paying taxes tomorrow you would use force to make him pay his taxes.


No no, silly liberal. The state is just a tool to be used by either class. Right now its acts for the upper classes, but a workers' state is exactly that: a state that acts for the workers.

Why do you think you need a State?

[Robert]

I noticed you ignored the economists who provided a very reasonable explanation of why the minimum wage is needed - the economists who use "math, statistics" and other stuff you claim to favor.WTF? I am not opposed to a minimum wage in principle. I just get annoyed with what appears to me as the arbitrary nature of its specific level and its failure to admit of useful exceptions. For example, I was a graveyard shift radio dispatcher for a public utility once. No one will ever convince me that that job deserved a wage sufficient to raise a family on, and certainly not "60% of the average wage," as Demo and his European Economic Justice Ministers claim is the absolute minimum apropriate wage, and which wage today would be about $12/hour.

Now I am annoyed that you all are giving FSL a big "attaboy" for pointing out that labor productivity is (I'm stipulating this for argument's sake -- I don't believe it) >$50/hour, but you (the reasonable ones, anyway) are calling for a minimum wage of less than $20/hour. Why shouldn't the average wage be $50/hour, and the minimum 60% of that, or $30/hour?

I suppose FSL, if he is still with us, believes the average wage is too low, also. Maybe it is.

And I despair of anyone (except for Luther, who apparently is ready to bring the system to a full stop right now) ever addressing Hayenmill and Olaf's ironic call for a $100/hour minimum.

[IcarusAngel]

What I am concerned about is what's best for the workers. I don't believe in this free-market nonsense and the businesses that succeed in a market are to some degree arbitrary, due to people's attitudes in the past, government sponsorship, and even democracy, these things all play a role in what is 'marketable.' Probably there is a point where the wage is too high, without extreme government intervention. We were discussing whether a minimum wage was needed at all, though, and so FSL's reasoning makes sense in that light.


By the way, wasn't hayenmill a few weeks ago arguing against health care for Americans because he claimed that 'social welfare' systems make society 'too good' and make it less likely there will be a revolution.

Well, if he thinks that the minimum wage makes society worse off, shouldn't he be arguing for it, in order to 'speed up the revolution.'

Or is that too consistent and logical for him?

I've never seen such intellectual dishonesty and absolute contempt for the American worker, even on right-wing forums.

[Skooma Addict]

Labour Productivity is GDP/work hours

False.

[Robert]

Probably there is a point where the wage is too high, without extreme government intervention.Great. Now we're gettin' somewhere.

But seriously, too high for what? I'm guessing you mean that it's net effect would "probably be" unemployment, which is true, and which is bad for workers. Also true. Everybody agrees with that.


By the way, wasn't hayenmill a few weeks ago arguing against health care for Americans because he claimed that 'social welfare' systems make society 'too good' and make it less likely there will be a revolution.

I know that I and one other active member both alleged that enactment of HR 3962 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html), which was the only thing to debate at the time, would be a reform tending to give the workers one more reason not to revolt. I still believe that.

Everybody wants everybody's standard of living, including access to health care, to increase. The question is: how do you get from here to there with wrecking the economy and jobs along with it, and/or increasing state power to intolerable levels?

We restrict-ees all believe that those are bad things and that both will result from revolution.

[turquino]

Now I am annoyed that you all are giving FSL a big "attaboy" for pointing out that labor productivity is (I'm stipulating this for argument's sake -- I don't believe it) >$50/hour, but you (the reasonable ones, anyway) are calling for a minimum wage of less than $20/hour. Why shouldn't the average wage be $50/hour, and the minimum 60% of that, or $30/hour?

Because then the maximum rate of profit would be 0 and the productive capitalists would be better off hoarding than they would be engaging in reproduction. But even in a socialist economy it would be undesirable for workers to consume everything they collectively produce. A surplus needs to be set aside to expand production or for new technology.

The purpose of raising the general wage level is to increase the purchasing power of the workers while decreasing the purchasing power of the bourgeoisie. Industries that produce goods consumed by the working class grow while those that produce luxuries shrink. In this way a worker spends more of the working day producing to meet the needs of her fellow worker.

[Green Dragon]

But even in a socialist economy it would be undesirable for workers to consume everything they collectively produce. A surplus needs to be set aside to expand production or for new technology.

At this point, you are arguing that it makes rational sense, in a socialist community, to gear its production to turning a profit (a surplus)
OK.



The purpose of raising the general wage level is to increase the purchasing power of the workers


But then again, this can very much clash with the objective and need for the socialist community to produce for a suplus (a profit).


while decreasing the purchasing power of the bourgeoisie.

But why does the community benefit when the socialist community produces profit (a surplus), but not the community when the "bourgeoise" does?



Industries that produce goods consumed by the working class grow while those that produce luxuries shrink.

Perhaps. But why are not workers in a socialist community interested in "luxuries?"



In this way a worker spends more of the working day producing to meet the needs of her fellow worker.


But since you have already said it is entirely rational and reasonable for a socialist community to produce for a surplus (a profit), it is not clear why a capitalist community doing the same is villainous.

[Drace]

False.

Might want to say why.

It seems rather accurate to me. The workers have themselves created all the wealth and revenue. The labor productivity should then accurately be reflected by the total amount of revenue divided by the total number of hours.

Nike for example has an income of 1.8 billion and it has 30,000 workers.

1.8 billion/30,000 = 60,000

If we take it that the average hours of the workers are 1792, though there probably more since Nike is known for its sweatshop use where hours may go as high as 16 a day.

60,000/1792 = $33/hr.

How much are most of the sweat shops workers being paid? Well, $0.50 would be a modest average.

[Skooma Addict]

Nike for example has an income of 1.8 billion and it has 30,000 workers.

1.8 billion/30,000 = 60,000

If we take it that the average hours of the workers are 1792, though there probably more since Nike is known for its sweatshop use where hours may go as high as 16 a day.

60,000/1792 = $33/hr.

How much are most of the sweat shops workers being paid? Well, $0.50 would be a modest average.


Before I even answer this, are the 30,000 workers all working in sweatshops?

By the way, anyone interested should read these two extremely short articles

http://cafehayek.com/2006/06/ideology_and_th.html

http://cafehayek.com/2006/06/testing_the_log.html

From one of the articles....

"The market prices of most used-cars are too low for sellers of those cars to support their families. This fact is especially true for poor people, who, when they sell their old cars, almost always have only old, high-mileage, often dilapidated used-cars to sell. These people aren’t selling two-year-old Lexuses or BMWs. They’re selling 15-year-old Chevys and 20-year-old Hondas. So let’s enact legislation mandating that no used-car can sell for less than, say, $25,000. That way, anyone who sells a used-car is assured that he or she will earn at least enough money to support a family for a year.

