Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Literate Chaotic => Topic started by: Prickly on July 19, 2004, 10:18:12 AM

Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 19, 2004, 10:18:12 AM
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html
Yet more evidence that controlled, orderly economies leave people worse off than free, chaotic ones....
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 19, 2004, 02:57:37 PM
Yet more evidence that governments can not repeal the law of supply and demand.

Yet the argument is based on ancedotal evidence and a superficial reviewing on two or two elements. Personally, I don't think an $11 wage drove companies out of San Jose (something that author admits), but more likely the amount of paperwork businesses have to fill out to self report to the business practice police.

Besides, don't people living in areas where 25 cents a day is considered a normal wage deserve better jobs, too? Or are good jobs only for Americans?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 20, 2004, 02:08:40 AM
Ah, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: fluffy on July 20, 2004, 03:41:59 AM
spoken like a true supply sider
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 20, 2004, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: PricklyAh, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.

Now, let's talk about the REAL world.

Excess taxes?  Seen the deficit, lately?  You haven't SEEN excess taxes...but they're coming.

Excess regulations?  Sure.  Let's dump dioxin in our water, and allow sweatshops.  That'll work out GREAT!

Creation of jobs in America?  Listen up, bunky...You cut taxes to the wealthy, and eliminate CG taxes, and you know what happens?  The same thing that is happening right now...the rich invest in sweatshops in Malaysia, and pay NO taxes on their gains.  ZERO revenue for the government to function on, and you and I can just fuck right off and work at WalMart for minimum wage, because our jobs are overseas.

But let me guess...it can't happen to YOU, right?  You're SPECIAL.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Mr. Normal on July 20, 2004, 04:00:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
But let me guess...it can't happen to YOU, right?  You're SPECIAL.

No, I'm the one who's special, not him. I get to live well. You get to live in shit. Nyah nyah nyah nyah!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 21, 2004, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Normal
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
But let me guess...it can't happen to YOU, right?  You're SPECIAL.

No, I'm the one who's special, not him. I get to live well. You get to live in shit. Nyah nyah nyah nyah!

Or bearing grease.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 22, 2004, 07:01:56 AM
Quote from: fluffyspoken like a true supply sider

Well, you try demanding something that's not being supplied, and let me know how it works out.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerNow, let's talk about the REAL world.

Aw, crap, and here I thought we were talking about an imaginary world, not a study based on data from the real world. Thanks for reminding me what the study I linked to was based on.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerExcess taxes?  Seen the deficit, lately?  You haven't SEEN excess taxes...but they're coming.

Hence the need for less government spending, fewer costly regulations, and less government intervention in the economy. Score one for me.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerExcess regulations?  Sure.  Let's dump dioxin in our water, and allow sweatshops.  That'll work out GREAT!

Right, because reducing regulations means no regulations. There's a comic someone on this forum always posts when people say things like that.

Besides, employee abuse is directly related to the jobs-to-workers ratio. If there are more jobs than workers, companies have to compete with each other to attract workers, meaning better working conditions, higher pay, more benefits, etc. When there are more workers than jobs, as there are right now, workers end up accepting abuse, dangerous conditions, etc. without complaining because they can't afford not to work and there aren't jobs available anywhere else. The worst period of employee abuse in this country's history happened around the turn of the century, when people in rural, agricultural communities were moving to the cities in large numbers, causing a huge increase in the number of workers in cities, much more of an increase than the increase in jobs at the time. More laws didn't help - it just caused people to try to avoid the laws, and caused employees to assist in breakng laws designed to help them because it was the only way they could find work. What the country needed was a freer economy, where job creation would be encouraged and would catch up to the increase in the size of the working class, but instead we got high levels of regulations that slowed down job creation, led to more abuses, and contributed to the economic crash that started the great depression.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerCreation of jobs in America?  Listen up, bunky...You cut taxes to the wealthy, and eliminate CG taxes, and you know what happens?  The same thing that is happening right now...the rich invest in sweatshops in Malaysia, and pay NO taxes on their gains.  ZERO revenue for the government to function on, and you and I can just fuck right off and work at WalMart for minimum wage, because our jobs are overseas.

When did I say we'd only cut taxes on the wealthy? Sure, the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay 30% of the taxes, so it's hard to give a tax cut that doesn't benefit the wealthy somehow, but the lower and middle classes need larger tax cuts.

Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerBut let me guess...it can't happen to YOU, right?  You're SPECIAL.

Shit, I work at a Taco Bell and made less than $15,000 last year. And guess what, I paid about 30% of that to taxes. From income tax to social security taxes to sales tax to property tax to gas tax and more, I ended up paying a huge chunk of my income to taxes.
But the problem isn't that the rich aren't paying enough in taxes - the problem is that the government wastes so much money that even after hitting the wealthy up for trillions of dollars a year, they still have to hit the poor and middle class up for a few trillion more. I dunno about you, but I could certainly use my few trillion dollars back.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 22, 2004, 08:11:44 AM
Quote from: Prickly

Right, because reducing regulations means no regulations.

Okay, which regulations would you chop?

Can you give me an example or two?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 22, 2004, 08:14:16 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: fluffyspoken like a true supply sider

Well, you try demanding something that's not being supplied, and let me know how it works out.


Maybe you should read up on "Supply side economics".  Just saying.

Or don't.  It IS funny, this way.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 22, 2004, 08:15:48 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerExcess taxes?  Seen the deficit, lately?  You haven't SEEN excess taxes...but they're coming.

Hence the need for less government spending, fewer costly regulations, and less government intervention in the economy. Score one for me.

Score one for you?  Why?

For having poor reading comprehension skills?

Or for not being able to realize that our CURRENT debt level is crippling, and MUST be paid?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 22, 2004, 02:09:33 PM
For realizing that the only way we're going to get out of debt is to cut spending.

As for regulations to repeal, where to begin....
Well, probably the first thing to start with is minimum wage laws, since they cause unemployment (and if you didn't know that, ask for a refund on any economics classes you've taken or books you've bought). In addition, they cause prices on things produced by low wage workers to rise, and since those things tend to be the same things being bought by low wage workers, that little bit of extra money they make ends up not going as far. So, that's a definite first thing to be repealed.

Drug laws are another obvious one. In the 65 or so years that marijuana has been illegal, marijuana use has gone up to many times what it was when marijuana was legal. In the meantime, government agencies have spent more than a trillion dollars trying to stop marijuana use, ruined millions of people's lives by throwing them in jail, and caused America to have the highest percent of its population in prison of any country in the world (higher even than Communist China). In the process, they've turned marijuana from a legal, commercial drug to an illegal, black market drug, giving organized crime a cash crop worth over twenty million dollars worth of business a day. Giving those millions of dollars worth of business to farmers and pharmacies, instead of drug dealers and crime rings, is a hell of a start.

With the environment, I'll grant you more regulations in certain areas for less in others. Before I get started explaining what changes I want to see here, it's important to know who's doing the most polluting. The nation's number one polluter, who has dumped sewage into national parks, leaked radioactive waste into drinking water, and contaminated over 60,000 sites in the US, has been getting away with it. The cost of cleaning up the pollution caused by the nation's number one polluter is about five times as high as the cost of cleaning up the pollution caused by all American corporations combined (obviously, the nation's number one polluter is not, as most environmentalists would have you believe, a corporation). In fact, government-caused pollution is so out of hand that the EPA itself is responsible for pollution - EPA laboratories were found leaking mercury into drinking water.
You can see the article by going to //www.boston.com and typing "worst polluter in the land" into their search engine (should be the only article, from 1999, if you type it right), or just type "Boston Globe, license to pollute, worst polluter in the land" into google to find a half dozen other articles that quote and expand on that one.
That said, it's obvious that the first thing we need to do is to make the government liable for its own pollution (which is kinda tricky; some of the articles that reference the Boston Globe one offer further explanation on that point).

In addition, the policies we do have to restrict pollution are extremely hypocritical. The government grants pollution "credits" to corporations, saying that all pollution up to a certain point is fine and dandy, but anything past that point is illegal. The credits are transferable, and companies regularly buy and sell credits from each other based on how much polluting they do. That they're transferable isn't the problem - in fact, since it means that companies that pollute more end up paying more money and companies that pollute less make more money, that's the best part of the plan. The problems are that a certain level of pollution is free, and that businesses can't go past a certain level if the need for production arises.
So, the answer is pretty clear: make all credits purchasable. The price should be slightly higher than the cost of cleaning up the pollution (that way, companies pay directly to clean up any pollution they cause). Companies would then be able to produce as much as they wanted, as long as they were willing to pay to clean up every ounce of pollution they cause in the process. It also encourages companies to reduce pollution levels in the first place, as preventing pollution is generally cheaper than cleaning it up afterwards.

A few other examples that I remember from a speech by Mary Ruwart (author of "Healing our World):
In New York, a sisterhood of nuns attempted to set up a homeless shelter a few years ago. After spending money on the land and building materials, government inspectors looked over their plans and forced them to abandon the project because they wouldn't include an elevator in the building (they couldn't afford to). So, rather than having one more homeless shelter where disabled people would only be able to access the first floor, that homeless shelter isn't there and isn't doing any homeless people any good, disabled or not. That type of regulation should go.
There was a case, I think it was in Chicago but I don't remember off the top of my head, where a homeless man was shining shoes for money. He couldn't afford a business license, and the police arrested him, confiscated what little money he had made shining shoes, and fined him for operating a business without a license (no, they didn't jail him, so he's still homeless, but a lot poorer). These kinds of "anti-business" restrictions hardly slow down the multinational corporations they're intended to regulate, since those companies can afford to hire lawyers to get them out of any messes they get into. Instead, they generally hurt small business, start up businesses, and people trying to work from home or on the street.

