Minimum Wage

[Hate Is Art]

How do capitilist think that the Minimum Wage causes Job Losses? Since Britain has implemented a minimum wage we have had unemployment fall!

And it's not like the capitilists dont have the money to spend on the workers because the seem to be able to fork out for the new swimming pool and car.

[New Tolerance]

I would also like to add that when Augusto implemented neoliberal reforms in Chile, unemployment shot up to over 20% from 6%.

When Margret Thatcher implemented neoliberal reforms in Britain they had unprecedented 3.5 million people unemployed.

and so on, there are numerous other examples.

[Pete]

Minimum wage causes inflation, which defeats the purpose of minimum wage in the first place. What is more benificial is the implementation of a living wage forumla, that takes into account the costs of living in various regions, but with a centralized 'minimum' beyond that. What people can live off of in rural ontario is a lot less than what they can live off of in Toronto, for example. My point is off the topic, but still.

[FuckWar]

I would like to point out that, while living wages are more desireable than "minimum" wages, the idea of wages in general is insane. To put a flat dollar value on any person's time and production power is obviously and logically silly. Perhaps we should be most worried about ending wage slavery all together.

Besides this, i agree entirely- capitalists are full of crap (as usual).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 04:30 AM
living wages are more desireable
What's a living wage ? Care to provide an objective definition ?

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 17 2004, 12:31 PM
How do capitilist think that the Minimum Wage causes Job Losses? Since Britain has implemented a minimum wage we have had unemployment fall!


So, what does this actually prove?

Let's write Bush an e-mail that if he sets the minimumwage at $25 per hour unemployment will totally disappear.

[Hate Is Art]

Would be pointless - I don't think Bush would understand the words I'd use in my email.

[Xvall]

Yeah. He's not really farmiliar with the internets.

http://www.rumorsontheinternets.com/

[Freedom Writer]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 18 2004, 08:18 PM
http://www.rumorsontheinternets.com/
This one is fuc*ing scary. :o

[Misodoctakleidist]

How do capitilist think that the Minimum Wage causes Job Losses?

They use an over-simplistic model of supply and demand to arrive at an absurd conclusion. They presume that if the price of labour increases then the demand for labour will decrease, of course they don't ask what "substitute good" would replace it. As Karl Marx pointed out 150 years ago (in his example the working day is shortened) the higher price of labour causes the capitalist to increase efficiency in order to maintain high profits.

[Sasha]

I'm confused. Isn't this a communist forum? Why are you all advocating minimum wage? You're supposed to be anarchists.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 10:16 PM
I'm confused. Isn't this a communist forum? Why are you all advocating minimum wage? You're supposed to be anarchists.
Why?

Because you're confused about what Communism is? Sorry bubbie, you need to educate yourself prior to questioning "leftist" theory on this board.

In any case, Federal Minimum Wage laws are one of the primary factors in the collapse of Capitalism, as variable capital costs (or in bourgeois economics, the "labour" factor of production) can only be decreased "so far" before they eventually "bottom out", the only alternative is to globalise labour; leading to the eventual creation of a "global first world" (no more cheap labour, suckers).

There is no other option, anti-trust laws, standard inflation (generally set at 3.5% in the USA) and the social acceptance of competition being the only "fair, American way" do not allow for constant capital (fixed, physical, etc) to be decreased. On the contrary, constant capital costs will at least increase exponentially with domestic inflation; leaving globalisation, again, the only "saviour" of Capitalism.

In other words son, once you start seeing the means of production flee for "greener pastures", you can expect to see a grim future for your investments. :lol:

Sell now bubbie.

[Hate Is Art]

Isn't this a communist forum? Why are you all advocating minimum wage? You're supposed to be anarchists.

I don't get ya?

[Marvs Cicero]

Have any of you Communists actualy read Marx and Engels?

[Bolshevist]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 20 2004, 07:02 PM
Have any of you Communists actualy read Marx and Engels?
No, we just pretent to :lol:

[Marvs Cicero]

In any case, Federal Minimum Wage laws are one of the primary factors in the collapse of Capitalism, as variable capital costs (or in bourgeois economics, the "labour" factor of production) can only be decreased "so far" before they eventually "bottom out"

Here are some interesting facts about wages during the industrial revolution.