I doubt that many people would argue that government should legislate a minimum price for used-cars. But why not? If merely identifying a problem with a low price (such as "At the current minimum wage, even full-time workers can’t support a family of four") is sufficient to justify legislative action to raise that price, why won’t such action work for used-cars as well as it will work for labor hours?"

[Drace]

"The market prices of most used-cars are too low for sellers of those cars to support their families. This fact is especially true for poor people, who, when they sell their old cars, almost always have only old, high-mileage, often dilapidated used-cars to sell. These people aren’t selling two-year-old Lexuses or BMWs. They’re selling 15-year-old Chevys and 20-year-old Hondas. So let’s enact legislation mandating that no used-car can sell for less than, say, $25,000. That way, anyone who sells a used-car is assured that he or she will earn at least enough money to support a family for a year.

I doubt that many people would argue that government should legislate a minimum price for used-cars. But why not? If merely identifying a problem with a low price (such as "At the current minimum wage, even full-time workers can’t support a family of four") is sufficient to justify legislative action to raise that price, why won’t such action work for used-cars as well as it will work for labor hours?"Using an analogy is fallacious. The comparison made in analogies tend to remove many fundamental factors and only keep those which favor the argument.

For example. An argument against communism is that "If everyone in a class was going to get the same average grade, then no one would have incentive to work and so everyone would get an F. So similarly, everyone in communism will be poor".
But of course, an analogy is only used because the same conclusion cant be reached so easily when applying the same principle in the real world.

When you take the actual world and its complex structures including human nature, workers, motivation, capital, capitalists, factories, wage, profit, and everything else that affects such a situation and remove everything but one or two things then your analogy becomes fallacious.
I can take that same principle of cooperation in society being bad because of motive and apply it to another situation where it favors communism. For example, a soccer game is like communism because everyone in the team works for the common goal and works their hardest to achieve it!

The use of an analogy is therefore only to create a new situation which favors your side. It is fallacious and not useful at all in an argument. There is no need to establish a comparison and discuss the principle your arguing on the new situation you created.

Therefore, that argument was completely pointless in demonstrating anything useful or about any truth to life.
To humor you,
There should be a minimum wage, because a minimum age for drinking alcohol is good. And that's exactly what you did. Create a situation that favors your argument and make it as similar to the concept of minimum age so people think that if one thing applies to one thing, then it must also be true about the other.

Its like comparing apples and oranges...where you take an apple and try to disguise it by painting it orange. :laugh:

[anticap]

You're king for a day. You tell us what the ideal minimum wage in the USA should be, and how you calculate it.

Since capitalist profit comes from paying workers less than the value of what they produce, any minimum wage under capitalism is necessarily less than ideal.


Also, would it be the same for a mom and pop taco stand in rural, south Texas with 3 employees, and a Burger King in Manhattan?

Yes: 100% of the value of what is produced.


If it's not too much, please assume that we don't want to destroy the economy in the process.

It is too much to ask; I do want to see the capitalist economy destroyed. If I wanted to sustain it, I'd advocate luxury-item production (to solve the riddle of who buys the stuff) at sweatshop wages as the best means to achieve capitalist ends (namely: enriching capitalists at the expense of workers).


(If we wanted to do that, then we would all agree that the minimum wage should be raised to $500/hour.)

No, nothing so arbitrary. Just 100% of the value of what is produced. That will suffice to cut the capitalist out of the equation and destroy the capitalist economy.


... the existing national average wage (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html), was slightly over $20/hour in 2008.

Whatever the average is in a given nation will be predicated on how deftly its ruling class maneuvers internationally. That's how the global product is distributed among nations. US-Americans aren't paid a higher share because they're superior to workers born on some other patch of earth.

The global average is only a few USD/hr.

Incidentally, when procaps claim that communists advocate "poverty for all," they implicitly claim that they and their countrymen are superior and are therefore entitled to a disproportionate slice of the global pie. In fact what communists advocate is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If we assume for the sake of discussion that the global product would remain the same (it wouldn't, since much of what is produced under capitalism is frivolous and wasteful), then it is true that most workers in privileged nations would see a reduced standard of living; but to argue against this is to claim superiority and/or greater contribution. The former is nonsense; and the latter would not be calculated in a communist society. The real change would occur at the extremes, the upper end being the one procaps bewail (no millionaires, since nobody needs to be one). The lower is the more substantive one, however (no poverty, since everybody has basic needs); this is the one procaps never raise, because they're not concerned with such things.

[turquino]

At this point, you are arguing that it makes rational sense, in a socialist community, to gear its production to turning a profit (a surplus)
OK.
There is nothing wrong with surplus or foregoing present consumption for more in the future. What makes capitalist profit different is that it belongs to the class of non-producers by virtue of their ownership of capital. Socialism abolishes capital, so instead of it going to an exploiting class, the entire surplus belongs to the people to be allocated at their discretion.


But then again, this can very much clash with the objective and need for the socialist community to produce for a suplus (a profit).No because capitalism entails a class of people who labour a part of the day for themselves, and then the rest of the day on behalf of a class that does not. In capitalism a growing surplus goes to its owners and not its creators. On the other hand, socialism entails the abolition of class and equal obligation of all people to work.


Perhaps. But why are not workers in a socialist community interested in "luxuries?" They might be, but why would they sacrifice food or rent for them? Or education or medicine?


But since you have already said it is entirely rational and reasonable for a socialist community to produce for a surplus (a profit), it is not clear why a capitalist community doing the same is villainous.I answered this above: because that profit is created by a class of producers but belongs to a class of non-producers because they own the means of production.The workers have to support their own consumption, the consumption of the capitalists, and the capitalist’s expansion.

[Decommissioner]

The Bourgeoise, of course. :cool:

But then again if the street sweeper pwns his own broom--he owns the means of production and then he become the Bourgeois. Will we EVER rid ourselves of these damn Capitalists? :D

We have to realize that the only place the "means of production" actually exists is in the Capitalists head. Factories aren't the means on production. You can go into the rust belt and find a thousand "factories" all boarded up producing nothing. Anyone can take them over for a song--and produce what? Nothing. Because the "business" is in the head of the business owner. He can move the production anywhere he wants--and can do whatever he wants with the production.

The factories, the tools, the machines in the long run mean nothing. What makes money, what produces wealth is the business owner--and his idea.

Reading this made my eyeballs bleed. I would love to believe you are trolling.

How the hell does the business owner make money by his ideas alone? Are his ideas magic?

Are you implying that business owners are the only ones with ideas, and thus why they are business owners?