Need more examples? I can find more.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: fluffy on July 22, 2004, 09:12:52 PM
Quote from: PricklyWell, you try demanding something that's not being supplied, and let me know how it works out.

how about private space flight?

Quote from: PricklyBesides, employee abuse is directly related to the jobs-to-workers ratio. If there are more jobs than workers, companies have to compete with each other to attract workers, meaning better working conditions, higher pay, more benefits, etc. When there are more workers than jobs, as there are right now, workers end up accepting abuse, dangerous conditions, etc. without complaining because they can't afford not to work and there aren't jobs available anywhere else. The worst period of employee abuse in this country's history happened around the turn of the century, when people in rural, agricultural communities were moving to the cities in large numbers, causing a huge increase in the number of workers in cities, much more of an increase than the increase in jobs at the time. More laws didn't help - it just caused people to try to avoid the laws, and caused employees to assist in breakng laws designed to help them because it was the only way they could find work. What the country needed was a freer economy, where job creation would be encouraged and would catch up to the increase in the size of the working class, but instead we got high levels of regulations that slowed down job creation, led to more abuses, and contributed to the economic crash that started the great depression.

(http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v314/gnimbley/efb.gif)(http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v314/gnimbley/beating_heart.gif)(http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v314/gnimbley/144692247240f45bd53cadf.jpg)
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Horab Fibslager on July 23, 2004, 12:32:34 AM
a freer economy doesn't necessarily mean that, as coporations often try to manipulate th emarket in order to create more profitable and controllable environment in which to uh profit from...

monetary excessive profit driven economy is in the shitter, unfortunately there's no better(workable) solution available atm.

vote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: fluffy on July 23, 2004, 02:15:45 AM
Quote from: Grand Imam Horabvote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!

traitor! you will fry in hell for this!

vote for Bella or your gonads will attack your leg!


(http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4498/bellaButton.gif)
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 23, 2004, 02:45:39 AM
Quote from: fluffy
Quote from: Grand Imam Horabvote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!

traitor! you will fry in hell for this!

vote for Bella or your gonads will attack your leg!


(http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4498/bellaButton.gif)

Citizen, only Dirty Commie Mutants would vote against the Computer in the upcoming election.

The Computer is your friend, Citizen.

You love the Computer, don't you, Citizen.

Aren't you happy with the Computer?

Failure to be happy is Treason.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 23, 2004, 03:44:22 AM
Quote from: Grand Imam Horaba freer economy doesn't necessarily mean that, as coporations often try to manipulate th emarket in order to create more profitable and controllable environment in which to uh profit from...

monetary excessive profit driven economy is in the shitter, unfortunately there's no better(workable) solution available atm.

vote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!

Actually, the main way that businesses get away with that type of abuse is when government is actively supporting it. For example, when AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, their monopoly was upheld partly by laws that severely restricted local competition, partly by FCC regulations that restricted any kind of competition, and partly by FCC regulations that prevented new technology from entering the market (for example, did you know cell phone technology was first invented in the 1940s? The FCC wouldn't let anyone use it until the early 80s, so for about 40 years technology that could have made AT&T's control of hard phone lines obsolete and undone their monopoly was stuck on a shelf and never used).

But, yeah, if you're gonna vote for any kind of fascist government, do it on the 4th.

Quote from: fluffytraitor! you will fry in hell for this!

vote for Bella or your gonads will attack your leg!


(http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4498/bellaButton.gif)

If Bella can get on the ballot here, she's got my vote. Otherwise, I'll just have to vote Libertarian (//www.badnarik.com)....
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Horab Fibslager on July 23, 2004, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: Grand Imam Horaba freer economy doesn't necessarily mean that, as coporations often try to manipulate th emarket in order to create more profitable and controllable environment in which to uh profit from...

monetary excessive profit driven economy is in the shitter, unfortunately there's no better(workable) solution available atm.

vote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!

Actually, the main way that businesses get away with that type of abuse is when government is actively supporting it. For example, when AT&T had a monopoly on phone service, their monopoly was upheld partly by laws that severely restricted local competition, partly by FCC regulations that restricted any kind of competition, and partly by FCC regulations that prevented new technology from entering the market (for example, did you know cell phone technology was first invented in the 1940s? The FCC wouldn't let anyone use it until the early 80s, so for about 40 years technology that could have made AT&T's control of hard phone lines obsolete and undone their monopoly was stuck on a shelf and never used).

But, yeah, if you're gonna vote for any kind of fascist government, do it on the 4th.

Quote from: fluffytraitor! you will fry in hell for this!

vote for Bella or your gonads will attack your leg!


(http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4498/bellaButton.gif)

If Bella can get on the ballot here, she's got my vote. Otherwise, I'll just have to vote Libertarian (//www.badnarik.com)....

competive open telecommunicatiosn market in the us in particualr is a joke.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 23, 2004, 06:36:47 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: fluffy
Quote from: Grand Imam Horabvote fascist psychonetic super computer for supreme dictator fo the earth this nov. 4th!

traitor! you will fry in hell for this!

vote for Bella or your gonads will attack your leg!


(http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4498/bellaButton.gif)

Citizen, only Dirty Commie Mutants would vote against the Computer in the upcoming election.

The Computer is your friend, Citizen.

You love the Computer, don't you, Citizen.

Aren't you happy with the Computer?

Failure to be happy is Treason.

If you aren't happy, you may be used as reactor shielding.

PERMISSION TO REPAIR FLYBOT DENIED.  PLEASE REPORT YOUR LOCATION UPON IMPACT.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 23, 2004, 06:38:20 AM
Quote from: PricklyAs for regulations to repeal, where to begin....
Well, probably the first thing to start with is minimum wage laws, since they cause unemployment

Bosh.  We've had them for decades, and suddenly NOW they're a problem?

You been listening to Limbaugh?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 23, 2004, 06:42:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: PricklyAs for regulations to repeal, where to begin....
Well, probably the first thing to start with is minimum wage laws, since they cause unemployment

Bosh.  We've had them for decades, and suddenly NOW they're a problem?

You been listening to Limbaugh?

Only to program the legions of Killbots to follow the sound of his voice, sir.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 27, 2004, 08:52:51 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: PricklyAs for regulations to repeal, where to begin....
Well, probably the first thing to start with is minimum wage laws, since they cause unemployment

Bosh.  We've had them for decades, and suddenly NOW they're a problem?

You been listening to Limbaugh?

We've had laws against marijuana and sodomy for decades, too. Guess that's reason enough for them to stay.

And no, Limbaugh's a moron. Try some of Larry Elder (http://www.larryelder.com)'s books (his radio show is okay too). Or, heck, any economics textbook.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 06:32:11 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: PricklyAs for regulations to repeal, where to begin....
Well, probably the first thing to start with is minimum wage laws, since they cause unemployment

Bosh.  We've had them for decades, and suddenly NOW they're a problem?

You been listening to Limbaugh?

We've had laws against marijuana and sodomy for decades, too. Guess that's reason enough for them to stay.

And no, Limbaugh's a moron. Try some of Larry Elder (http://www.larryelder.com)'s books (his radio show is okay too). Or, heck, any economics textbook.

Larry Elder? :lol:

Please.  

Now, you are comparing the minimum wage to sodomy.  Cute.  I suppose that health insurance benefits for employees are therefore equal to - what - high treason?

Besides, you didn't exactly answer the question, though (nice dodge, but no cigar)...why is it that we've had the minimum wage for the better part of a century, and they are only NOW becoming a problem?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 06:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Larry Elder? :lol:

Please.  

Now, you are comparing the minimum wage to sodomy.  Cute.  I suppose that health insurance benefits for employees are therefore equal to - what - high treason?

Besides, you didn't exactly answer the question, though (nice dodge, but no cigar)...why is it that we've had the minimum wage for the better part of a century, and they are only NOW becoming a problem?

Guess who is employed as a Pizza Boy?

I work hard for those NON-EXISTANT benefits.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 06:41:37 AM
According to Prickley and SC, you STILL get paid too much.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 06:45:46 AM
Let me tell you exactly how 'much' I get paid.

I get 5.50 an hour.

Except when I'm out deliver.  I'm off the clock, and get 75 cents every time I clock out to deliver.

Each delivery, at least, takes 10 minutes.

So I'm missing out of .91 cents, approx, of my time.  Unless I take more than one item, and then it can take upwards of 30 to 40 minutes to hit every place.

Tonight, I made about 21 dollars working seven hours.  That's on my paycheck.

Now, I get tips.  I delivered 9 times.  Five times I got nothing.

Three times, I got between nothing and about 2 bucks.

Three more times, I got between 2 bucks and 5 bucks.

(Remember, I don't make one trip per clock out. )

So I came home tonight with exactly 20 dollars in tips, plus the aprox 21 I get from hourly.

41 dollars in seven hours of work.  About 5.85 an hour.

Now factor in that I went through about 4 gallons of gas, when gas is 1.98 here in Gainesville.

Factor in the wear and tear on a 11 year old Jeep.

I'm not making that much.  I have to get my oil changed every month.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 06:51:22 AM
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioLet me tell you exactly how 'much' I get paid.

I get 5.50 an hour.


According to Prickley &SC, that's too much.  Their idea is that your employer should pay you whatever HE feels you should get.  If you don't LIKE getting $0.25/hr, you can just quit, and get another job (for $0.25/hr).

Of coure, the little neocons will then tell you that you should "develop skills for a higher paying job"...neglecting, of course, to tell you how to afford (and survive while) developing those skills.

Not to mention that, under their model, the ONLY people making any coin are the owners.

So, they'll probably tell you to start your own business...neglecting, of course, little details like start up capital, etc.