From 1820-1860 the wages of workers grew by an 1.6% annually (this number takes into account inflation). Not even including the decrease in the price of consumers goods the wages during this time increased by 64%.

From 1860-1890 the wage of workers grew by about 1.66% annually (again this number takes into account inflation). And again not including the decrease in price of goods caused by the industrial revolution (which was significant) it increased the workers purchasing power by 50%.

The average workweek in 1870 was 61 hours (12 hours per day of the modern work week, or 8.7 hours per day of the week) to 48 hours in 1929 (9.6 hours per day of the modern work week, or 6.8 hours per day of the week).

But I'm sure these facts somehow evaded your site.


the only alternative is to globalise labour; leading to the eventual creation of a "global first world" (no more cheap labour, suckers).

Human physical labor in production is becoming extent, they will soon (probley within this century) be replaced with machinery that produces goods far cheaper and quicker then Human labor.


No, we just pretent to

I wouldn't doubt it.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 20 2004, 07:02 PM
Have any of you Communists actualy read Marx and Engels?
No, whos Marx and Engels?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

From 1820-1860 the wages of workers grew by an 1.6% annually (this number takes into account inflation).

But it doesn't take into account the fact that they were producing much more. One worker may have earned 1.6% more money, but they produced at least 200% more.


Not even including the decrease in the price of consumers goods the wages during this time increased by 64%.

The decrease in the price of consumer goods doesn't make all that much of a difference, because the rate at which products could be made increased tremendously. And therefore a the total value of the goods at the end of the day was much greater.


From 1860-1890 the wage of workers grew by about 1.66% annually (again this number takes into account inflation). And again not including the decrease in price of goods caused by the industrial revolution (which was significant) it increased the workers purchasing power by 50%.

Not as much as it increased the capitalists' purchasing power.


The average workweek in 1870 was 61 hours (12 hours per day of the modern work week, or 8.7 hours per day of the week) to 48 hours in 1929 (9.6 hours per day of the modern work week, or 6.8 hours per day of the week).

You know, that was all due to a bunch of unionist pinkos. The capitalists didn't give their workers a break because they could afford to. They could always afford to.


But I'm sure these facts somehow evaded your site.

Because any two year old could see how these facts only show half the story and conveniently ignore the part where the real benefactors of the industrial revolution brutally suppressed union movements and had even more blatant control of the government than they do today.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 01:09 AM
Why?

Because you're confused about what Communism is? Sorry bubbie, you need to educate yourself prior to questioning "leftist" theory on this board.
Then I assume that "A" with a circle around it is just decoration for the page header.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Jesus Christ, sasha.
Any branch of anarchism even vaguely condoned around here involves organizations of workers that determine wages and other such issues. It's called anarchism because it lacks hierarchy.

[Sasha]

Then I suggest you stop using that symbol and that word, because anarchism doesn't mean "without heirarchy"; it means "without government".

[Vinny Rafarino]

Human physical labor in production is becoming extent, they will soon (probley within this century) be replaced with machinery that produces goods far cheaper and quicker then Human labor.



Since you are not familiar with the dynamics behind capitalist economics I will be forced to instruct you myself.

Machines have been used to lower variable capital costs for some time now (at a greater constant capital expense sonny) and have done absolutely nothing to stall the the falling rate of profit.

To make this easy for you, once a company develops a specific machine that replaces or decreases the human labour factor of production, a temporary increase in the rate of profit will be seen for only a few business cycles while other producers of the same product install those very same machines.

Once they have, you will see the price of these specifig goods fall dramatically as the manufacturers of these products begin to lower there prices to gain back market share; this is why new technologies begin quite expensive initially only to have their cost cut dramatically over the next few cycles.

This is very simple economic fact bubbie, so if you need examples of this then you are simply here to wind people up. Either that or very dumb.

If machines were the holy grail of profit, the means of production would never be outsourced to third world labour markets; especially considering the political consequences of these actions.


Then I assume that "A" with a circle around it is just decoration for the page header.

As far as I can tell, there are several symbols used as decoration for the "page header" on this board.