To own a business it takes capital, it takes a lot of investment, money your average worker does not have. In this sense, raising the minimum wage does improve community insofar as starting up small business and keeping commerce local. If I made more money at my job, enough to start a business, then so would many other people. We all have ideas, we all have great ideas. In fact, I would say your average businessman, limited by his drive for profit, often has boring and generic ideas.

And yes, I have run a business before (music venue to be exact). Never made personal profit off of it, but that wasn't the goal (being to showcase music that needs to be exposed, and to actually pay bands instead of hoarding profits, being DIY).

The means of production mean everything. My friend works for someone who owns carpet cleaning equipment. His boss has a contract with FedEx and my friend cleans their floors every night for a wage. His boss makes something to the effect of 200 bucks a night doing this. He isn't making bank because he had some genius idea, he is making bank because he could afford the means of production. My friend, the worker, can do his job better than his boss, whom doesn't even work. The notion that the businessman excels because he is intelligent and has "ideas" is a myth, the dividing line between a worker and an owner is not ideas but money, and what it can buy you.

[FSL]

False.


No. It's fine.



At this point, you are arguing that it makes rational sense, in a socialist community, to gear its production to turning a profit (a surplus)
OK.


The argument was you can't consume 100% of your income as you need to set aside something for savings/investments. You weren't even close.



Also, net income can serve to show the average surplus value extracted from each worker, not productivity. Workers are producing besides that, the value of their own wages plus the taxes that go to the government.

[Bud Struggle]

Reading this made my eyeballs bleed. I would love to believe you are trolling. No, not trolling--though the broom being a "means of production" was a bit of a joke.


How the hell does the business owner make money by his ideas alone? Are his ideas magic? I didn't say he made money by his ideas alone--but it's the idea that IS the business. The factory is incidental.


Are you implying that business owners are the only ones with ideas, and thus why they are business owners? No. But I am saying that the business is the idea of the owner of the company. Further he pays people to add to that idea--and then the ideas that the owner pays for become his ideas, too.


To own a business it takes capital, it takes a lot of investment, money your average worker does not have. No, it takes a good idea and lots of work. Once you have those the capital will follow--that's what stockholders are--they provided the capital the person that started the business didn't have himself to make the business work.


In this sense, raising the minimum wage does improve community insofar as starting up small business and keeping commerce local. If I made more money at my job, enough to start a business, then so would many other people. We all have ideas, we all have great ideas. I agree with that.


In fact, I would say your average businessman, limited by his drive for profit, often has boring and generic ideas. Sometimes yes sometimes no. Keeping a business going is a complicated thing, though.


And yes, I have run a business before (music venue to be exact). Never made personal profit off of it, but that wasn't the goal (being to showcase music that needs to be exposed, and to actually pay bands instead of hoarding profits, being DIY). Good for you. Now do all of that and try to make a profit, too and you'll see how difficult it can be.


The means of production mean everything. My friend works for someone who owns carpet cleaning equipment. His boss has a contract with FedEx and my friend cleans their floors every night for a wage. His boss makes something to the effect of 200 bucks a night doing this. He isn't making bank because he had some genius idea, he is making bank because he could afford the means of production. My friend, the worker, can do his job better than his boss, whom doesn't even work. The notion that the businessman excels because he is intelligent and has "ideas" is a myth, the dividing line between a worker and an owner is not ideas but money, and what it can buy you.I disagree here. The owner found a way to get the money he needed to buy the carpet cleaning machine. The then had to sell his services to the buyer, he then had to put everything in place and hire your friend. He has to bill FedEx and take the hit if FedEx doesn't pay the bill--he as to train your friend to do his job and he has to make sure that the job is done right so he keeps his contact. He also has to make enough money to pay your friend.

A lot of things are involved. Your friend just shows up and cleans the carpet.

But my point is that it is not about owning the carpet cleaning equipment--it's about owning the business. The equiptment, like the worker is interchangeable. Having equipment doesn't insure profit, same with having workers. The business-equipment and workers and contracts--is wnat makes money. The worker like the equipment is just part of the equasion.

And yes, workers should get paid fairly for their work.

[Robert]

It is too much to ask; I do want to see the capitalist economy destroyed.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

[Chambered Word]

And yes, workers should get paid fairly for their work.

It's kind of ironic when a capitalist says it.

Also incase you haven't noticed already the workers actually perform the labour. I'm sure we as a society can do pretty well without employers to pay.

[Green Dragon]

The argument was you can't consume 100% of your income as you need to set aside something for savings/investments. You weren't even close.


Yes. Even in a socialist community the workers cannot receive full value for their labor- even by their own socialist standards.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=turquino;1622318]There is nothing wrong with surplus or foregoing present consumption for more in the future. What makes capitalist profit different is that it belongs to the class of non-producers by virtue of their ownership of capital. Socialism abolishes capital, so instead of it going to an exploiting class, the entire surplus belongs to the people to be allocated at their discretion.


Since profit is apportioned at the people's discretion, so must loss. It would reasonable to expect the workers to make decisions that would tend to gain and increase profit, while seeking to minimise and eliminate loss.



No because capitalism entails a class of people who labour a part of the day for themselves, and then the rest of the day on behalf of a class that does not. In capitalism a growing surplus goes to its owners and not its creators. On the other hand, socialism entails the abolition of class and equal obligation of all people to work.


But this says nothing. The system has to function. Equal obligation to work???

[Drace]

Before I even answer this, are the 30,000 workers all working in sweatshops? Of course not, and I took that in mind.
If they are, than the exploitation is even worse, so bad news for you. I calculated that the average labor productivity is $33 an/hr. If all 30,000 workers were in sweatshops, that would mean instead of being paid the $33/hr they deserve, they instead get less than $0.50/hr

[Skooma Addict]

Using an analogy is fallacious. The comparison made in analogies tend to remove many fundamental factors and only keep those which favor the argument.

For example. An argument against communism is that "If everyone in a class was going to get the same average grade, then no one would have incentive to work and so everyone would get an F. So similarly, everyone in communism will be poor".
But of course, an analogy is only used because the same conclusion cant be reached so easily when applying the same principle in the real world.

When you take the actual world and its complex structures including human nature, workers, motivation, capital, capitalists, factories, wage, profit, and everything else that affects such a situation and remove everything but one or two things then your analogy becomes fallacious.
I can take that same principle of cooperation in society being bad because of motive and apply it to another situation where it favors communism. For example, a soccer game is like communism because everyone in the team works for the common goal and works their hardest to achieve it!

The use of an analogy is therefore only to create a new situation which favors your side. It is fallacious and not useful at all in an argument. There is no need to establish a comparison and discuss the principle your arguing on the new situation you created.