Neocons are as bad as communists, when it comes to ivory tower theorizing.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 06:54:36 AM
Do you mean communists, or dictators disguising their system as communism?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 07:02:31 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioLet me tell you exactly how 'much' I get paid.

I get 5.50 an hour.


According to Prickley &SC, that's too much.  Their idea is that your employer should pay you whatever HE feels you should get.  If you don't LIKE getting $0.25/hr, you can just quit, and get another job (for $0.25/hr).

Of coure, the little neocons will then tell you that you should "develop skills for a higher paying job"...neglecting, of course, to tell you how to afford (and survive while) developing those skills.

Not to mention that, under their model, the ONLY people making any coin are the owners.

So, they'll probably tell you to start your own business...neglecting, of course, little details like start up capital, etc.

Neocons are as bad as communists, when it comes to ivory tower theorizing.

Do you mean communists, or dictators disguising their system as communism?

I mean communists.  Neat on paper, utterly unworkable (why do you think EVERY "communist" nation IMMEDIATELY goes into Stalinism, etc?).
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 07:03:23 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioLet me tell you exactly how 'much' I get paid.

I get 5.50 an hour.


According to Prickley &SC, that's too much.  Their idea is that your employer should pay you whatever HE feels you should get.  If you don't LIKE getting $0.25/hr, you can just quit, and get another job (for $0.25/hr).

Of coure, the little neocons will then tell you that you should "develop skills for a higher paying job"...neglecting, of course, to tell you how to afford (and survive while) developing those skills.

Not to mention that, under their model, the ONLY people making any coin are the owners.

So, they'll probably tell you to start your own business...neglecting, of course, little details like start up capital, etc.

Neocons are as bad as communists, when it comes to ivory tower theorizing.

Do you mean communists, or dictators disguising their system as communism?

I mean communists.  Neat on paper, utterly unworkable (why do you think EVERY "communist" nation IMMEDIATELY goes into Stalinism, etc?).

Because a 'True' Communism is only applicable to social insects and robots.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 07:05:06 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio

Because a 'True' Communism is only applicable to social insects and robots.

Same thing with weird neocon supply-side bullshit.  They both reduce the value of a human's life to a "calories in/ergs out equation.

Both are grey as hell, and neither is a system fit for actual humans.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 07:06:53 AM
Of course, this so-called Democracy we live in isn't too great, either, is it?

I think I have to agree with that old greek (was it Socrates, or Plato?) who said that a dictatorship has the potential to be the best form of government.  Now go find a Solomon or an Arthur and let's get crackin'.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 07:09:35 AM
Actually, Voltaire made the following observation:

There are three types of government, and three states into which they decay.

Constitutional Monarchy, which decays into despotism.

Republic, decays into democracy.

Aristocracy, which decays into oligarchies.

It's actually the THIRD case that is occurring in America.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 28, 2004, 07:11:11 AM
Well, we are a 'Representative Republic,' which is about as close to Aristocracy as you can get.

It's easier to get that 'representation' when you're rich.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 28, 2004, 01:14:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerNow, you are comparing the minimum wage to sodomy.  Cute.  I suppose that health insurance benefits for employees are therefore equal to - what - high treason?

Besides, you didn't exactly answer the question, though (nice dodge, but no cigar)...why is it that we've had the minimum wage for the better part of a century, and they are only NOW becoming a problem?

I'm not comparing hte minimum wage to sodomy, I'm explaining that your logic is flawed. The fact that they've been around for a while doesn't mean that they work as intended or are a good thing to have around. And no, medical benefits for employees are not treason. Forcing a company to give it's employees benefits is a bad idea, but still not treason.

Minimum wage laws are not just now becoming a problem. But, since you want an explanation, I'll give you the simplest of the three. If you want further proof, you'll have to gimme time to make the tables and graphs.

When you enact a law that forces employers to pay their employees more money, the company can't afford to hire as many workers for the same amount of money. In order to maintain a profit (ie. stay in business), the company has to either fire workers or raise prices. Most companies will do both.

The workers who were fired in order to cut costs now end up making nothing. Nothing is generally a lot worse than not enough. Tell me how you expect them to live off of no income.

As if that's not enough, as companies increase prices to cover the rest of their costs, those additional unemployed people will now be able to buy even less off of what little savings they have. Also, the workers who were kept on who are now making somewhat more now have to spend more in order to buy things. This means that any extra money they receive from minimum wage doesn't actually buy them any more or better stuff, so it's as difficult to live off of as what they were making before.

When the minimum wage is eliminated, yes, wages for many workers will fall. However, more workers will be hired, so production will increase and the cost of producing everything they're hired to produce will go down, meaning that prices will go down. People currently making at or near minimum wage would be able to live as easily, if not more easily, once prices fall, even if their wages fall.

Need the more detailed explanations?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Malaul on July 28, 2004, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerNow, you are comparing the minimum wage to sodomy.

well
they both do kinda screw ya up the butt

at least you get paid for one of em though,,,


Min wage is awfull to try to live on
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 28, 2004, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: Prickly
I'm not comparing hte minimum wage to sodomy, I'm explaining that your logic is flawed. The fact that they've been around for a while doesn't mean that they work as intended or are a good thing to have around. And no, medical benefits for employees are not treason. Forcing a company to give it's employees benefits is a bad idea, but still not treason.

Minimum wage laws are not just now becoming a problem. But, since you want an explanation, I'll give you the simplest of the three. If you want further proof, you'll have to gimme time to make the tables and graphs.

When you enact a law that forces employers to pay their employees more money, the company can't afford to hire as many workers for the same amount of money. In order to maintain a profit (ie. stay in business), the company has to either fire workers or raise prices. Most companies will do both.

The workers who were fired in order to cut costs now end up making nothing. Nothing is generally a lot worse than not enough. Tell me how you expect them to live off of no income.

As if that's not enough, as companies increase prices to cover the rest of their costs, those additional unemployed people will now be able to buy even less off of what little savings they have. Also, the workers who were kept on who are now making somewhat more now have to spend more in order to buy things. This means that any extra money they receive from minimum wage doesn't actually buy them any more or better stuff, so it's as difficult to live off of as what they were making before.

When the minimum wage is eliminated, yes, wages for many workers will fall. However, more workers will be hired, so production will increase and the cost of producing everything they're hired to produce will go down, meaning that prices will go down. People currently making at or near minimum wage would be able to live as easily, if not more easily, once prices fall, even if their wages fall.

Need the more detailed explanations?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You've never owned a business, have you?

I have. This is bullshit.

First, you don't hire and fire workers based on the cost of hiring them. You hire them because you need bodies to do work. The number of employees is based on the amount of work you have to do. Period. You fire workers because they are incompetent or disruptive.

If your company is in financial problem, you cut expenses. Where you can, you rearrange the operation to be more efficient, or you jettison products or services that can not support themselves, or you reassign work to third parties that can do it less expensively. This reduces the number of bodies you need.

If you are an asshole - like a wall street brokerage house or a take over specialist or a go-go entreprenuer looking to make a killing taking a business public - then you trim the hell out of the payroll to produce a better balance sheet so you can convince the analysts that they should recommend ma and pa stick their life savings into your stock.

Most business owners, and having been one I am intimately acquainted with the beast, would, if you lowered minimum wage, look at that as an opportunity to line their own pockets. Most of them looked for ways to exploit their own employees. They are greedy little bastards. I was constantly amazed at how callous some of my collegues were towards their employees. (Some employers are fair and honest, but just some.)

The concept of raising minimum wage causing prices to go up is erroneous. Sure, the price of pizza might go up, from $8 to $8.25. But oil going up 25% would add more to the price of pizza. And the price of automobiles and refrigerators and houses wouldn't budge. Nobody building those makes minimum wages. Lowering minimum wage would mean that millions of people would have less income. And the price of cars and refrigerators and houses, and even pizzas wouldn't go down, until people stopped buying them. And that would drive some companies out of business and then, because there is less competitiion, prices would go back up.

And as for "The workers who were fired in order to cut costs now end up making nothing," which fucking country do you live in? America? This is a welfare state in case you haven't noticed. Not that I know exactly what that has to do with with argument, but there are a hell of a lot people not working who live better than people in Somalia and Iraq and places like that.

My bottom line is, in a world where statistics and graphs determine the outcome of economic events, you are exactly right. Ina world where greed and envy determine economic events, you are exactly wrong.

Get out your charts and graphs, Prickly, and let's go to the war!

::starts tacking mattresses to the walls in anticipation of Prickly's assault::

Whhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 06:42:50 AM
Dammit, Gnimbley!  You beat me to it.

Prickly:  I am a mechanic.  Do you suppose that the company hired me because they could AFFORD to, or because they NEEDED someone to maintain their aircraft?

Did they hire me because I'm a nice guy, or because I keep their Beech 18's from falling out of the sky?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 06:52:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerDammit, Gnimbley!  You beat me to it.

Prickly:  I am a mechanic.  Do you suppose that the company hired me because they could AFFORD to, or because they NEEDED someone to maintain their aircraft?

Did they hire me because I'm a nice guy, or because I keep their Beech 18's from falling out of the sky?

I thought that one of the design features of the Beech 18 was its rock-like plunges?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:01:14 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerDammit, Gnimbley!  You beat me to it.

Prickly:  I am a mechanic.  Do you suppose that the company hired me because they could AFFORD to, or because they NEEDED someone to maintain their aircraft?

Did they hire me because I'm a nice guy, or because I keep their Beech 18's from falling out of the sky?

I thought that one of the design features of the Beech 18 was its rock-like plunges?

Yeah.  That's what engineers call a "feature", and mechanics call a "flaw".
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:03:17 AM
C'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:04:54 AM
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:06:19 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:09:41 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.

True...but the Beech 18 HATES being a Beech 18, and tries to disassemble itself constantly.  