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 08:56 PM






But it doesn't take into account the fact that they were producing much more. One worker may have earned 1.6% more money, but they produced at least 200% more.


Karl Marx was wrong, value is not determined by how much labor is applied. So please stop repeating it, over and over and over and over againg.


The decrease in the price of consumer goods doesn't make all that much of a difference, because the rate at which products could be made increased tremendously. And therefore a the total value of the goods at the end of the day was much greater.

What's so complicated?

Increase in wages, decrease in price of consumer goods caused a massive increase in purchasing power.



Not as much as it increased the capitalists' purchasing power.

Oh no your becoming richer faster then I am, how dare you. Time for me to revert back to the days of Ganghis Kahn and put you to the sword!


You know, that was all due to a bunch of unionist pinkos. The capitalists didn't give their workers a break because they could afford to. They could always afford to.

Actually it was caused by the increased productivity brought about by a massive increase in capital goods.


Because any two year old could see how these facts only show half the story and conveniently ignore the part where the real benefactors of the industrial revolution brutally suppressed union movements and had even more blatant control of the government than they do today.

None of what you said proved me wrong, all it did was rehash tired old Marxist claims.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Karl Marx was wrong, value is not determined by how much labor is applied. So please stop repeating it, over and over and over and over againg.

In this case, the value of goods declined because less manual labor was put into it. Industrialization reduced the amount of actual human work needed to manufacture goods. Value is most certainly determined by how much labor is involved in making a product.


What's so complicated?

Increase in wages, decrease in price of consumer goods caused a massive increase in purchasing power.

Not really.
Industrial workers in the 19th century in what was then the industrialized world, had absolutely dreadful standards of living. Most industrial workers today do too, except they live in China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil and other such third world countries.


Oh no your becoming richer faster then I am, how dare you. Time for me to revert back to the days of Ganghis Kahn and put you to the sword!

The point is that the workers were hardly benefiting from industrialization as much as they could have due to the reaping of the wealth by the capitalists.


Actually it was caused by the increased productivity brought about by a massive increase in capital goods.

That's absurd!
First of all, that increase in productivity was not brought about by an increase in capital goods. And workers' rights do not magically come into existence when an increase in productivity occurs.


None of what you said proved me wrong, all it did was rehash tired old Marxist claims.

Old, eh?
As opposed to your revolutionary capitalist ideals.

[Osman Ghazi]

Then I suggest you stop using that symbol and that word, because anarchism doesn't mean "without heirarchy"; it means "without government".


You are thinking of 'anarchy' rather than anarchism. In either case, you seem like the type to have battles with the dictionary a lot, so I won't get in your way anymore.

[Marvs Cicero]

In this case, the value of goods declined because less manual labor was put into it. Industrialization reduced the amount of actual human work needed to manufacture goods. Value is most certainly determined by how much labor is involved in making a product.


Please could you perhaps show me that the decrease in price was in direct proportion to the decrease in manual labor?

If you can't, you have no rational reason to beleive that the decrease in value is related to the decrease in manual labor.




Not really.
Industrial workers in the 19th century in what was then the industrialized world, had absolutely dreadful standards of living. Most industrial workers today do too, except they live in China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil and other such third world countries.


Yes 19th Century workers had dreadful conditions by our standards. But you can't compare it to now, you have to compare it to the time period previus to it. Even you admit that they had to do less manual labor.


The point is that the workers were hardly benefiting from industrialization as much as they could have due to the reaping of the wealth by the capitalists.


This statement is just an extension of your first one.


That's absurd!
First of all, that increase in productivity was not brought about by an increase in capital goods. And workers' rights do not magically come into existence when an increase in productivity occurs.



This isn't an answer. It's obvious you don't agree with me, so how about you offer a counter argument beyond simply declaring my statement false.


You are thinking of 'anarchy' rather than anarchism. In either case, you seem like the type to have battles with the dictionary a lot, so I won't get in your way anymore.

You need to look up your suffixes. Anarchism is the "political" philosophy which beleives in Anarchy. I don't see what your point is though.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:18 PM
Then I suggest you stop using that symbol and that word, because anarchism doesn't mean "without heirarchy"; it means "without government".
I agree that the symbol should be removed, but many 'leftists' on this board are indeed anarchists.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Please could you perhaps show me that the decrease in price was in direct proportion to the decrease in manual labor?