Therefore, that argument was completely pointless in demonstrating anything useful or about any truth to life.
To humor you,
There should be a minimum wage, because a minimum age for drinking alcohol is good. And that's exactly what you did. Create a situation that favors your argument and make it as similar to the concept of minimum age so people think that if one thing applies to one thing, then it must also be true about the other.

There are good analogies and there are bad analogies. The analogy I provided makes sense. If you think otherwise, specifically point out where it goes wrong.


Of course not, and I took that in mind.
If they are, than the exploitation is even worse, so bad news for you. I calculated that the average labor productivity is $33 an/hr. If all 30,000 workers were in sweatshops, that would mean instead of being paid the $33/hr they deserve, they instead get less than $0.50/hr

Ok, so then I don't know what your trying to prove. Also, are the 30,000 workers all working for a wage? Are salesmen, managers, engineers ect. all included in this number?

[Drace]

@Olaf

There are good analogies and there are bad analogies. The analogy I provided makes sense. If you think otherwise, specifically point out where it goes wrong.I pointed out to as why analogies have no place in an argument. If your going to say otherwise, you some fuckin reason, logic and evidence instead of a one liner. I haven't seen you make an argument yet that hasn't been more than just a statement.

Why are you trying to use an analogy unless you can prove the same point in the initial argument?
You prove to me why that analogy is exactly like minimum wage. Or better yet, discard it and argue for realz.


Ok, so then I don't know what your trying to prove. Also, are the 30,000 workers all working for a wage? Are salesmen, managers, engineers ect. all included in this number?
Im showing that the workers earned more than the minimum wage allows them to.
30,000 is the total number of employees I got from Wikipedia.
The average labor productivity is $33 an hour. The managers, engineers, etc make up a small portion of the workers so they shouldn't make a big impact on the number

@Bud,

What makes money, what produces wealth is the business owner--and his idea. Then what is the role of the workers?


No. But I am saying that the business is the idea of the owner of the company. Further he pays people to add to that idea--and then the ideas that the owner pays for become his ideas, too.What idea? The idea that people need clothing, food, toys, etc?
Shit I'm so fuckin smart that I figured out the needs of people! WHERES MY MONEY @!?
Thats' exactly what most businesses are. They are nothing more corporations that produce what the people need. Its not a brilliant idea. There's nothing special about creating food, toys, clothes, etc. A 4 year old can tell you to build a factory that produces these things. Therefore, a socialist economy will itself be able to easily regulate where production goes.

And of course it was the rich guys with the money and capital that were able to build these factories producing simple goods.

The only unique ideas business come up with are marketing schemes and useless shit that let them enter the business world. Chucky Cheeses and Barbie for example. Whats the great idea here? "Lets create a place where kids can gather up and play together. We'll sell tokens for cheap and get them to buy our food from this place. We'll be rich!"
And capitalism is suppose to be the system that allocates resources more efficiently? No! It only solves the supposed problem of underproduction in socialist society by throwing resources at every single possible "great" idea its capitalists, who have the capital to invest with, think of. Its like playing Craps where you bet money on every single thing, so you cant lose.

But of course, these ideas contribute very little to society. They only attract costumers because capitalism has created a consumerist attitude.
Society does not need these things and it doesn't satisfy the needs of consumers, but rather creates wants instead. Of course, everyone wants better things, but when they get it, it just becomes a need.
I think there was a study done that showed Americans were just as happy 50 years ago as now.
These consumerist products are useless in creating happiness and raising living standards. They rather waste resources on shit in the name of profit while people starve.

Whatever society really needs, it will create on its own. Business only play a role in creating wants and a consumerist culture that wants everything.
In fact, just about any major contribution and invention has been made through scientists the government, and the societies NEED, not business ideas!

We can see capitalism creating waste even in the medical sector. What capitalists do is instead of investing in cancer, or a new disease, they create the same ordinary medicine that already exists with a few variations, and give it a name name and a new advertisement and advertise, advertise, and advertise to buy their brand instead.
Cancer is hardly invested by capitalists because its a high risk bet, so no contribution is made where its actually needed!


I disagree here. The owner found a way to get the money he needed to buy the carpet cleaning machine. The then had to sell his services to the buyer, he then had to put everything in place and hire your friend. He has to bill FedEx and take the hit if FedEx doesn't pay the bill--he as to train your friend to do his job and he has to make sure that the job is done right so he keeps his contact. He also has to make enough money to pay your friend.All he did is find a sector of business which he can get into and invest himself. He hasn't contributed any new great idea. He is simply able to do all that because he can afford the investment.
While it may have taken him some work to start it up, it doesn't mean he works hard as all his workers do.

[Skooma Addict]

I pointed out to as why analogies have no place in an argument. If your going to say otherwise, you some fuckin reason, logic and evidence instead of a one liner. I haven't seen you make an argument yet that hasn't been more than just a statement.

Analogies are not inherently fallacious. Since you didn't even point out where mine went wrong, then I take it that you cannot prove that I am mistaken? Again, there are good analogies, and there are bad analogies. This is common knowledge.


Why are you trying to use an analogy unless you can prove the same point in the initial argument?
You prove to me why that analogy is exactly like minimum wage. Or better yet, discard it and argue for realz.

The analogy is like a minimum wage because it is setting a price floor above the equilibrium price level.


Im showing that the workers earned more than the minimum wage allows them to.
30,000 is the total number of employees I got from Wikipedia.
The average labor productivity is $33 an hour. The managers, engineers, etc make up a small portion of the workers so they shouldn't make a big impact on the number

All the worse for your argument. You don't know how many of those 30,000 workers were managers, salesmen, ect. Meaning you don't know how much of the 1.8 billion in revenue wage laborers are responsible for. You don't know the average wage of a wage laborer, and you don't know the average productivity for the wage laborers. But even if you did know all these things, I could still point out where you go wrong.

[Drace]

I'm tired of posting paragraphs of text when your going to post a one liner saying simply that I'm wrong.


Analogies are not inherently fallacious. Since you didn't even point out where mine went wrong, then I take it that you cannot prove that I am mistaken? Again, there are good analogies, and there are bad analogies. This is common knowledge.

To use your logic.
There is only bad analogies. This is common knowledge.


The analogy is like a minimum wage because it is setting a price floor above the equilibrium price level.

So what if you can compare it to something? Doesn't mean shit. There is no point in using an analogy unless you cant prove your point in the original argument so you resort to an analogy where you take out the factors that don't please you.


All the worse for your argument. You don't know how many of those 30,000 workers were managers, salesmen, ect. Meaning you don't know how much of the 1.8 billion in revenue wage laborers are responsible for. You don't know the average wage of a wage laborer, and you don't know the average productivity for the wage laborers. But even if you did know all these things, I could still point out where you go wrong.

As said, non wage laborers would make a small portion of the total employees and therefore affect the amount of productivity among laborers very little.