From a mechanic's POV, it's the single best plane EVAR.

For job security, anyhow.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:10:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.

True...but the Beech 18 HATES being a Beech 18, and tries to disassemble itself constantly.  

From a mechanic's POV, it's the single best plane EVAR.

For job security, anyhow.

Ah.  Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, I understand.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.

True...but the Beech 18 HATES being a Beech 18, and tries to disassemble itself constantly.  

From a mechanic's POV, it's the single best plane EVAR.

For job security, anyhow.

Ah.  Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, I understand.

Of course, I obviously get paid too much.  In Prickly's world, I would be doing this for $0.25/day, and a swift kick in the ass.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.

True...but the Beech 18 HATES being a Beech 18, and tries to disassemble itself constantly.  

From a mechanic's POV, it's the single best plane EVAR.

For job security, anyhow.

Ah.  Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, I understand.

Of course, I obviously get paid too much.  In Prickly's world, I would be doing this for $0.25/day, and a swift kick in the ass.

And then shout, "Thank you sir, Taskmaster, Sir!  May I have anouther?!"
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:19:10 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioC'mon.  A Sopwith Camel flies better than a Beech 18.

The Sopwith Camel was a real man's plane.

But a Beech 18 is a real mechanic's plane.

Priorities, dude.

Dude, The Camel is where we get the phrase 'Flying by the Seat of your Pants.'  Any plane my Jeep can out accelerate that was used in war is AWEsome.

True...but the Beech 18 HATES being a Beech 18, and tries to disassemble itself constantly.  

From a mechanic's POV, it's the single best plane EVAR.

For job security, anyhow.

Ah.  Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, I understand.

Of course, I obviously get paid too much.  In Prickly's world, I would be doing this for $0.25/day, and a swift kick in the ass.

And then shout, "Thank you sir, Taskmaster, Sir!  May I have anouther?!"

Thank you for my wage slavery, sir!  No, that paycut was just FINE!

I'm HAPPY to be a Delta(tm).
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:19:47 AM
Ah.  So funny.

But we'd better quit it with the quotes before they kill us.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:21:24 AM
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioAh.  So funny.

But we'd better quit it with the quotes before they kill us.

Before WHO kills us? (http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/tinfoilhat.gif)
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Bella on July 29, 2004, 07:22:02 AM
Malaul. She hates the metaquotes.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:22:21 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus ConfusioAh.  So funny.

But we'd better quit it with the quotes before they kill us.

Before WHO kills us? (http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/tinfoilhat.gif)

<whisper>THEM.<whisper>

Y'know.  The I.B.E.W., OPEC, Switzerland, and the KGB.

And the Mods.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:28:02 AM
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Guido Finucci on July 29, 2004, 07:33:09 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

They hurt her hardware.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:35:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

It's enough that she does, because I love her.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:44:10 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

It's enough that she does, because I love her.

MUST...NOT...PUSH...JIHAAD...BUTTON...
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 07:47:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

It's enough that she does, because I love her.

MUST...NOT...PUSH...JIHAAD...BUTTON...

Sir, don't do it!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 07:50:48 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

It's enough that she does, because I love her.

MUST...NOT...PUSH...JIHAAD...BUTTON...

Sir, don't do it!

MUSH...POSTS...MUST...KILL...
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Bella on July 29, 2004, 07:52:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?
She can't help it.
She has PMQSD

Post Meta Quote Stress Disorder.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 29, 2004, 08:01:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?

It's enough that she does, because I love her.

MUST...NOT...PUSH...JIHAAD...BUTTON...

Sir, don't do it!

MUSH...POSTS...MUST...KILL...

Sir!  Think about how mu-  PMing you.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 29, 2004, 08:22:23 AM
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of Doom
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomMalaul. She hates the metaquotes.

Why?
She can't help it.
She has PMQSD

Post Meta Quote Stress Disorder.

Okay, tell you what.  I'll keep posting them, but I'll feel really, really terrible about the whole thing.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Bella on July 29, 2004, 08:24:25 AM
Uh huh. Sssssure you will.  :roll:
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 29, 2004, 08:27:31 AM
Quote from: gnimbleyHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've never owned a business, have you?

I have. This is bullshit.

First, you don't hire and fire workers based on the cost of hiring them. You hire them because you need bodies to do work. The number of employees is based on the amount of work you have to do. Period. You fire workers because they are incompetent or disruptive.

If your company is in financial problem, you cut expenses. Where you can, you rearrange the operation to be more efficient, or you jettison products or services that can not support themselves, or you reassign work to third parties that can do it less expensively. This reduces the number of bodies you need.

If you are an asshole - like a wall street brokerage house or a take over specialist or a go-go entreprenuer looking to make a killing taking a business public - then you trim the hell out of the payroll to produce a better balance sheet so you can convince the analysts that they should recommend ma and pa stick their life savings into your stock.

Most business owners, and having been one I am intimately acquainted with the beast, would, if you lowered minimum wage, look at that as an opportunity to line their own pockets. Most of them looked for ways to exploit their own employees. They are greedy little bastards. I was constantly amazed at how callous some of my collegues were towards their employees. (Some employers are fair and honest, but just some.)

The concept of raising minimum wage causing prices to go up is erroneous. Sure, the price of pizza might go up, from $8 to $8.25. But oil going up 25% would add more to the price of pizza. And the price of automobiles and refrigerators and houses wouldn't budge. Nobody building those makes minimum wages. Lowering minimum wage would mean that millions of people would have less income. And the price of cars and refrigerators and houses, and even pizzas wouldn't go down, until people stopped buying them. And that would drive some companies out of business and then, because there is less competitiion, prices would go back up.

And as for "The workers who were fired in order to cut costs now end up making nothing," which fucking country do you live in? America? This is a welfare state in case you haven't noticed. Not that I know exactly what that has to do with with argument, but there are a hell of a lot people not working who live better than people in Somalia and Iraq and places like that.

My bottom line is, in a world where statistics and graphs determine the outcome of economic events, you are exactly right. Ina world where greed and envy determine economic events, you are exactly wrong.

Get out your charts and graphs, Prickly, and let's go to the war!

::starts tacking mattresses to the walls in anticipation of Prickly's assault::

Whhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money, usually more money than what it costs to employ them. You cut pay or fire incompetent employees because they don't make you as much money and/or cost you more in other ways.

So, take the Taco Bell I work at as an example. Our restaurant has room for up to 14 people to work at a time, but the most we ever have is about 9-10, and we usually have 4-5. Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc.

So, say we have two employees (the minimum needed to run the store). Say the two of them together can do a maximum of $120/hour worth of business. After the costs of food, water, electricity, maintenance, etc. for that hour (everything not related to the number of employees), that leaves you with $60 for employee pay and profit.
Now a third employee comes, and increases your max income that hour to $180/hour. After non-employee costs, this leaves you with $90.
A fourth comes, and increases your max income to $230/hour. This leaves you with $115. Etc. Etc.

So, we have:
# Emp - $ left over for pay
2 . . . . $60
3 . . . . $90
4 . . . . $115
5 . . . . $135
6 . . . . $150
7 . . . . $160
8 . . . . $165

So, the amount of money that each additional employee can make after non-employee costs is:
# Emp - additional $
3 . . . . $30
4 . . . . $25
5 . . . . $20
6 . . . . $15
7 . . . . $10
8 . . . . $5

Now, say that minimum wage is $5.50/hour. In addition to that, you have the cost of uniforms, any benefits (not just things like insurance, but like our Taco Bell gives us up to $5/day in free food), payroll taxes (iirc, FICA/Medicare taxes are divided between employer and employee, each pays about 8%), etc. Say that it costs about $9/hour to hire an employee.

So, if it costs $9/hour per employee, and having an 8th employee can't increase the amount you have available to pay him by more than $5, you're not going to place an 8th employee on the shift even if you'd have enough business, because you'd lose money by doing so. The maximum number of employees you'll have at any given time is 7.

Now, say minimum wage goes up to $7.50/hour. So, with other costs, it's now $11/hour to hire an employee. Now, the maximum number of employees you'll have at a given time is 6, because hiring a 7th employee would cause you to lose money even if you have enough business to use them. If you figure that you'd have about 5 hours a day (3 during lunch, 2 during dinner) when you'd have had 7 employees before, that means you have to cut about 35 hours a week off the schedule, or almost 1 full time employee, because you wouldn't make any money by having them there.

Yes, you're right that cutting other (non employee related) costs would leave you room to hire more employees again, but if doing so would save you that much money, you'd have had as much reason to do so before minimum wage went up as you do afterwards. And besides that, each of those costs you cut out also cuts out someone's work. Whatever your company gives up buying in order to keep more of its employees will then hurt the company you cease buying from, and cause them to have to lay off employees. No matter what, you're still cutting out someone's employment by increasing the minimum wage.

And yeah, you're right, this is a welfare state, so the laid off workers wouldn't be entirely broke. But, for each new person going onto some welfare program, you have to raise taxes to cover it. Some of those taxes will end up hitting the working class (much as I think we all wish they wouldn't), meaning that the working class will have less income after taxes, cutting into any additional income they're receiving from minimum wage. Combined with the (admittedly small) increases in price of many consumer goods following an increase in the minimum wage, this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 29, 2004, 08:29:51 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerDammit, Gnimbley!  You beat me to it.

Prickly:  I am a mechanic.  Do you suppose that the company hired me because they could AFFORD to, or because they NEEDED someone to maintain their aircraft?

Did they hire me because I'm a nice guy, or because I keep their Beech 18's from falling out of the sky?

They hired you because they needed someone to maintain their aircraft, but they wouldn't have been able to hire you if they couldn't afford it. Just because they had one reason to hire you doesn't mean that they didn't have another. Woulda figured fans of RAW wouldn't make that logical mistake.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 29, 2004, 08:36:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend RogerOf course, I obviously get paid too much.  In Prickly's world, I would be doing this for $0.25/day, and a swift kick in the ass.