The decrease in price was due to the fact that goods were now made in factories rather than completely manually, agreed? This allowed more goods to be manufactured by less workers and therefore the price dropped. It seems pretty obvious to me.


Yes 19th Century workers had dreadful conditions by our standards. But you can't compare it to now, you have to compare it to the time period previus to it.

I frankly don't see how working in a stuffy sweatshop for 14 hours a day was worse than what was done previously to create the same product.


Even you admit that they had to do less manual labor.

They had to do less manual labor for each item produced. In all, it may have been more labor.


This isn't an answer. It's obvious you don't agree with me, so how about you offer a counter argument beyond simply declaring my statement false.

Okay...
How about you explain your statements.
How is an increase in productivity brought about by an increase in capital goods?
How do workers' rights magically come into existence when an increase in productivity occurs?

[Osman Ghazi]

Yes 19th Century workers had dreadful conditions by our standards. But you can't compare it to now, you have to compare it to the time period previus to it.

That isn't true. You haven't studied the industrial revolution much, hvae you? Well, I'll fill you in on what you missed. The people tended to work on farms, but thanks to the mechanization of agriculture, they were forced to move to the cities to look for work. Believe me, if you could get work on a farm, you would. But that was the point, there were no jobs on the farm. The reason that people flocked to the factories was not because they thought it was better than the job at the farm, but that it was the only job available.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Please could you perhaps show me that the decrease in price was in direct proportion to the decrease in manual labor?



Since you conveniently ignored my last post (not shocking considering how it made you look) I can see why you would still not get it.

You could have at least stopped posting however because you really look silly now.

Competition, among several other factors, will ensure that the cost to the consumer will always decrease.

To retain profitabilty, the costs of production must be decreased exponentially with the decrease in market value.

In other words, if the cost of fixed or constant capital remains constant, there is no other resource besides labour or variable capital that can be decreased to retain profitability.

So subsequently, as the cost of labour is decreased, the market value of the product will also decrease.

This is very basic economics Cicero. Why don't you know it? :lol:

[HankMorgan]

The problem I have with the minimum wage is its proponents think small. They talk of raising the minimum wage by a few pennies here or there. Why not think big, I say. Let's raise the minimum wage to a $1000.00 per hour, I say. As any proponent of the minimum wage will tell you, market forces play no role in determining what an hour of work is worth. The value of an hour of work is what ever we say it is. Just think, a few votes and a signature on a line and we'll all be rich.

Any one who believes what I just wrote probably votes for Democrats (and failed high school economics).

[Osman Ghazi]

Any one who believes what I just wrote probably votes for Democrats (and failed high school economics).

You had economics in high school? Lucky. :P


As any proponent of the minimum wage will tell you, market forces play no role in determining what an hour of work is worth.

Well, in our society, it only determines the cost of educated labour, not manual labour, which is usually worth minimum wage.

In any case, there is a serious disconnect between what the average labour-buyer wants to pay for a man-hour and what the average labour-seller wants to sell it for. No one thinks there time is worthless. And I doubt very much that very many people think that their time is worth $7.15 an hour.

Now, that is what they are willing to work for, but do you really think that their labour is so worthless to them? No. They probably think that they are being underpaid. They just can't find anything better.


Any one who believes what I just wrote probably votes for Democrats

I doubt that they would vote at all. The people who believe that are the people television is made for(i.e. the majority of the American population).

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2004, 04:25 AM

Since you conveniently ignored my last post (not shocking considering how it made you look) I can see why you would still not get it.

You could have at least stopped posting however because you really look silly now.

Competition, among several other factors, will ensure that the cost to the consumer will always decrease.

To retain profitabilty, the costs of production must be decreased exponentially with the decrease in market value.

In other words, if the cost of fixed or constant capital remains constant, there is no other resource besides labour or variable capital that can be decreased to retain profitability.

So subsequently, as the cost of labour is decreased, the market value of the product will also decrease.