The 1.8 billion income would actually be a lot more if we took out the expenses that went toward expansion and advertisement.

[Skooma Addict]

To use your logic.
There is only bad analogies. This is common knowledge.

Just let me know when you can point out where exactly my analogy goes wrong.


So what if you can compare it to something? Doesn't mean shit. There is no point in using an analogy unless you cant prove your point in the original argument so you resort to an analogy where you take out the factors that don't please you.

Analogies just make the point easier to understand. That is why I used the analogy.


As said, non wage laborers would make a small portion of the total employees and therefore affect the amount of productivity among laborers very little.

The 1.8 billion income would actually be a lot more if we took out the expenses that went toward expansion and advertisement.

Your argument completely fails because we don't even know the variables.

[Drace]

As a general argument,
Is anyone interested in knowing the situation of America before labor unions and anti-capitalists fought for the minimum wage, women rights, worker rights, child labor laws, etc?


"The market prices of most used-cars are too low for sellers of those cars to support their families. This fact is especially true for poor people, who, when they sell their old cars, almost always have only old, high-mileage, often dilapidated used-cars to sell. These people aren’t selling two-year-old Lexuses or BMWs. They’re selling 15-year-old Chevys and 20-year-old Hondas. So let’s enact legislation mandating that no used-car can sell for less than, say, $25,000. That way, anyone who sells a used-car is assured that he or she will earn at least enough money to support a family for a year.The whole thing is a completely different issue.
It seems stupid to put a minimum on how much a car should sell for because it violates economics in the way that the car is not valued at $25,000 and should be sold for whatever its worth is.
This is completely different situation from a person working a job and getting under paid.
The argument here is that people are not getting paid for their amount of work. Not that they should be paid more simply to have a living wage. Though that is also true.

So the whole car comparison is a moot point. The whole point in that I suppose is that you shouldn't sell a car for 5x its value just so the owner of it can support his family.
And therefore, the same applies to minimum wage? The background information to reach that conclusion is completely different in the different situations.

In your car example, the background info is that the car is old, devalued, etc. thus should not be sold for 25,000
In minimum wage, the background info is a worker who works in hard conditions and produces so much value but still only earns a barely living wage.

Now you tell me if your analogy is accurate. The only way you could have an accurate analogy is to copy the same exact situation. Analogies only make us see things clearer and easier to understand because you remove fundamental factors from the equation and reduce it to essentially one or two factors.

The car analogy completely destroyed the factor of a worker being underpaid, a worker working hard, a capitalist profiting immensely, exploitation, etc.

[Skooma Addict]

The whole thing is a completely different issue.
It seems stupid to put a minimum on how much a car should sell for because it violates economics in the way that the car is not valued at $25,000 and should be sold for whatever its worth is.
This is completely different situation from a person working a job and getting under paid.
The argument here is that people are not getting paid for their amount of work. Not that they should be paid more simply to have a living wage. Though that is also true.

So the whole car comparison is a moot point. The whole point in that I suppose is that you shouldn't sell a car for 5x its value just so the owner of it can support his family.
And therefore, the same applies to minimum wage? The background information to reach that conclusion is completely different in the different situations.

In your car example, the background info is that the car is old, devalued, etc. thus should not be sold for 25,000
In minimum wage, the background info is a worker who works in hard conditions and produces so much value but still only earns a barely living wage.

Now you tell me if your analogy is accurate. The only way you could have an accurate analogy is to copy the same exact situation. Analogies only make us see things clearer and easier to understand because you remove fundamental factors from the equation and reduce it to essentially one or two factors.

The car analogy completely destroyed the factor of a worker being underpaid, a worker working hard, a capitalist profiting immensely, exploitation, etc.


I don't know if your purposely missing the point of the analogy or if you just don't understand it. The point of the analogy was to show the consequences of a minimum price floor set above the equilibrium price level.

[Drace]

Really? The analogy makes no reference to an equilibrium. All it says it that cars should not be sold above their value just so people can support their family. It actually didn't mention any consequences of anything either.
It just said we should "enact legislation mandating that no used-car can sell for less than, say, $25,000."
So all it god dam did, was find a similarity between minimum wage and selling a car above its value and trying to make the point that if selling a car above its value is wrong, then so must minimum wage.

And as already mentioned a fuckin million times, you cant use as an analogy to "show" the consequences.
What you need to do is use some logic, history or economics perhaps.
Not give me a car story and say minimum wage is bad.

If you think I am not understanding it, explain...with more than one line.
I am losing my patience.

[Green Dragon]

The whole thing is a completely different issue.
It seems stupid to put a minimum on how much a car should sell for because it violates economics in the way that the car is not valued at $25,000 and should be sold for whatever its worth is.
This is completely different situation from a person working a job and getting under paid.
The argument here is that people are not getting paid for their amount of work. Not that they should be paid more simply to have a living wage. Though that is also true.


The argument is that the car is certainly not worth the minimum value of $25000. And its not worth it because people will use that money more productively elsewhere.

The argument with minimum wage is that the value of the work is not worth whatever that minimum wage is. That money can be used more productively elsewhere.

That is the analogy being posed.

[Drace]

Might as well have said that than.

If anyone is actually going to defend the statement that workers don't produce more than $8 of value in an hour than go for it.

[Skooma Addict]

If anyone is actually going to defend the statement that workers don't produce more than $8 of value in an hour than go for it.

Some do and some don't.

[Drace]

Theres just one thing your fucking missing
EVIDENCE

[Skooma Addict]

Theres just one thing your fucking missing
EVIDENCE For example, a worker who produces 5 dollars worth of product an hour does not produce 8 dollars of value an hour.

[anticap]

... try to make a profit, too and you'll see how difficult it can be.

I'm sure running a plantation full of slaves was difficult, too.


A lot of things are involved.

None of which require a capitalist.


Your friend just shows up and cleans the carpet.

None of which would be cleaned without him.


The business-equipment and workers and contracts--is wnat makes money. The worker like the equipment is just part of the equasion.

Equipment, sans labor, is inert matter. Contracts aren't even concrete (until the capitalist enforces them with the guns of his State). Neither equipment nor contracts "make money"; workers do.


And yes, workers should get paid fairly for their work.

Yes: 100% of the value of what is produced.

[anticap]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

I thought my username would have given me away, but you're welcome.

And thank you for implicitly conceding to my other points by remaining silent on them.

P.S. You should use the quote function properly if you expect replies; I almost missed yours because it doesn't contain my name.

[anticap]

Yes. Even in a socialist community the workers cannot receive full value for their labor- even by their own socialist standards.

No, they receive it all. The difference is that they make the decisions about what to do with it.