In my world, you'd be able to afford more off of $0.25/day than you can off of $6/hour now. Remember, decades ago, before your blessed minimum wage laws, when people could afford food, a home, transportation, etc. for a few dollars a day? Now, the same amount an hour doesn't buy everything you need? Yet you don't believe me about minimum wage laws having driven up prices to the point that the money you're making after minimum wage doesn't buy as much as it did before minimum wage laws were enacted....

The swift kick in the ass is all your idea, though. If your employer is kicking you in the ass every day, I'd be looking for a new job. And in my minimum-wageless world, there'd be more jobs to look for.

Sorry bout the triple post.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Guido Finucci on July 29, 2004, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: PricklyYou don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:
Quote from: Prickly... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 29, 2004, 09:01:06 AM
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyYou don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:
Quote from: Prickly... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Guido Finucci on July 29, 2004, 01:28:57 PM
Quote from: PricklyI never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

If they get paid less, they'll spend more?

Here is a free clue:  standard of living is the measure of wealth. Anyone talking about increasing wealth is talking about increasing the standard of living.

Now go an re-read everything you wrote and discover why it makes no sense.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 29, 2004, 01:36:40 PM
Your turn, Roger. I wouldn't want to beat you to it twice in a row. Think of the fluffy little bunnies!

(Although you might start with "Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc. " which presupposes that the number of customers is proportional to the number of employees, to which there is no correlation at a Taco Bell [unless the only people who eat there are related to an empolyee {which in the case of Taco Bell could well be true.}])
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 06:21:08 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyYou don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:
Quote from: Prickly... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

So, you believe that lower wages will mean lower prices for the same quality of product?

Not to be an ass, but what color IS the sky in your world?  In mine, it's blue.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on July 30, 2004, 06:58:14 AM
Bureaucracy   :arrow:   Aftermath


Here is my understanding of the Discordian philosophy and then you tell me if I am crazy:

Rule#1   We Jake Bureaucracies

Rule #2  Infiltrate the system

Rule #3 We Jake Bureaucracies

Rule #4  Everything the system does benefits the system.

Rule #5  Agitate the masses

Rule #6  Refer to rules #1 and 3

Rule #7   We do not talk about Fight Club

Rule #8   Fnord

Rule # :?:  :!:   Oppose stasis




,ÄúLogic is what gets you into trouble,Äù   --Agent Traveler

Freedom is Slavery

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 06:59:46 AM
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.

Nonsense.  Adam Smith was right, but is the most mis-quoted author that exists.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 30, 2004, 07:01:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1

Your lack of faith in the Invisible Hand is disturbing.

Nonsense.  Adam Smith was right, but is the most mis-quoted author that exists.

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand:  Getting People to Study Economics by Making It into Porn.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on July 30, 2004, 07:06:23 AM
Did I say I was talking about economics?


:?
:twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 07:12:12 AM
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1Did I say I was talking about economics?


:?
:twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:  :twisted:

If you weren't , then you weren't talking about the invisible hand.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on July 30, 2004, 07:25:36 AM
If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 07:27:30 AM
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on July 30, 2004, 07:30:22 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 07:40:09 AM
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.

Adam Smith would piss down the throats of these supply-side charletons.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on July 30, 2004, 07:43:47 AM
I have never met Adam Smith in person.  I am sure he was a great guy and everything.  

From http://www.adamsmith.org/policy/publications/pdf-files/invisible-hand-1.pdf
"This is the famous invisible hand. It is a metaphor for an unintended
consequence. There is no hand at all, which is why it is invisible."

Adam Smith is dead and the Invisible Hand doesn't exist.

Charlatans and Institutes on the other hand are very real.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Efrim on July 30, 2004, 07:44:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.

Adam Smith would piss down the throats of these supply-side charletons.

The Adam Smith institue is made up of people who never read past the introduction to Wealth of Nations and those who refuse to reconize the fundamental diffrences between Smith's market and ours.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 07:46:14 AM
Quote from: Efrim
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.

Adam Smith would piss down the throats of these supply-side charletons.

The Adam Smith institue is made up of people who never read past the introduction to Wealth of Nations and those who refuse to reconize the fundamental diffrences between Smith's market and ours.

Yep.  He would have pummelled these Horatio Alger-spewing neocons within an inch of their lives.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Efrim on July 30, 2004, 07:50:36 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Efrim
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.

Adam Smith would piss down the throats of these supply-side charletons.

The Adam Smith institue is made up of people who never read past the introduction to Wealth of Nations and those who refuse to reconize the fundamental diffrences between Smith's market and ours.

Yep.  He would have pummelled these Horatio Alger-spewing neocons within an inch of their lives.

Indeed, Part of the reason why I introduced "The free-market demands it" into our personal lexicon. Why, I think it was the use of that phrase that let you know that I was good people.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2004, 08:09:02 AM
Quote from: Efrim
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Efrim
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Compositus Confusio
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1If you are not crazy

Please do not read any further


This is a random quote I came up with doing a random internet search.




The following are secret societies or organizations highly controlled by THEM:

United Nations, Illuminati, Order of Skull and Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee Of 300, Club of Rome, Round Table, New Age Order, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, Adam Smith Institute, Mont Perelin Society, Business Round Table, B'nai B'rith, Brotherhood of Freemasons, and many others. (Two of many key men: Rothchild, Rockefeller)

:shock:


Back to my original question.

You forgot to highlight the word "institute".  They aren't controlling Adam Smith, he's been dead for 200 years.

But his 'Spirit Hand' lives on.

Adam Smith would piss down the throats of these supply-side charletons.

The Adam Smith institue is made up of people who never read past the introduction to Wealth of Nations and those who refuse to reconize the fundamental diffrences between Smith's market and ours.

Yep.  He would have pummelled these Horatio Alger-spewing neocons within an inch of their lives.

Indeed, Part of the reason why I introduced "The free-market demands it" into our personal lexicon. Why, I think it was the use of that phrase that let you know that I was good people.

Yeah, I remember that.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on July 30, 2004, 08:15:52 AM
The Spirit Hand that remains is an abomination.



Where is this Free Market you speak of?  Do they sell cabbage?




For more information please consult your Pineal Gland.  
Literate Chaotics for Pineal Gland based information Comittee
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Anonymous on July 30, 2004, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyYou don't hire workers purely because you have work to do. You hire them because the work they do makes you money...

<massive amount of junk deleted>

Your argument is shit for the reasons stated before. The following should clue you up:
Quote from: Prickly... this would decrease the consumption of the working class to below the level it was at before minimum wage. Hence, my argument still stands.

Your model seems to rest on the assumption that working class consumption is driven by individual fiscal self-interest determined solely by market forces. That is really, really naive.

Look at it this way -- if the working classes acted solely to maximise their wealth in response to Adam-Smithian market forces, they'd be a lot fucking wealthier than they are. Do try and have an economic model that, at least, pays lip service to reality. Even if the maths is harder.

I never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

So, you believe that lower wages will mean lower prices for the same quality of product?

Not to be an ass, but what color IS the sky in your world?  In mine, it's blue.

Do you believe that an increase in wages through legislative force will result in better product quality? If you increase wages because your workers are more talented and deserve it, then that increase in wages will correlate with better product quality. If you increase wages because the law forces you to, you'll cut costs and increase prices in order to make up the additional cost. This doesn't lead to an increase in quality, however, because you lose some of your incentive to make employees more productive (ie you can't lower their pay if they screw up, until they screw up enough to be fired). If that law then disappears, you'll lower wages, then cut prices and increase other costs (often by adding additional workers, since they're less expensive now) back to the levels they were at prior to the enactment of that law. That won't generally lower the quality of production, and may actually increase it since it gives employers more of an ability to use incentives.

Actually, the sky here has been orange lately. Tornado weather does that to skies. I think most of the world gets either light blue or black, though, depending on the time of day. Some parts get a nice bright pink while transitioning from one to the other. pwn3d

But, anyway, if you're gonna throw centuries of study in economics out the window, could you at least give me better reasoning than "because I don't like it"? Honestly, Reverend, calling me a "neocon" (last I knew, neocons opposed gay rights, wanted the death penalty for drug crimes, want abortion outlawed, and want to police as much of the world as they can find troops for - being pro gay rights, the head of my local chapter of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), pro-choice, and generally pacifistic kinda disqualifies me) is a bit immature. If you're going to disagree with me, at least have a valid reason.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Anonymous on July 30, 2004, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: gnimbleyYour turn, Roger. I wouldn't want to beat you to it twice in a row. Think of the fluffy little bunnies!

(Although you might start with "Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc. " which presupposes that the number of customers is proportional to the number of employees, to which there is no correlation at a Taco Bell [unless the only people who eat there are related to an empolyee {which in the case of Taco Bell could well be true.}])

The number of customers isn't proportional to the number of employees. The number of customers we can adequately handle, however, is.
As I kind of explained (but glossed over because it wasn't important to my main point), the number of employees affects the maximum amount of business the store can handle. They wouldn't be at the maximum profitable number of employees at all hours of the day (as I mentioned at the end of that post), just at the hours when demand is high enough supply at that level. But thanks for making me over explain a minor tangent that wasn't really important to the main point of my post, which you guys still haven't come close to disproving yet.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Anonymous on July 30, 2004, 02:32:48 PM
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyI never said they were attempting to maximize their wealth. I'm saying that, without minimum wage, they will increase their consumption (ie. be able to buy more food, a nicer house, etc.). I don't know where the hell you picked up the assumption that I was talking about maximization of wealth - I'm talking about increasing their consumption, and therefore their standard of living.