This is very basic economics Cicero. Why don't you know it? :lol:
Marx only spoke of a "tendency", not the law of the rate of profit to fall over time. Why not quote the "counteracting influences" as well?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:59 PM
Marx only spoke of a "tendency", not the law of the rate of profit to fall over time. Why not quote the "counteracting influences" as well?
I'm not talking about Marx's theory.

If you can't see the truth happening before your very eyes (nevermind the math) then you can't be helped.

Economics ain't for everyone I guess.

[Marvs Cicero]

The decrease in price was due to the fact that goods were now made in factories rather than completely manually, agreed? This allowed more goods to be manufactured by less workers and therefore the price dropped. It seems pretty obvious to me

It shouldn't. For all you know physical labor could have decreased by 25% per object while the price of goods could have droped by 50%. You have no proof that the decrease in labor directly coresponds with the decrease in the prices, so again how can you justify your belief?


I frankly don't see how working in a stuffy sweatshop for 14 hours a day was worse than what was done previously to create the same product.


Doesn't matter if you see it or not, all that matters is that it was!


How is an increase in productivity brought about by an increase in capital goods?

Just look at the United States, we have the most productive workers on the planet. They don't achieve this by working 16 hours a day, they do it by operating complex machines which can do what manual laborers did, only faster and better.

Now someone made the point about why they send workers overseas to the cheap human labor. It's quite simple, the Unions and Unessecary Government regulations artificially increase the wages of the workers using the machines and the price of doing buisness to the point where it exceeds the benefits gained from the increase of machines.


How do workers' rights magically come into existence when an increase in productivity occurs?

Workers don't have a special group of rights, they have the same rights as everyone else.


I'm not talking about Marx's theory.

If you can't see the truth happening before your very eyes (nevermind the math) then you can't be helped.

Economics ain't for everyone I guess.

Profits are decreasing because the Government declares anything that makes what it deams as "too much profit" get's broken up and gets labeled as a "evil monopoly". Thoose that do make a good profit hide it by spending a crap load on advertising.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It shouldn't. For all you know physical labor could have decreased by 25% per object while the price of goods could have droped by 50%. You have no proof that the decrease in labor directly coresponds with the decrease in the prices, so again how can you justify your belief?



What belief? It's an economic fact.

You're the one that has no understanding of economics, not me.



Profits are decreasing because the Government declares anything that makes what it deams as "too much profit" get's broken up and gets labeled as a "evil monopoly". Thoose that do make a good profit hide it by spending a crap load on advertising.

:lol:

How quaint!

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2004, 05:55 PM
I'm not talking about Marx's theory.

If you can't see the truth happening before your very eyes (nevermind the math) then you can't be helped.

Economics ain't for everyone I guess.
How can I, as a simple bourgeois economist? Am I not blinded?

I definatily do not see any such thing happening so unless you could provide me with some empirical evidence, I will regard this as a nice theoretical exercise.

[cormacobear]

Demark far more regulated than the united states, 1990-1998 annual growth of gdp 2.3%, us growth 1.7%,men working more than 45 hours a week, den. 15% US 26%,

more regulation increased productivity.

Men working under collective agreements; Den. 69% U.S. 16%
and a faster growing economy.

Regulation with social spending provides better more productive workers
lowering the cost of production.

Let's see some evidence that U.S. Labourers are the most productive, that distinction has generally been reserved for japan.

[Hoppe]

As you might imagine yourself, those will not do.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I definatily do not see any such thing happening so unless you could provide me with some empirical evidence, I will regard this as a nice theoretical exercise.



:lol:

Try looking around you.


How can I, as a simple bourgeois economist? Am I not blinded?



I don't believe you're any type of "economist", bourgeois or otherwise.

[Osman Ghazi]

Profits are decreasing because the Government declares anything that makes what it deams as "too much profit" get's broken up and gets labeled as a "evil monopoly".


Name one example.


Thoose that do make a good profit hide it by spending a crap load on advertising.

That wouldn't 'hide' it. You don't get advertising money back. They are just spending money.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2004, 08:01 PM


:lol:

Try looking around you.



I don't believe you're any type of "economist", bourgeois or otherwise.
Figures please. I just read some reports from companies which have increased their earnings.

I remember once reading you had a phd in political science. Not really economics is it?