[Robert]

And thank you for implicitly conceding to my other points by remaining silent on them.

Well, I'll concede that you made them. That's the best I can do. Nobody ever really convinces anybody of anything on this board, I'm afraid.

[Drace]

For example, a worker who produces 5 dollars worth of product an hour does not produce 8 dollars of value an hour.

And now use evidence to relate how this implies to the real world.
Give me some statistics, evidence, math, anything to show that some workers produce less than $8 an hour.

Look, I even put the rofl smiley as my signature so I wouldn't have to do it every time I respond to you.

[Skooma Addict]

And now use evidence to relate how this implies to the real world.
Give me some statistics, evidence, math, anything to show that some workers produce less than $8 an hour.

Are you playing dumb? I hope so.

[Drace]

No, I am asking for god dam reason.
All you do is make statements.

You need to show me how workers don't produce more than what the minimum wage is.
My argument is that workers produce a lot more than what the minimum wage is.

[Skooma Addict]

No, I am asking for god dam reason.
All you do is make statements.

You need to show me how workers don't produce more than what the minimum wage is.
My argument is that workers produce a lot more than what the minimum wage is.

Your failure to understand how a worker can produce less than 8 dollars worth of product an hour shows your stupidity more than anything else. I am not going to provide any evidence. I am going to let you continue to believe that all workers produce more than 8 dollars worth of product an hour. This is good because that way you will help maintain the stereotype that socialists are delusional.

[Drace]

The socialist provides philosophy, economics, politics and yet the capitalist screams
"I am not going to provide any evidence because the socialist is wrong and this somehow proves that socialists are delusional...for asking questions..or something." :laugh:

You back out of an argument, especially in one which you offered no evidence and somehow make it that socialists are delusional.
The opposite proves true. After you, I am very god dam convinced capitalists are complete retards who have no insight on understanding anything except of that which protects their interests.

Your even a disgrace to your Austrian School of Economics LOL. Quite an acomplishment.

I responded extensively to your stupid one line statements and your still going to call me delusional without evidence. Why the fuck am I even continuing to argue with you.

I gotta go add more ROFLS to my signature.

[Skooma Addict]

The socialist provides philosophy, economics, politics and yet the capitalist screams
"I am not going to provide any evidence because the socialist is wrong and this somehow proves that socialists are delusional...for asking questions..or something." :laugh:

You back out of an argument, especially in one which you offered no evidence and somehow make it that socialists are delusional.
The opposite proves true. After you, I am very god dam convinced capitalists are complete retards who have no insight on understanding anything except of that which protects their interests.

Your even a disgrace to your Austrian School of Economics LOL. Quite an acomplishment.

I responded extensively to your stupid one line statements and your still going to call me delusional without evidence. Why the fuck am I even continuing to argue with you.

I gotta go add more ROFLS to my signature.

Lets see, you think that all workers produce more than 8 dollars worth of product an hour, and you think that all analogies are inherently fallacious. As I said, you holding such moronic beliefs benefits me because you further the stereotype that socialists are delusional. Maybe some other socialists on this site will correct you, but I sure won't.

[Drace]

Lets see, you think that all workers produce more than 8 dollars worth of product an hour

No of course, if they didn't how does the capitalist still make a profit?

Oh and no its not like I wrote a few paragraphs on why analogies are fallacious, which you dismissed with just one single statement "Some analogies are good, some are bad"
Brilliant.

[#FF0000]

Lets see, you think that all workers produce more than 8 dollars worth of product an hour, and you think that all analogies are inherently fallacious. As I said, you holding such moronic beliefs benefits me because you further the stereotype that socialists are delusional. Maybe some other socialists on this site will correct you, but I sure won't.

You know I guess you could win this argument on a technicality, saying that not all workers produce that much wealth with their labor every single day, but I think it should be pointed out that a worker that takes more than they put in is a worker that won't have a job for long. Otherwise that business doesn't make a profit.

[anticap]

Lets see, you think that all workers produce more than 8 dollars worth of product an hour, and you think that all analogies are inherently fallacious. As I said, you holding such moronic beliefs benefits me because you further the stereotype that socialists are delusional. Maybe some other socialists on this site will correct you, but I sure won't.

You remind me of the liberal on YouTube who recently implied that all anarchists are assassins because Czolgosz shot McKinley.

Clearly, not all workers produce $8/hr; we can see this by multiplying the total number of hours worked by 8 and arriving at an amount greater than the total product.

However, while Drace may have used unfortunate wording (I haven't followed your exchange; it's just as likely that you've erected a straw-man of his argument), the point still stands that profit is derived from paying workers less than the value of what they produce. This $8 quibble is a red herring.

[Green Dragon]

, but I think it should be pointed out that a worker that takes more than they put in is a worker that won't have a job for long.

And this would have to be true in a socialist community as well.

[Green Dragon]

that profit is derived from paying workers less than the value of what they produce. This $8 quibble is a red herring.

The quibble is a red herring for you as well, since there is nothing unsocialist about supposing a particular worker might only produce $8 in a socalist community.

But profit doesn't come from paying a worker less in value of what they produce (as per socialist thinking. The capitalist would argue the pay reflects the value of the work performed). Profit comes from producing goods and services that are worth more to people than the sum total of the costs of its production.

[anticap]

The quibble is a red herring for you as well, since there is nothing unsocialist about supposing a particular worker might only produce $8 in a socalist community.

How is that relevant? Olaf claims that Drace claims that all workers produce upwards of $8/hr.


But profit doesn't come from paying a worker less in value of what they produce as per socialist thinking.

False (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm).


Profit comes from producing goods and services that are worth more to people than the sum total of the costs of its production.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't rescue your ruling-class ideology, because capitalists aren't producers.


The capitalist would argue the pay reflects the value of the work performed.

Ruling classes throughout history have always argued that existing social arrangements were fair, and portrayed themselves as the benefactors of the working classes. It's never been true in the past, and it isn't true now.

[Green Dragon]

How is that relevant? Olaf claims that Drace claims that all workers produce upwards of $8/hr.


I believe he is claiming that workers who are paid $8 per hour, are producing $8 worth of goods and services.







Even if that were true, it wouldn't rescue your ruling-class ideology, because capitalists aren't producers.


Of course they are.




Ruling classes throughout history have always argued that existing social arrangements were fair, and portrayed themselves as the benefactors of the working classes. It's never been true in the past, and it isn't true now.
[/QUOTE]

It would seem that the claim that the socialism benefits workers would have to be proved by the socialists. Simply demouncing capitalism doesn't cut it.

[#FF0000]

Of course they are.

How

EDIT: I also managed to find a wonderfully apropros article today from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8410489.stm)


The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid.
It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy.
They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn. Meanwhile, senior advertising executives are said to "create stress".