If they get paid less, they'll spend more?

Here is a free clue:  standard of living is the measure of wealth. Anyone talking about increasing wealth is talking about increasing the standard of living.

Now go an re-read everything you wrote and discover why it makes no sense.

If they get paid 10% less, and prices fall by 15%, yes, they will buy more. Sorry you slept through that part of this thread.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 30, 2004, 02:33:53 PM
And, sorry, those 3 posts were mine.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 30, 2004, 03:46:26 PM
Quote from: Anonymous
Quote from: gnimbleyYour turn, Roger. I wouldn't want to beat you to it twice in a row. Think of the fluffy little bunnies!

(Although you might start with "Each additional employee increases the maximum number of orders we can take and the maximum amount of food we can make, increasing the amount of money we can make. However, each additional employee also crowds the place, so the 8th employee doesn't increase our max income by as much as the 7th, who doesn't increase it as much as the 6th, etc. " which presupposes that the number of customers is proportional to the number of employees, to which there is no correlation at a Taco Bell [unless the only people who eat there are related to an empolyee {which in the case of Taco Bell could well be true.}])

The number of customers isn't proportional to the number of employees. The number of customers we can adequately handle, however, is.
As I kind of explained (but glossed over because it wasn't important to my main point), the number of employees affects the maximum amount of business the store can handle. They wouldn't be at the maximum profitable number of employees at all hours of the day (as I mentioned at the end of that post), just at the hours when demand is high enough supply at that level. But thanks for making me over explain a minor tangent that wasn't really important to the main point of my post, which you guys still haven't come close to disproving yet.

The first thing you do when you get to college tomorrow is shoot your economics professor.

After that consider that the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis just released a study (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=st+louis+federal+reserve+hell&btnG=Search+News) that says economic properity is proportional to a population's belief in hell.

Next, consider that new employees are hired when business grows to the point whre the current number of employees can't handle the work load. You are arguing that they way to maximize profits is to hire the proper number of employees to match the peak of the employee/profit statistical curve.

Which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with why businesses hire employees.

It has to do with how economic professors get tenure through publication.

::starts installing metal sheeting over roof preparing for Prickly's ineviable shit storm::
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 31, 2004, 06:48:28 AM
Quote from: AnonymousBut, anyway, if you're gonna throw centuries of study in economics out the window,

The laffer curve is centuries of years old?

Minimum wage is?

:lol:
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on July 31, 2004, 11:36:33 AM
Alright, just so long as we're clear that the best response either gnimbley or Roger can come up with is "economics is wrong because I disagree with it and that's all there is to it", I'm satisfied.

Although, gnimbley, if your hiring workers is based, purely and simply, on needing them to do work, and has nothing at all to do with the cost of hiring them, why didn't you just pay all your workers twice what they could have made anywhere else? Just wondering.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Anonymous on July 31, 2004, 06:27:09 PM
Alright, just so long as we're clear that the best response Prickley can come up with is everybody else is wrong because they speak from personal experience and don't have charts and graphs, I'm satisfied.  :twisted:

Quote from: PrickleyAlthough, gnimbley, if your hiring workers is based, purely and simply, on needing them to do work, and has nothing at all to do with the cost of hiring them, why didn't you just pay all your workers twice what they could have made anywhere else? Just wondering.

?????????

1. show me an employer who hires people to stand around and do
nothing because he already has enough people to do the work but thinks
if he hires more people he will make more money.

2. where did I say employers like to lavish money on their employees?
On the contrary, I believe I said that employers (mostly) like to exploit
their employees. (When I was an employer I gave employees annual
raises. If they were a good employee I kept them. If they were a
bad employee, I fired them. I paid a lot more than minimum wage.
As I was able to build business I hired more people. At the end, when
I sold, I let one person go because I didn't have a job for her
anymore. The rest went with the new employer or quit on their own.
Not once did I consider the marginal utility of employee/wage/etc.
in making a hiring/firing decision. Not once.)

3. Around here, several years ago, there was a shortage of "minimum
wage" workers and the local fast food restaurants were putting big
banners on the side of their sides of their buildings advertising signing
bonuses to get workers, and you know, amazingly, not one of them
raised prices. Fit that into your charts and graphs.



Seriously, Prickly. You are arguing academic economics and I am
arguing real life experience, and the two just don't fit together
neatly. And that is not arguing that "economics" is wrong. That's
arguing that some of the people who write economics texts have
their heads so far up their ass that they can't see what's going on
in the real world. Real world managers don't make decisions based
on the correlations discovered by economists in their studies of
controlled environments. Those are useful to see what the effects of
management decisions are, but don't confuse cause and effect. The
relationship between employee wages and profits didn't cause the
manager to make the decision as you have been arguing, it's just the
effect of the decision.

When you look around and the people standing in line are fuming for
having to wait too long for their taco, you hire more people. When you
look around and your employees are goofing off in back because there
isn't enough business to keep them busy, you fire some. Don't need
no charts and graphs for that.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 31, 2004, 06:28:28 PM
That post above was really Bella, wasn't me. I swear.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on July 31, 2004, 08:22:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: AnonymousBut, anyway, if you're gonna throw centuries of study in economics out the window,

The laffer curve is centuries of years old?

Minimum wage is?

:lol:
Roger, what is wrong with you?

::raps the good reverend on the head with his zen stick thingy::

The minimum wage is millenia old!



Of course, back then they called it slavery. You could do anything you
wanted to slaves, but you also had to provide shelter, clothing, food,
everything they consumed. And they were disposable, too.

Today you have lots of restrictions on what you can do to your slaves,
but you don't have to provide for them or their families anymore. Just
fork out the minimum wage.

Slaves are a lot cheaper nowadays.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: chaosgraves:agentoferis on July 31, 2004, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: gnimbley
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: AnonymousBut, anyway, if you're gonna throw centuries of study in economics out the window,

The laffer curve is centuries of years old?

Minimum wage is?

:lol:
Roger, what is wrong with you?

::raps the good reverend on the head with his zen stick thingy::

The minimum wage is millenia old!



Of course, back then they called it slavery. You could do anything you
wanted to slaves, but you also had to provide shelter, clothing, food,
everything they consumed. And they were disposable, too.

Today you have lots of restrictions on what you can do to your slaves,
but you don't have to provide for them or their families anymore. Just
fork out the minimum wage.

Slaves are a lot cheaper nowadays.
Have to provide?!?!? can you prove this?!?!?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on August 01, 2004, 10:06:30 AM
Quote from: Anonymous1. show me an employer who hires people to stand around and do
nothing because he already has enough people to do the work but thinks
if he hires more people he will make more money.

2. where did I say employers like to lavish money on their employees?
On the contrary, I believe I said that employers (mostly) like to exploit
their employees. (When I was an employer I gave employees annual
raises. If they were a good employee I kept them. If they were a
bad employee, I fired them. I paid a lot more than minimum wage.
As I was able to build business I hired more people. At the end, when
I sold, I let one person go because I didn't have a job for her
anymore. The rest went with the new employer or quit on their own.
Not once did I consider the marginal utility of employee/wage/etc.
in making a hiring/firing decision. Not once.)

You support using the government to force employers to pay cartain employees more. You also claim that hiring and firing decisions have nothing to do with whether or not you can afford to hire or fire an employee, strictly with whether or not you have work for them to do. If it were true that the cost of hiring employees had no bearing on the number of employees hired, and you feel that workers should be paid a lot more than they make now, I was wondering why you didn't simply pay your employees exorbitant salaries.

You may have rationalized your decisions differently, you may explain them differently now, but you made the same employment decisions an economist would expect you to make.

If someone had forced you to raise your employees' salaries to more than you would normally have paid them, you would have had to do at least one of three things: raise prices, cut costs (which, as I explained, cuts employment somewhere; if the costs you're cutting aren't your own employees, you're cutting out buying something from someone else, which means someone else loses their job for lack of work to do), or shut down.

Quote from: Anonymous3. Around here, several years ago, there was a shortage of "minimum
wage" workers and the local fast food restaurants were putting big
banners on the side of their sides of their buildings advertising signing
bonuses to get workers, and you know, amazingly, not one of them
raised prices. Fit that into your charts and graphs.

Which is further proof of one of the points that I made earlier, that the way employers treat employees is related to the workers-to-jobs ratio, and no amount of laws can change that. If you need more workers, you have to offer them something to pull them away from other employers. I'm promoting eliminating the minimum wage because it will expand job creation, and eventually lead to far less employee abuse once companies have to compete with each other to attract workers.

Quote from: AnonymousSeriously, Prickly. You are arguing academic economics and I am
arguing real life experience, and the two just don't fit together
neatly. And that is not arguing that "economics" is wrong. That's
arguing that some of the people who write economics texts have
their heads so far up their ass that they can't see what's going on
in the real world. Real world managers don't make decisions based
on the correlations discovered by economists in their studies of
controlled environments. Those are useful to see what the effects of
management decisions are, but don't confuse cause and effect. The
relationship between employee wages and profits didn't cause the
manager to make the decision as you have been arguing, it's just the
effect of the decision.

So, what you're saying is, you made the exact same decisions an economist would expect you to make, but for different reasons. So all my assertions (that forced increases in pay inevitably cause higher unemployment and higher prices) still apply, even if the people making the decision to raise prices or cut employment are doing so for different reasons.

Quote from: AnonymousWhen you look around and the people standing in line are fuming for
having to wait too long for their taco, you hire more people. When you
look around and your employees are goofing off in back because there
isn't enough business to keep them busy, you fire some. Don't need
no charts and graphs for that.

Which doesn't disprove my point at all.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Guido Finucci on August 01, 2004, 12:50:33 PM
Quote from: PricklyYou support using the government to force employers to pay cartain employees more.

Gah! How did you get this from anything anyone said?