Hrmmm

[anticap]

Of course they are.

I'm going to pretend that you're just being silly, so that I can have an excuse to giggle and roll around on the floor: :laugh:


It would seem that the claim that the socialism benefits workers would have to be proved by the socialists. Simply demouncing capitalism doesn't cut it.

Workers benefit themselves by shucking the capitalist leeches from off their backs. This implies the negation of capitalism, which further implies socialism.

[anticap]

How

EDIT: I also managed to find a wonderfully apropros article today from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8410489.stm)



Hrmmm

:) http://www.revleft.com/vb/cleaners-worth-more-t124603/index.html

[Drace]

Cappies need to learn about class conflict. I can't believe they still believe bourgeoisie are all good hearted folks who do nothing more than provide jobs :)


I believe he is claiming that workers who are paid $8 per hour, are producing $8 worth of goods and services.

It seemed to me that he was claiming that some workers make $8 an hour and some don't, which I stood at the conclusion that the mass majority of workers were payed less than the value they create.
Really the only people to exclude from this are those who don't do any real work and slack off, and in that case they'd be fired.


But profit doesn't come from paying a worker less in value of what they produce as per socialist thinking.

How else?
Workers produce everything in society but the capitalists profit off them. And just as that article shows, it is the workers who are paid for only 1/10 of the value they produce while it is the capitalists that earn the massive amounts of money while they do worse than contributing nothing of value, they destroy it.


Profit comes from producing goods and services that are worth more to people than the sum total of the costs of its production.

But the workers have produced all the value. Therefore, any profit that is made of selling them should go to the workers.
If the capitalists really earned what they worked for, there would be no need for the word profit.

Because otherwise, if they produced $10 billion of value, their expenses should be $10 billion...unless they take out a part of the costs...WAGES!


The capitalist would argue the pay reflects the value of the work performed.

The article should be enough on that.
But again, if workers received in full amount the value they created the capitalists could not make a profit!

Furthermore, capitalists have actually been trying to pay as little as possible. This relates to your beloved profit motive. They have always set wages as low as possible. Most jobs don't get anything more than the minimum wage and throughout history, wages usually haven't been set an higher than the minimum wage.
When you look at thrid world countries and the existance of the $0.30/hr wages in sweatshops, the point is further proven.

If you take out the minimum wage were going back to 19-20th century America and destryoing the beautiful progress achieved by the labor unions and the socialists.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Yes. The laws of Supply and Demand.



You realize this "model" has been debunked over 9000 times?

Empirical studies show the minimum wage kicks ass. Most likely because marginal productivity doesn't decline in 99 percent of workplaces, if I'm understanding this issue correctly?

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Drace;1623897]Cappies need to learn about class conflict. I can't believe they still believe bourgeoisie are all good hearted folks who do nothing more than provide jobs :)


No. They do more.




It seemed to me that he was claiming that some workers make $8 an hour and some don't, which I stood at the conclusion that the mass majority of workers were payed less than the value they create.


One would think in a socialist community there will be workers producing $8 of value, and others $15.




Really the only people to exclude from this are those who don't do any real work and slack off, and in that case they'd be fired.


Which, when the worker is the "owner" prsents a problem.



How else?


By lowering costs in other areas.




But the workers have produced all the value.

No.





Because otherwise, if they produced $10 billion of value, their expenses should be $10 billion...unless they take out a part of the costs...WAGES!


$10 billion of value is determined by the customer. Maybe the expenses to the capitalist were $3 billion.




Furthermore, capitalists have actually been trying to pay as little as possible. This relates to your beloved profit motive.

It relates more to common sense. Why would a socialist community pay more than what a person is willing to labor or?


They have always set wages as low as possible.

True.


Most jobs don't get anything more than the minimum wage

False.


When you look at thrid world countries and the existance of the $0.30/hr wages in sweatshops,

Because they are a poor country. Even in a socialist community, workers in a poor country will make less than workers in a richer one.

[Drace]

Im going to reply in the same style as you.


No. They do more.


No. They don't


No.

Yes.


$10 billion of value is determined by the customer. Maybe the expenses to the capitalist were $3 billion.

The point the amount produced should equal the amount gained.


It relates more to common sense. Why would a socialist community pay more than what a person is willing to labor or?


A person is willing to labor for anything because otherwise they starve and die.


False.

True.


Because they are a poor country. Even in a socialist community, workers in a poor country will make less than workers in a richer one.

We have to analyze this further. It was not a point made as an argument generally capitalism but rather to prove the antagonistic relations of capitalists and workers, the capitalist who wants to maxmize profit and the worker who fights for a better wage.

[Robert]

Most jobs don't get anything more than the minimum wage

Most? It's currently less than 5% (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2008tbls.htm#10). Look at the whole table and note the trend.

[Drace]

That has a category for "Below Minimum Wage"
How is that even possible?

And I don't see how you got most of them are less than 5%.

This doesn't compare the amount of minimum wage jobs to higher paying jobs.
Its just a detailed statistics of minimum wage jobs by different categories.

[Green Dragon]

The point the amount produced should equal the amount gained.


That's nice. The factory can produce a lot of horseshoes. Not much gain. How is it measured?




A person is willing to labor for anything because otherwise they starve and die.


Beyond the histrionics, such a situation is true in a socialist community as well.





We have to analyze this further. It was not a point made as an argument generally capitalism but rather to prove the antagonistic relations of capitalists and workers, the capitalist who wants to maxmize profit and the worker who fights for a better wage.
[/QUOTE]

But even such a scenario has to be true for the socialist community as well. The workers are going to be votng on what they earn, yes? There is going to have to be a rationalisation as to one course or the other.

[Robert]

That has a category for "Below Minimum Wage"
How is that even possible?The Fair Labor Standards Act (http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm#who) doesn't apply to everybody. It's a federal law, and so it only affects businesses engaged in or affecting interstate commerce -- all major corporations are affected, but no family farms are affected.

It also specifically exempts people in certain casual jobs like babysitting, seasonal workers, and I think cocktail waitresses, who earn their income through tips, which aren't "wages."

Of course, you also have undocumented Mexicans working in the kitchen of a mom and pop restaurant out in the country, who may get less than the minimum wage ... there just aren't enough federal bureaucrats to monitor every business.

But the point remains -- year in and year out for at least the last 20 years, minimum wage workers represent a slim minority. If they weren't, the median wage wouldn't be, and couldn't be, >$15/hour, which is more than double the minimum.

But it is. (http://www.bls.gov/OES/)


And I don't see how you got most of them are less than 5%.Well, look at it again. I didn't make up the numbers. I am trying to paste it here but I doubt it will display correctly. Look at the column marked "Percent of workers paid hourly rates at or below minimum wage." The total, for workers 16 and over, is
only 3% Note that for men 25 years old and over, less than 1.5% are paid at or below the minimum wage.