I stopped reading after that. One thing though, you seem to believe that people are trying to disprove your points (not that you've actually offered any proof for them to disprove but we'll skip the argument about the metaphysical differences between science and philosphy for now). This is almost certainly not the case. I think that everyone gave up trying to address your arguments and are mostly trying to disillusion you. I suspect that this is futile.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Prickly on August 01, 2004, 04:17:51 PM
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyYou support using the government to force employers to pay cartain employees more.

Gah! How did you get this from anything anyone said?

I stopped reading after that. One thing though, you seem to believe that people are trying to disprove your points (not that you've actually offered any proof for them to disprove but we'll skip the argument about the metaphysical differences between science and philosphy for now). This is almost certainly not the case. I think that everyone gave up trying to address your arguments and are mostly trying to disillusion you. I suspect that this is futile.

What exactly do you think minimum wage is? It's a law passed by government that forces employers to pay at or above a certain amount to employees. Doesn't take into account what changes they have to make to be able to afford it. Whether or not you think that force is justified, or that it will have its intended consequence without unintended side effects, if you can't see that any government restriction is a use of force, you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: on August 01, 2004, 09:25:01 PM
I dont care for this kind of debate, since I dont really give a rats ass about economics or sophism, but I would like to say that its nearly fucking impossible to even survive on minimum wage.

I cant imagine ever working for even less.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Guido Finucci on August 01, 2004, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: PricklyWhether or not you think that force is justified ... if you can't see that any government restriction is a use of force, you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

So, in essence, what you mean when you say that Gnimbley (and I apologise if the capitalisation of his name is against Gnimbley's wishes; he need only mention it to me and I will chance my habits) supports the use of force is that he supports, in theory, the idea that groups of people should have a government. I mean, if any regulation by government exactly equates to a use of force then clearly anyone who isn't an anarchist (of a fairly pure form) advocates the existence of some for of government that will regulate to a greater or lesser extent, and by extension supports the use of force by that government.

I do wonder why you needed to mention this in a discussion about economics. It is that economics is a bit hard and you want to go a little wider in the discussion?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on August 02, 2004, 12:09:27 AM
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyWhether or not you think that force is justified ... if you can't see that any government restriction is a use of force, you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

So, in essence, what you mean when you say that Gnimbley (and I apologise if the capitalisation of his name is against Gnimbley's wishes; he need only mention it to me and I will chance my habits) supports the use of force is that he supports, in theory, the idea that groups of people should have a government. I mean, if any regulation by government exactly equates to a use of force then clearly anyone who isn't an anarchist (of a fairly pure form) advocates the existence of some for of government that will regulate to a greater or lesser extent, and by extension supports the use of force by that government.

I do wonder why you needed to mention this in a discussion about economics. It is that economics is a bit hard and you want to go a little wider in the discussion?

First, the use of capitalization in a gnome's name is non-traditional and
generates a huge fine from the gnomish government. On the other hand,
no one ever pays the fine, so you can do whatever you want, gUIDO.

Second, I am an anarchist. I just don't think anarchy is practical. Too
many people want more than their fair share (like everyone who lives in
America, including moi) for a true anarchy to survive.

Third, this is exactly the argument Prickly is expounding, that all
governmental regulation of economic activitiy is wrong. Unfortunately, if
carried to its logical extreme, it results in slavery, since economic control
equates to political control, and workers eventually become property.

Fourth, I am not totally untrue to anarchy since I see economic control as
being a form of political control. In order to achieve a better world we not
only have to loosen the control the political elite have on our lives, but
also loosen the control the economic elite have on our lives.

Unfortunately, what this means is we have to use one against the other.
We try to restrain the government from interfering in our lives, while
simultaneously using them to restrain the corporations.

Delicate balancing act. Everybody disagress on which restraints to retain,
which to eliminate. Prickley wants to get rid of minimum wage. I see that
as allowing the corporations to rape people more efficiently.

We can go around and around. In the end he's wrong because I say so.
Phfffttttt!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: gnimbley on August 02, 2004, 12:41:58 AM
Quote from: PricklyYou support using the government to force employers to pay cartain employees more.

I didn't say that. I did not support paying "certain" empoyees more than
others, which is what you are implying. I supported the idea of forcing
employers to pay at least a minimum.

Quote from: PricklyYou also claim that hiring and firing decisions have nothing to do with whether or not you can afford to hire or fire an employee, strictly with whether or not you have work for them to do.

I also didn't say that. I said managers make decisions to hire and fire
based on the amount of work there is to do regardless of the minimum
wage laws
, not whether or not they can afford to hire workers. A lot
of companies have more work than they can afford to hire workers for.
Some of them are crafts. Some of them are poorly run and therefore
will go out of business. Some are just slow to respond to changes. In
any case, if there is more work to be done than what a company has
hired employees for, another company will move into the market and
suck up the work. Sometimes that is good. Sometimes it is WalMart.

Quote from: PricklyIf it were true that the cost of hiring employees had no bearing on the number of employees hired, and you feel that workers should be paid a lot more than they make now, I was wondering why you didn't simply pay your employees exorbitant salaries.

According to you, I did pay my workers exorbitant salaries!!!!!!!!

Quote from: PricklyYou may have rationalized your decisions differently, you may explain them differently now, but you made the same employment decisions an economist would expect you to make.

Of course, because the economist looked at the results of my
decisions and said, "this is what he did." Just like I looked at the results
of the Kentucky Derby and said, "Smarty Jones won the race." What I
am saying in that the reason why I made that decision was based
on my analysis of the current work load and how many people I needed
to do the work, but on profit or the current state of employee
wages. In order to increase profit (and thereby to be able to pay the
employees - which included myself - more, I advertised, had sales on
some items, raised prices on others, introduce new products, etc., etc.
I didn't try to increase profits by hiring more minimum wage employees
in the belief that that would bring more business.

By the way, I ran a small business (25 employess at its peak) that
provide a service that required some professional expertise. We were
not a real market for minimum wage employees, like a WalMart or a
McDonald's. Therefore, my decision making may have been atypical.
However, I still believe the decision to hire is based on an assesment of
work available. As for why WalMart decides to open new stores amd
McDonald's decides to introduce new sandwiches and Nike decides to
run another ad, that is based on a desire for more profits. But that
has nothing to do with minimum wage laws.

Quote from: PricklyIf someone had forced you to raise your employees' salaries to more than you would normally have paid them, you would have had to do at least one of three things: raise prices, cut costs (which, as I explained, cuts employment somewhere; if the costs you're cutting aren't your own employees, you're cutting out buying something from someone else, which means someone else loses their job for lack of work to do), or shut down.

You left out 4. make less money. Believe it or not, this happens everyday
in business, and none of the three you mention usually happen. The
increased costs come through other mechanisms other than wages - oil
prices, other governmental regulation, price hikes, someone wrecking
a piece of equipment that has to be replaced, etc. - and usually
a company grins and bares it. If the costs are extreme, then one of the
three happens, but normally, none of the three do.

There is one other case I should mention, because it is happening to
friends of mine, and that is some asshole takes over and wants to
produce a winning balance sheet to show stock analysts, and starts
cutting employees right and left and reorganizing. This has nothing to
do with minimum wage laws. It has to do with greed. And they can do
this because reorganizing rearranges the work load. Whatever reason,
it is the shits.

Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: Anonymous3. Around here, several years ago, there was a shortage of "minimum
wage" workers and the local fast food restaurants were putting big
banners on the side of their sides of their buildings advertising signing
bonuses to get workers, and you know, amazingly, not one of them
raised prices. Fit that into your charts and graphs.

Which is further proof of one of the points that I made earlier, that the way employers treat employees is related to the workers-to-jobs ratio, and no amount of laws can change that. If you need more workers, you have to offer them something to pull them away from other employers. I'm promoting eliminating the minimum wage because it will expand job creation, and eventually lead to far less employee abuse once companies have to compete with each other to attract workers.

Yeah, have to compete for those 25 cent an hour workers by raising salaries to 30 cents an hour. Great improvement.

Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: AnonymousSeriously, Prickly. You are arguing academic economics and I am
arguing real life experience, and the two just don't fit together
neatly. And that is not arguing that "economics" is wrong. That's
arguing that some of the people who write economics texts have
their heads so far up their ass that they can't see what's going on
in the real world. Real world managers don't make decisions based
on the correlations discovered by economists in their studies of
controlled environments. Those are useful to see what the effects of
management decisions are, but don't confuse cause and effect. The
relationship between employee wages and profits didn't cause the
manager to make the decision as you have been arguing, it's just the
effect of the decision.

So, what you're saying is, you made the exact same decisions an economist would expect you to make, but for different reasons. So all my assertions (that forced increases in pay inevitably cause higher unemployment and higher prices) still apply, even if the people making the decision to raise prices or cut employment are doing so for different reasons.

Ah, so you abandon the argument that the primary reason management
make hiring and firing decisions is based on minimum wage laws. Good
porcupine. fluffy will be so happy. But no points for saying I prove your
point because you conceded one. All you are arguing is that since the
real world acts as it does, it proves your point because you drew an
inference from the real world in your argument. Bah. Others can and
do draw different inferences.

Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: AnonymousWhen you look around and the people standing in line are fuming for
having to wait too long for their taco, you hire more people. When you
look around and your employees are goofing off in back because there
isn't enough business to keep them busy, you fire some. Don't need
no charts and graphs for that.

Which doesn't disprove my point at all.

Yeah, but it proves mine.   :D
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2004, 09:15:20 AM
Quote from: Laughing & ScreamingI dont care for this kind of debate, since I dont really give a rats ass about economics or sophism, but I would like to say that its nearly fucking impossible to even survive on minimum wage.

I cant imagine ever working for even less.