Total, 16 years and over
75,305 2,226 286 1,940 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 0.4 2.6


Happy?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The whole fight over minimum wage is one battle the left simply shouldn't allow itself to get drawn into. It's a war of semantics and largely abstract calculations which, simply, have neither held up over time, nor are they discernible to millions of working class people who actually have to try and get by on a minimum wage.

The fight for a higher minimum wage should be replaced with a fight for lower costs of food, housing, education, utilities, and, of course, health insurance. Maybe it's a bit of military mentality I've had beat into me as of late, but in terms of take home pay I make less than $1/hour, and am technically far far far below the poverty line. However, the truth is that is only the pay I receive in order to spend on myself, whereas the actual amount I am paid via free rent, food, healthcare, etc etc compensates for this and much much more. Now, I'm not saying we should form labor corps to be run by like some half-ass Marine Corps, but the model is quite appealing to me. Meanwhile, the movement for a higher minimum wage seems to simply foster more individual strife between labor and corporations, which corrects none of the fundamental flaws themselves. Instead, it would lead to more cost cutting and price raising by businesses which are never going to surrender an inch in their dominance over labor, and could very well see more jobs shipped overseas to be done by Pakistani adolescents.

[IcarusAngel]

The only way to achieve lower cost housing, good health care, low cost foods, low cost utilities, is through price controls, government regulation of the health care industry, government regulation of housing, and so on. A market system works in such a way that corporations that try and be productive and serve the needs of the people are run out of business. So, in either case you still have 'markets' setting the prices and the value of things, but in your case you have by FAR more government intervention than intervention into the minimum wage.

And it's just not realistic to expect the government to be benign and do all those things unless it was truly in the hands of the workers, or, unless, the govt was afraid of the people because of the power and freedom they have, which is taken from them through markets.

Hong Kong actually used price controls and 60% of people in govt housing to build their economy. Corporations held an "alligence" to the state and still do I believe, so all corps were in fact state run. It's funny that this is the example of 'free-markets' that the Libertarian idiots cling to.

Given all this, I think Minimum Wage increases are a good first tip, as long as there is also health care. This should hold people over. And really, a lot of the reason people are in bad situation is because they continue to believe in markets, and so the workers/people themselves deserve some of the blame for the failure of the govt to do anything productive.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Well, I'm not talking about the state demanding that housing costs this much, or that a loaf of bread costs that much.


The only way to achieve lower cost housing, good health care, low cost foods, low cost utilities, is through price controls, government regulation of the health care industry, government regulation of housing, and so on. A market system works in such a way that corporations that try and be productive and serve the needs of the people are run out of business. So, in either case you still have 'markets' setting the prices and the value of things, but in your case you have by FAR more government intervention than intervention into the minimum wage.

Far more government intervention? Perhaps if this was the late 19th century we'd be looking at an increase in government intervention, but today in several of the fields outlined (especially agriculture and energy) the government has been doling out billions of dollars for years. For example, every year corn subsidies range from $5.5bn to $7.3bn, which is simply ridiculous as US law requires that so many gallons of fuel a year need to be ethanol and ethanol imports from Brazil are taxed out of a competitive range. These subsidies may be a boon for Iowa corn farmers (who by and large work for large farming corporations), but until the economy went to shit the price of corn (which is also a major feed crop, thereby increasing the cost of meat), and food in general, was skyrocketing around the globe.

Instead of say, paying billions to a select few corporations and thereby giving them a nice cushy price floor for their product while cutting out the small farmer who now can't turn a profit, rather the federal government should nationalize the few corporations which do the vast amount of farming in this country and pay the farmers themselves a salaried income which is independent of the cost of the crops at market. Agricultural megabusinesses in this country have been protected and cherished by the government to the point in which the collective farms of the Soviet Union look like some childs experiment at large scale farming. But truth be told, the farms themselves don't even tell the whole story. Look at what has happened to the number of silos in this country, it's shrunken by such a degree that the entire operation is so large and efficient in nature that the whole illusion of a small farmer and a small elevator filling up 2 or 3 hoppers with grain is about as relevant to modern farming as Willa Cather is to post-modernism.

As for utilities and housing, I doubt that I really need to go into how many billions upon billions the federal government has dumped into both of those indsutries, both in the past and continuing on today. My point is that billions of taxpayer dollars are already being thrown about to save the profitability of industries the market itself can't support, and which should be run entirely by the federal government instead.

Anyways,


Hong Kong actually used price controls and 60% of people in govt housing to build their economy. Corporations held an "alligence" to the state and still do I believe, so all corps were in fact state run. It's funny that this is the example of 'free-markets' that the Libertarian idiots cling to.

I've actually never met a libertarian who valued government price controls, or that most of the population should be in government financed (let alone govt owned) housing.


Given all this, I think Minimum Wage increases are a good first tip, as long as there is also health care. This should hold people over. And really, a lot of the reason people are in bad situation is because they continue to believe in markets, and so the workers/people themselves deserve some of the blame for the failure of the govt to do anything productive.

Should the minimum wage be raised? Sure. However, the fact remains that an increase in minimum wage will only ever be a reaction to an increase in living costs, and the simple fact of the matter that has been shown over time is that such increases in the minimum wage never equal the amount of lost buying power that has been wrought by inflation. It is not a solution but a remedy that may combat some of the symptoms.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. I think you misunderstood what I meant. I'm not saying your solution isn't better, I'm saying I don't have trust in the government to actually enforce it.

First the govt has always been bailing out corporations, Reagan spent something like 500 billion on the S&L scandal alone. If people want capitalism they have to pay for it. And for a while, the government ran the aeronautical industry and set all the air ways and prices (see documentary Commanding Heights). But then things get privatized again and we're back at square one. And not only does the government subsidize the agricultural industry, they subsidize foods that are unhealthy and high in fat, sugar, and so on.

Of course what you're saying works good, and has been proven to work. But, as Karl Marx said, despite these kind of progressive reforms, "continual retrogressions and circular movements occur." And he was right. But the minimum wage has always been increasing in the sense of getting higher, but the actual value of it has not increased.

As for Hong Kong, it is routinely listed as a "free-market" economy. That's why I thought it was ironic considering they've used monopolistic practices and government housing etc. to build themselves up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh OK, very well put and I agree and see the point of what you're saying.

My mistake.

[swirling_vortex]

I never understood why big companies complain about the increasing minimum wage. Indexed to inflation, the minimum wage is lower than what it was in the 1960s.

http://www.interbiznet.com/ern/archives/minwage_2008_1_5centnickel.png