Commie.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2004, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: PricklyAlright, just so long as we're clear that the best response either gnimbley or Roger can come up with is "economics is wrong because I disagree with it and that's all there is to it", I'm satisfied.

TRANSLATION:  "I cannot refute any of the points made. so I will ignore them."
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Trollax on August 02, 2004, 09:32:17 AM
Quote from: gnimbley
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: AnonymousBut, anyway, if you're gonna throw centuries of study in economics out the window,

The laffer curve is centuries of years old?

Minimum wage is?

:lol:
Roger, what is wrong with you?

::raps the good reverend on the head with his zen stick thingy::

The minimum wage is millenia old!



Of course, back then they called it slavery. You could do anything you
wanted to slaves, but you also had to provide shelter, clothing, food,
everything they consumed. And they were disposable, too.

Today you have lots of restrictions on what you can do to your slaves,
but you don't have to provide for them or their families anymore. Just
fork out the minimum wage.

Slaves are a lot cheaper nowadays.

The larry laffer curve?  :wink:  :lol:

To further Gnimbley's point I'll nod and smile on the fact that numbers rarely line up with reality. Psychology is another good example; every survey and test I've taken in my two years at Uni I've been in the marginal end of the bell curve. Economics isn't my strong suit but from what I remember of statistics, you're only concerned with the major 66% of the workforce and minorly concerned with the next 29%. The general once more play their cruel jokes on the particular...
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Chef on August 02, 2004, 11:28:18 AM
Quote from: Prickly
Quote from: Guido Finucci
Quote from: PricklyYou support using the government to force employers to pay cartain employees more.

Gah! How did you get this from anything anyone said?

I stopped reading after that. One thing though, you seem to believe that people are trying to disprove your points (not that you've actually offered any proof for them to disprove but we'll skip the argument about the metaphysical differences between science and philosphy for now). This is almost certainly not the case. I think that everyone gave up trying to address your arguments and are mostly trying to disillusion you. I suspect that this is futile.

What exactly do you think minimum wage is? It's a law passed by government that forces employers to pay at or above a certain amount to employees. Doesn't take into account what changes they have to make to be able to afford it. Whether or not you think that force is justified, or that it will have its intended consequence without unintended side effects, if you can't see that any government restriction is a use of force, you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

LEMME GET THIS STRAIGHT, OPIE...YOU WORK AT TACO BELL, AND YOU DON'T LIKE THE MINIMUM WAGE.

WHY ARE YOU STILL ALIVE?
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: on August 02, 2004, 12:09:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: Laughing & ScreamingI dont care for this kind of debate, since I dont really give a rats ass about economics or sophism, but I would like to say that its nearly fucking impossible to even survive on minimum wage.

I cant imagine ever working for even less.

Commie.

Dont blow my cover!
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: ~~~~Closed~~~~ on August 02, 2004, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: PricklyAlright, just so long as we're clear that the best response either gnimbley or Roger can come up with is "economics is wrong because I disagree with it and that's all there is to it", I'm satisfied.

TRANSLATION:  "I cannot refute any of the points made. so I will ignore them."

Roger, your wit could kill.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rupert Giles on August 02, 2004, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: Hotsuma
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger
Quote from: PricklyAlright, just so long as we're clear that the best response either gnimbley or Roger can come up with is "economics is wrong because I disagree with it and that's all there is to it", I'm satisfied.

TRANSLATION:  "I cannot refute any of the points made. so I will ignore them."

Roger, your wit could kill.

It does.  I've seen it.
Title: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Irreverend Hugh, KSC on August 11, 2004, 08:57:16 AM
Fuck it!

There's always the ultimate imperative.

When conditions get so shitty that the working class (formerly known as serfs and slaves) absolutely cannot hide inside the condescending theories and dogmas of the over-class (religion, politics, and the modern fanatical theology known as economics), they go apeshittedly batty and kill as many of the over-class as they can lay their hands on. Thus relieving the pressure and redistributing some of the wealth that survives all the destruction. And for a time, a moment or two, the people can breath easier, until the advanced yahoo-revolutionaries decide to become another over-class, thus setting the entire dysfunctional lopsided wheel in motion again.

Fuck it.

Smash the filthy thing!

We may get squashed like bugs, but at least we'll smoke a few Cubans before the bullets, beatings, and prisons take us.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Cain on February 23, 2009, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Irreverend Hugh, KSC on August 11, 2004, 08:57:16 AM
Fuck it!

There's always the ultimate imperative.

When conditions get so shitty that the working class (formerly known as serfs and slaves) absolutely cannot hide inside the condescending theories and dogmas of the over-class (religion, politics, and the modern fanatical theology known as economics), they go apeshittedly batty and kill as many of the over-class as they can lay their hands on. Thus relieving the pressure and redistributing some of the wealth that survives all the destruction. And for a time, a moment or two, the people can breath easier, until the advanced yahoo-revolutionaries decide to become another over-class, thus setting the entire dysfunctional lopsided wheel in motion again.

Fuck it.

Smash the filthy thing!

We may get squashed like bugs, but at least we'll smoke a few Cubans before the bullets, beatings, and prisons take us.

lail

Unjustified optimism, ITT
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Anti-Cabbage or Fig-1 on February 23, 2009, 07:53:38 PM
High standard of living = bigger tv.. nicer car.. ever increasing brain death

I demand higher levels of slack. 

Petition your local congressman to increase the minimum slack wage today.

And now a quote from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: :fnord:

"(The Presidents) job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it."
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on March 06, 2009, 05:55:11 PM
Quote from: Prickly on July 19, 2004, 10:18:12 AM
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html (http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html)
Yet more evidence that controlled, orderly economies leave people worse off than free, chaotic ones....

Yet more evidence that people will use any fact to support what they already believe  :lol:
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Torodung on March 06, 2009, 06:31:22 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on March 06, 2009, 05:55:11 PM
Quote from: Prickly on July 19, 2004, 10:18:12 AM
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html (http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html)
Yet more evidence that controlled, orderly economies leave people worse off than free, chaotic ones....

Yet more evidence that people will use any fact to support what they already believe  :lol:

QFT. Wow. Rationalization sucks, don't it?
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2011, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Prickly on July 20, 2004, 02:08:40 AM
Ah, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.

There's one born every minute.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 09, 2011, 02:51:27 AM
Quote from: Susan on April 09, 2011, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Prickly on July 20, 2004, 02:08:40 AM
Ah, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.

There's one born every minute.   :lulz:

Wow, somebody missed Econ 101. What is this idealistic nonsense?
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2011, 02:53:26 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 09, 2011, 02:51:27 AM
Quote from: Susan on April 09, 2011, 02:43:06 AM
Quote from: Prickly on July 20, 2004, 02:08:40 AM
Ah, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.

There's one born every minute.   :lulz:

Wow, somebody missed Econ 101. What is this idealistic nonsense?

Back in 2004/2005, we were awash in assholes like this.  Every trustafarian that every read RAW trooped in here jabbering about how the Free MarketTM was gonna fix everything.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 04:14:44 PM
Quote from: Prickly on July 20, 2004, 02:08:40 AM
Ah, but that's the beauty of it.
If we make job creation in the US cheaper (by repealing excess taxes and regulations that drive up the costs of job creation), job creation in the US will increase dramatically. The number of available jobs will increase to well above the current population, to the point that companies (which will now have moremoney to expand with due to getting more profit from the elimination of taxes and regulations) will begin expanding into other countries, creating jobs there. So, we'll have more jobs at home AND abroad, instead of either having protectionism and having jobs here only, or having high taxes and regulations and having jobs going overseas with none to replace them, or having both and having many fewer jobs anywhere.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love this shit.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: LMNO on October 10, 2012, 04:16:47 PM
What I love is that this hypothesis is completely testable, and no one who spouts it bothers to check the numbers.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2012, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 04:16:47 PM
What I love is that this hypothesis is completely testable, and no one who spouts it bothers to check the numbers.

We've tried it twice on a grand scale, and it's failed both times.

Prickly came back a while ago, IIRC, and he wasn't happy with the way he was treated.   :sad:
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Freeky on October 12, 2012, 04:18:16 AM
Ohh!  Also, you know, they could RAISE THE TAXES on outsourced labor and materials.  That would make them keep jobs at home, too!

It's about as simple and effective as deregulating everything. :lulz:
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Junkenstein on August 26, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 10, 2012, 04:16:47 PM
What I love is that this hypothesis is completely testable, and no one who spouts it bothers to check the numbers.

What I love is how hilarious this thread is with 10 years or so hindsight.

Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: LMNO on August 26, 2014, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 07:09:35 AM
Actually, Voltaire made the following observation:

There are three types of government, and three states into which they decay.

Constitutional Monarchy, which decays into despotism.

Republic, decays into democracy.

Aristocracy, which decays into oligarchies.

It's actually the THIRD case that is occurring in America.

Thus spake the prophet.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Cain on August 26, 2014, 03:44:50 PM
You may be amused to learn that Voltaire, like any good classicist, cribbed that observation from Aristotle's Politics.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: Junkenstein on August 26, 2014, 03:45:51 PM
QuoteAristocracy, which decays into oligarchies.

On the plus side, it's much more obvious now than it was 10 years or so ago. I'm unsure if this makes things better or worse. Probably both.
Title: Re: Tis an ill wind that blows no jobs....
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 26, 2014, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 26, 2014, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 28, 2004, 07:09:35 AM
Actually, Voltaire made the following observation:

There are three types of government, and three states into which they decay.

Constitutional Monarchy, which decays into despotism.

Republic, decays into democracy.

Aristocracy, which decays into oligarchies.

It's actually the THIRD case that is occurring in America.

Thus spake the prophet.

Reverse prophecy:  More accurate than the regular kind.   :lulz: