Jump to content


Photo

Market and State


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
128 replies to this topic

#41 kenkage

kenkage

    Shinigami

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:16 AM

Basically you're saying that communism is the answer? I would say history disagrees with you vastly. For one, China does not have a communist country, it's a hybrid of communism and capitalism. There is a great deal of leeway for companies to basically innovate and do their own thing without the direct hand of the government. Granted there is an overall veil of control by the local and national levels of the CP, but it's much, much less strong than, say, the Soviet system or Maoist China.Other than China, practically every communist nation has failed--though this isn't to say capitalism, unfettered is de facto the way to utopia, as works such as Piketty's discern.

oh, that was easly translated any way as i said before when it comes to politics i think i can be called "one of the best" out there but my information and experience in economy is greatly lacking, but my point about comunism is still legit, comunism is indeed the answer to obtain stability and economic growth in the general population, in the short term at last, but for long term economic development bilionairs are needed, no question about it.

P15OTd8.jpg


#42 Vafhudr

Vafhudr

    Mage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 853 posts
  • LocationAn eternal sand plain under a clear blue sky.

Posted 03 May 2014 - 06:29 PM

I'm wondering if anybody has paid attention to the rise and hoopla of Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which in a nutshell, tracks the consistent and inexorable trend of wealth to concentrate in the hands of a small few (rentiers, managers), and its consistency across industrialized nations and across two centuries. It's an interesting book for a few reasons (this is coming from my readings of reviews, mind you. I have the book recently but will look at it once exams are over):
A. Piketty looks and measures wealth and capital, although sometimes vaguely and inconsistently in comparison to traditional economic measurements, through a number of venues, primarily through the tax records and philanthropic donations of the rich, for example. In short, most of the book is really just a compilation of statistics and pure data.
B. It focuses on the distinctions between general economic growth and income versus the return on wealth and financial capital (your rents and stock returns). This includes the unpopular and somewhat brushed aside issue of inheritance and economic dynasty of the rich.
C. While Piketty's book smells like a rehash, politically, of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, Piketty (who is very critical of Marx's methods of measuring and collecting data), divorces himself from Marxist critique of capitalism, while still agreeing (again based on the data) with the observation that there is not a natural, "invisible hand" like force that tends to distribute wealth in an equitable and generally socially useful way. In short, money will beget money, and this is irrelevant of nation and time period, to an extent.

I'll post three reviews which were pretty nice (well, unless you don't want to read it, or don't have time for it), mostly critical:
1. A more critical view of it.
2. Slightly more concise and less econ jargon filled review.
3. This more detail specific critique

The last one is especially interesting, as Dean Baker tries to justify "Capitalism's dynamism" but mostly talks about ways government can be improved (for example, weakening patent laws and modernizing telecommunication guidelines including those of the FCC, et al.). From this point of view, Piketty's book isn't "wrong" in its analysis or presentation of the data--the data still supports the trend of capital concentration no matter how you look at it, but rather is lacking in policy and explanation of why things are the way they are. In that sense I'm inclined (without reading the book, yet), to agree mostly with the last review, in the sense that capitalism still works, and markets probably will continue to work, contingent on proper and refined governmental policy that is common sense and up to date with the realities of today.

Thoughts?

 

The things are the way they are right now because the sphere of high government official strongly overlaps with the sphere of those in whose's hands capital has been concentrated. Either directly, as a member of an elite family, or indirectly through campaign financing, lobbying, or gifts, the interest of the economic and political elite will merge. This is not unique to capitalism - it was the same in any era anyone can be bothered to mention. This thread starts with a presumption that state and market are seperated. A foolish notion, one that is disproved whenever you open the daily newspaper. For instance take a little line from the first paper linked:

 

Why is this interesting? Adam Smith wrote the definitive one-sentence treatment: “Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.” Private financial valuation measures power, including political power, even if the holder plays no active economic role. Absentee landlords and the Koch brothers have power of this type. Piketty calls it “patrimonial capitalism”—in other words, not the real thing.

 

Smith is quoting Hobbes, and Hobbes learned this from Thucydides by translating The History of the Peloponnesian Wars. Thucydides makes this point clear in his very first book - money is power. Money pays for fleet. Fleet secures you trade by killing pirates. Trade provides you with even more money, which pays for troops, for maintenance, to hire mercenaries, to provide relief, to fund expeditions. More importantly, even in a democracy like Athens, only the top earners tended to be the big players. Thucydides himself, a commander in the Athenian army before his exile, was related to Cimon, a major conservative political figure - and married into Thracian nobility. Thucydides owned the rights to the gold mines of the region - heck, the family had been tyrants in nearby cities not two generations before. The Persians easily play kingmaker by having ludicrous amounts of money that lets them finance a party to put the top dog back in its place. 

 

Policy options are inherently limited because, in addition, the political model in the US (and Canada, and most modern "democracies") in fact favour this marriage of the upper classes, the economic and the politic. We call this an oligarchy. Money determines who is in power. Money is held as the standard of success and competence. The policies of FDR were probably the closest the US ever got to change this path - and that was only because of a major crisis had shuffled the cards. But even then, most of this policies ended up stillborn - killed by the Supreme Court, or dismantled over the following decades. Not exactly the stuff of democracy. The tools of resistance are limited - and easily subverted. 

 

Basically you're saying that communism is the answer? I would say history disagrees with you vastly. For one, China does not have a communist country, it's a hybrid of communism and capitalism. There is a great deal of leeway for companies to basically innovate and do their own thing without the direct hand of the government. Granted there is an overall veil of control by the local and national levels of the CP, but it's much, much less strong than, say, the Soviet system or Maoist China.

Other than China, practically every communist nation has failed--though this isn't to say capitalism, unfettered is de facto the way to utopia, as works such as Piketty's discernned.

 

The problem with communism is that it does not take in the fact of human greed, technology evolution, and the evolution of people. 

 

The problem with communism is that it is a flawed idea at its core. Much like anarchism, actually - and for the same reasons. These movements are true children of the 19th century and are bound up with its legacy of rational (and romantic, in a sense) abstraction of the social world. They don't actually describe reality. The state, the market, the people, the proletariat, the individual - all of these become abstractions and are dealt on an abstract level. The same could be said of much of political philosophy - but it is these ghosts that are still haunting us today. This is why the theory of marxism, communism or what have you differs considerably on the ground than it does on paper. Suddenly we are confronted with social reality. The Soviet Commissars were confronted with the realities of peasant life - and met resistance. The great irony of the social sciences and political philosophy especially is that ultimately it does not understand people. They take shortcuts. They rationalize them so that they can account for their action in a more mathematical way - the complexity of human life is reduced so that it can be inputed in a system that will yield answers. 

 

And that's utterly foolish. 

 

If you don't want the billionaires, the millionaires, the leaders of industry, or what have you, to rule the political agenda, the answer is simple. Give the means to the rest of the population to resist and defeat them if need be. As it stands we are rather powerless - unsurprisingly. In other words, bring about direct democracy. The direct political participation of the citizenry in political affairs. Direct accountability to the people. You can corrupt a handful of men, you can abuse the system with well lined pockets, but you cannot, ultimately, pay off a whole city, a whole province, a whole state, or a whole country. We pride ourselves as being democrats - it is about time we act as such. 


  • Phenomiracle and Passingby like this

75ce44f0-c79e-4af9-8bda-76247dba21cd_zps

[The Birds of Minerva Take Flight at Dusk]

Writing Resources

[Blood History]


#43 disastrousmaster

disastrousmaster

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7608 posts
  • Locationtrying to find where I am

Posted 06 May 2014 - 01:51 AM

The problem with communism is that it does not take in the fact of human greed, technology evolution, and the evolution of people. 

The problem with communism is that it does not give any motivation for improvement, or even for quality work. The problem with capitalism is human greed causes a large imbalance in the economic situation. The larger the populace, the larger the imbalance becomes. However capitalism is more of a survival of the fittest whereas communism is supposed to be a survival of everyone. When you have the large imbalances the imbalance creates very strong and powerful areas, whereas true communism lacks that. In the most pure form of communism, it would be about keeping everyone alive and not about making profit/a strong economy. Truly it is for an equal society where there is no class distinction. Rich/poor would not be a thing anymore, and people would be on even footing, taking things based on needs rather than wants. Most people seem to associate communism with dictatorships, but a true communist nation would have no dictator. The problem is human wants seem to always prevail in the end, bringing in the need for the dictators/powerful governments. With that need is what brings about the fall of communism in society. If you have a governing body that becomes of a different class than the rest in the society, it suddenly causes an imbalance. This imbalance breaks the fundamental idea behind communism itself and makes it a hypocritical notion. This is why communism fails in the end. It is unable to sustain the very core of its creation, due to human wants.


                                                    <p align=center><a target=_blank href=http://www.nodiatis....personality.htm><img border=0 src=http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg></a></p>

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”― Eddard Stark, A game of thrones

Spoiler funny quotes

 

 

Vote for dis person plox


#44 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2236 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:10 PM

Policy options are inherently limited because, in addition, the political model in the US (and Canada, and most modern "democracies") in fact favour this marriage of the upper classes, the economic and the politic. We call this an oligarchy. Money determines who is in power. Money is held as the standard of success and competence. The policies of FDR were probably the closest the US ever got to change this path - and that was only because of a major crisis had shuffled the cards. But even then, most of this policies ended up stillborn - killed by the Supreme Court, or dismantled over the following decades. Not exactly the stuff of democracy

 

Oh, it most certainly is democracy.

 

Its called liberal democracy, which in the States, takes the form of a constitutional republic that functions on separation of powers. The duty of the Supreme Court is to keep the federal government constrained within its constitutional authority, even and especially when a branch of the federal government decides to act or legislate in a manner which has a majority of public support. 

 

The mere premise of a Supreme Court is to protect the public from the dangers of purist direct democracies, which can lead to policies which strip away the rights of minorities and/or expand the federal government to absurdly massive levels.

 

We could very much argue about the ramifications of FDR's policies and/or the century-spanning ideological war starting between Federalists and Democrats of late 1700s over the idea of a central bank if you'd like, though, since that's more relevant to the topic than the nature of plutocracies.


Edited by Phenomiracle, 06 May 2014 - 03:30 PM.

  • Vafhudr likes this

L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#45 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 03 December 2014 - 08:37 PM

Amazing that @Phenomiracle is addressing an issue about FDR but has nailed the debate about Obama and the Executive Action he made on immigration.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#46 Yumi_Hikari

Yumi_Hikari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 01:23 PM

The problem with communism is that it is a flawed idea at its core. Much like anarchism, actually - and for the same reasons. These movements are true children of the 19th century and are bound up with its legacy of rational (and romantic, in a sense) abstraction of the social world. They don't actually describe reality. The state, the market, the people, the proletariat, the individual - all of these become abstractions and are dealt on an abstract level. The same could be said of much of political philosophy - but it is these ghosts that are still haunting us today. This is why the theory of marxism, communism or what have you differs considerably on the ground than it does on paper. Suddenly we are confronted with social reality. The Soviet Commissars were confronted with the realities of peasant life - and met resistance. The great irony of the social sciences and political philosophy especially is that ultimately it does not understand people. They take shortcuts. They rationalize them so that they can account for their action in a more mathematical way - the complexity of human life is reduced so that it can be inputed in a system that will yield answers. 
 
And that's utterly foolish. 
 
If you don't want the billionaires, the millionaires, the leaders of industry, or what have you, to rule the political agenda, the answer is simple. Give the means to the rest of the population to resist and defeat them if need be. As it stands we are rather powerless - unsurprisingly. In other words, bring about direct democracy. The direct political participation of the citizenry in political affairs. Direct accountability to the people. You can corrupt a handful of men, you can abuse the system with well lined pockets, but you cannot, ultimately, pay off a whole city, a whole province, a whole state, or a whole country. We pride ourselves as being democrats - it is about time we act as such.

I like this.

However. there is one thing I think we need to get straight.

Direct Democracy doesn't work.

Athens proved that when the rich and powerful controlled the city-state despite being massively out-numbered by the rest of the city. The rich don't need to bribe an entire city; they just need to bribe the people with the loudest voices. Group think and mob mentality are things that have been exploited since practically the beginning of time, and aren't likely to stop being exploited anytime soon.

Now, while I dislike the current system that is set up in the United States (and not just because of the fact that its run predominantly by a bunch of rich lawyers), it is, right now, the best man-made system out there, and has, for the most part, struck an acceptable balance between the free market and federal regulation.

Sometimes we fuck up and things like the Crash of 08' happen (thanks to lax oversight on the banks and mortgage lenders who KNOWINGLY forsook their own clients for the sake of profit). Sometimes we fuck up (in a different way) and over regulate the market and choke our growth. And sometimes we hit that sweet spot in between fuck ups and we move forward.

It's the "we fucked up" part that has so many people in an uproar most of the time.

-Jason

#47 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 01:35 PM

It's the "we fucked up" part that has so many people in an uproar most of the time.


I find it's not so much "we fucked up" as it is the scale of how "we fucked up". And the fact that no one owns up to it. That's what gets people in an uproar.
  • waleuska likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#48 Yumi_Hikari

Yumi_Hikari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:26 PM

If that's the worst mistake I made in that post I'm dammed happy I managed to nail it so conclusively you could only find a minor, relatively unimportant closing statement to nitpick at.

<3

#49 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:34 PM

If that's the worst mistake I made in that post I'm dammed happy I managed to nail it so conclusively you could only find a minor, relatively unimportant closing statement to nitpick at.

<3


Are not closing statements one of the most important parts of an argument? So, it's not unimportant :) If we're talking about the mindset of the general populace in terms of a political system, then their reactions and non-reactions to certain events are extremely important when discussing alternatives to better governance.

Other than that, I thought your post was fine. :)

Edited by DarkNemesis, 18 December 2014 - 02:34 PM.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#50 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:37 PM

Are not closing statements one of the most important parts of an argument? So, it's not unimportant :) If we're talking about the mindset of the general populace in terms of a political system, then their reactions and non-reactions to certain events are extremely important when discussing alternatives to better governance.

Other than that, I thought your post was fine. :)

As a great man once told me "you can get away with murder in your middle argument so long as your open and closing are (swearing) spectacular and thought-provoking.  Most people aren't good at that so try to ignore their open and closing and just really stare at the middle bit." 

 

Stare at the middle bit DN.  STARE AT IT! 


  • YoWid likes this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#51 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:46 PM

As a great man once told me "you can get away with murder in your middle argument so long as your open and closing are (swearing) spectacular and thought-provoking.  Most people aren't good at that so try to ignore their open and closing and just really stare at the middle bit." 
 
Stare at the middle bit DN.  STARE AT IT!


That's what's she said. :heehee:

 

And lo and behold... she did.


Edited by DarkNemesis, 18 December 2014 - 02:47 PM.

  • YoWid likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#52 Yumi_Hikari

Yumi_Hikari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 December 2014 - 02:49 PM

Are not closing statements one of the most important parts of an argument? So, it's not unimportant :) If we're talking about the mindset of the general populace in terms of a political system, then their reactions and non-reactions to certain events are extremely important when discussing alternatives to better governance.

Other than that, I thought your post was fine. :)

Except my point wasn't about the mindset of the general populace, it was about how the rich and powerful are always going to influence government and the current set up in the US, while not perfect, is the best out there. :)

The ending point was really just a tacked on comment about how people get worked up over screw ups in a system designed by imperfect people, run by imperfect people, and plagued by the (very common) problem of human greed, which they really shouldn't because honestly how much better would they really do if they traded places with the people who ran it?

...Also it was a tad bit of my Christianity coming out as I feel that no matter how bad the people running the system are at doing their jobs it doesn't make them inherently bad people who deserve to be beat up and hated for being humans who succumbed to the temptation of money.

>needless tacked on ending point is needless
>refuse to take it out anyway

Edited by Yumi_Hikari, 18 December 2014 - 02:50 PM.

  • DarkNemesis and YoWid like this

#53 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15483 posts

Posted 14 October 2015 - 10:31 AM

I'm assuming talking about the minimum wage (from now on MW) here is appropriate for this thread.

 

So the MW has been talked about being raised. And when dealing with inflation and not adjusting it, it certainly should be dealt with. But why do people equate the MW with the "what I need to actually pay my bills and live" wage? As far as I know, those are not supposed to be the same thing. It's why we encourage people to go to college, university, or even a trade school. To be able to acquire a job that actually takes skill and has pay that reflects that.

 

Now I don't mind raising the MW. According to Pew Research, the highest the MW has been is $8.54. According to CNN, the highest has been $10.71. Both have been adjusted to 2013 inflation. How they got different numbers is still a mystery. Honestly, I wouldn't mind raising it to $9 across the board (federally). People still need to buy things and be able to pay a bill or two. Plus, I believe the MW should be adjusted to inflation. Now, there may be another metric that I'm unaware of for raising or lowering the MW. If so, please do tell. But someone selling toys or flipping burgers making almost the amount of money of a computer tech, helpdesk tech, or even a LPN (licensed practiced nurse) is crazy and devalues severally industries unfairly in my opinion.

 

 

tl;dr; -

  • How high should the MW be?
  • What metrics should be used to determine how high the MW should be?
  • Should the MW actually be the "what I need to actually pay my bills and live" wage?

Edited by DarkNemesis, 14 October 2015 - 10:35 AM.

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#54 Oben

Oben

    Sixpack

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11303 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 14 October 2015 - 10:35 AM

My country introduced a minimum wage this year, against long and heavy resistance from the conservative and liberal parties. It's a nice thing to have though.

Edited by Oben, 14 October 2015 - 10:36 AM.


#55 RandomRider

RandomRider

    "MMABatGawd69"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3761 posts
  • LocationThe Bay

Posted 14 October 2015 - 10:40 AM

So the MW has been talked about being raised. And when dealing with inflation and not adjusting it, it certainly should be dealt with. But why do people equate the MW with the "what I need to actually pay my bills and live" wage? As far as I know, those are not supposed to be the same thing. It's why we encourage people to go to college, university, or even a trade school. To be able to acquire a job that actually takes skill and has pay that reflects that.

 

We encourage people to go to college/university and rack up incredible amounts of debt. Decades ago, MW was enough to pay off student debt - now? It's not.

 

Not to mention, you'll always need people to do those jobs. You may not want to, I may not want to - but it doesn't make them unimportant. The system, as it stands, makes it very hard for people who live on MW to actually live and contribute in any meaningful way to the economy. If they don't have money, beyond basic living expenses, to spend - their overall impact on the economy is reduced and we all kind of suffer for that.


  • Petite Fleur likes this

#56 Petite Fleur

Petite Fleur

    ~ Spider Lady - Kiri's Wife ~ Professional Cuddle Bug

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11888 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 15 October 2015 - 12:06 AM


So the MW has been talked about being raised. And when dealing with inflation and not adjusting it, it certainly should be dealt with.

 

There is a law passing, and a petition protecting it, that would raise the minimum wage with inflation, so that the cost of living is always reflected by the minimum wage.

 

It;s actually 15 dollars here in the bay area, where it's expensive to live, and people get by pretty fine. I've been in households where both people don't need to work all the time and they can have lives, and I know people in my family who also live here who can go some time between jobs with money as a safety net because of it. It's basically super improving people's lives to have it be the cost of living.

 

In places where it's half that, or a little more, or a little less, it's essentially nothing but poverty.

 


But why do people equate the MW with the "what I need to actually pay my bills and live" wage? As far as I know, those are not supposed to be the same thing.

 

Not conceptually, but inflation has raised in dramatically in proportionate fashion. Used to be you could pay for college on a minimum wage job, or afford a car, or anything else. Now? You certainly can't, not if you want to pay your bills. It cannot be that without raising dramatically still, even over 15 dollars an hour to comfortably afford things like it was intended to be for.

 


It's why we encourage people to go to college, university, or even a trade school. To be able to acquire a job that actually takes skill and has pay that reflects that.

 

Lots of people end up in debt from school, and can't get into the job market. Even if you plan out everything to ensure you can have a well paying job, there's no guarantee of it. There are people who give up their dreams, their passions, to try and ensure they can get a well paying job - and that's not okay.


 

We encourage people to go to college/university and rack up incredible amounts of debt. Decades ago, MW was enough to pay off student debt - now? It's not.

 

Not to mention, you'll always need people to do those jobs. You may not want to, I may not want to - but it doesn't make them unimportant. The system, as it stands, makes it very hard for people who live on MW to actually live and contribute in any meaningful way to the economy. If they don't have money, beyond basic living expenses, to spend - their overall impact on the economy is reduced and we all kind of suffer for that.

If we chose to pay people for their value, as human beings, in an ethical way, and not value the pay by the jobs, a living wage for the lowliest of jobs would be the result - because you can't tell a person that they don't deserve to live based off of the merit of their personal value. That would just make you an asshole.


2mGKRJi.png
▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂

Spoiler Quotes

#57 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2236 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 15 October 2015 - 02:07 AM

No serious economic perspective? I thought you, of all people, would give this an honest shot, @Oben.

 

An increase in the MW raises production costs, which raises prices. Which inevitably decreases the demand for goods and labor. A simple, elementary reality behind this discussion. The extents of such have forever been compiled, analyzed, and argued hotly over, but that effect remains scientifically unyielding and uncontested.

 

I confess that I'm on the fence, but it's quite easy to pick apart poorly thought-out arguments.

 

Should the MW actually be the "what I need to actually pay my bills and live" wage?

 

The ugly side of arbitration.

 

The only true relation between wage and its perceived value is the demand for labor. Attributing a monolithic purpose behind an economic concept is precisely where the value and resulting market ramifications become terribly obfuscated, often through misguided policy.

 

The system, as it stands, makes it very hard for people who live on MW to actually live and contribute in any meaningful way to the economy. If they don't have money, beyond basic living expenses, to spend - their overall impact on the economy is reduced and we all kind of suffer for that.

 

Painfully limited reasoning which fails to account for plenty of components around our economic machine.

 

The consequences of a MW raise go well beyond temporarily increasing disposable income for a subset of the labor force.

 

If we chose to pay people for their value, as human beings, in an ethical way, and not value the pay by the jobs, a living wage for the lowliest of jobs would be the result

 

Except in that line of contradictory thinking, there wouldn't be a 'lowliest of jobs,' 

 

because you can't tell a person that they don't deserve to live based off of the merit of their personal value. That would just make you an asshole.

 

and conditioning employment in accordance with business aims doesn't yield any statement of such. 

 

Enough with the appeals to emotion. If there's any thread in the Debate Forum that should be safe from such nonsense, it's this one.


L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 


#58 Petite Fleur

Petite Fleur

    ~ Spider Lady - Kiri's Wife ~ Professional Cuddle Bug

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11888 posts

User's Awards

     

Posted 15 October 2015 - 02:36 AM


Except in that line of contradictory thinking, there wouldn't be a 'lowliest of jobs,' 

 

Not true, there would always be jobs worth more or less, but the minimum would be the cost of living.

 

This has its real world equivalent with all of the places that have this wage, for this reason, that still have higher paying jobs.

 


and conditioning employment in accordance with business aims doesn't yield any statement of such. 
 
Enough with the appeals to emotion. If there's any thread in the Debate Forum that should be safe from such nonsense, it's this one.

 

That's all this is, though. Appeal to emotion via fear is basically the economic game. That much has been admitted to, with the admission of things like trickle down economics not existing in the real actual world.

 

There is no, as you would call it, natural, scientific process. It's all an artificial one. Inflation is one big artificial pool of variables that, sure, no one person or group controls, but that doesn't make it natural, it makes it a shark pool. The debate of the minimum wage isn't a cold, factual debate of economic theory, it's a debate of valuing people, because pretending that the debate is about economic theory, practice, and reality, is bullshit. 

 

When healthcare was required for workers working more than 33, or something like that, hours - jobs were lost, hours were cut, and the business world did this artificially. These were all choices, not natural reactions to something.

 

Small businesses find themselves on two roads. One where they don't have any money, again because trickle down economics doesn't actually exist in the real world, and two, where they have plenty of money and can afford to pay the wages without doing things like upping prices, or letting people go - because they're legitimately decent at business. A fundamental difference, essentially, that lies in believing in big business assurance of how economies work, and the reality that it doesn't actually work that way at all.

 

Minimum wage raises that cut workers are results of poor business practice, or actions called consequences to threats to a "bottom line" that exists for greed, not growth. This is true when companies that cut these workers, when they can afford to pay them, like Wal-Mart or Target do it, and cite the same reason as businesses that can't afford to do the same.

 

The economic game also changes fundamentally periodically, because the way the world is changes fundamentally, frequently, notably with the internet and the growth of social media, and how that connectivity has, for example, created jobs on and off the net.

 

Even the argument that inflation is an uncontrollable beast(whether or not you believe people are responsible, which has only one logically sound answer - people are because choice, human choice, is required for every variable that results in inflation) has no place, because the issues are ethical, not economical. Raising the minimum wage, and protecting that raise against inflation,solves that problem, and has already been proposed(and past), depending on your area. This is an ethical issue, not just because of what the living wage stands for, but because of the minimum wage, for what it originally stood for and was meant to be used for, is no longer possible without a raise that doesn't cause, or is immediately invalidated by, inflation.

 

So this is a debate of morals and ethics, it isn't a cold hard debate of economics. It's about what we deserve, and why there shouldn't be any artificial consequences to that, especially not when they're paraded around as "natural, scientifically logical conclusions."


2mGKRJi.png
▂▅▇█▓▒░◕‿‿◕░▒▓█▇▅▂

Spoiler Quotes

#59 Oben

Oben

    Sixpack

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11303 posts

User's Awards

         2   

Posted 15 October 2015 - 06:11 AM

No serious economic perspective? I thought you, of all people, would give this an honest shot, @Oben.


I'm a bit lost at this comment. Which of my posts are you referring to?

I don't know how long America has had a minimum wage, but in my country, when it was introduced (not raised, introduced) this year, it was long overdue. Because you ought to pay people at least enough so that they can live of it. Dead people don't consume, and people that only barely scrape buy don't exactly consume much either.


 
Ok, looked it up. America has a minimum wage since 1938. How exactly were you doing bad in the last 7 decades again?

Edited by Oben, 15 October 2015 - 06:09 AM.


#60 Phenomiracle

Phenomiracle

    Hime

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2236 posts
  • LocationGarden State

Posted 15 October 2015 - 06:30 AM

Not true, there would always be jobs worth more or less, but the minimum would be the cost of living.

 

This has its real world equivalent with all of the places that have this wage, for this reason, that still have higher paying jobs.

 

If we chose to pay people for their value, as human beings, in an ethical way, and not value the pay by the jobs, a living wage for the lowliest of jobs would be the result

 

Nice try. 

 

That's all this is, though. Appeal to emotion via fear is basically the economic game. That much has been admitted to, with the admission of things like trickle down economics not existing in the real actual world.

 

There is no, as you would call it, natural, scientific process. It's all an artificial one. Inflation is one big artificial pool of variables that, sure, no one person or group controls, but that doesn't make it natural, it makes it a shark pool. The debate of the minimum wage isn't a cold, factual debate of economic theory, it's a debate of valuing people, because pretending that the debate is about economic theory, practice, and reality, is bullshit. 

 

When healthcare was required for workers working more than 33, or something like that, hours - jobs were lost, hours were cut, and the business world did this artificially. These were all choices, not natural reactions to something.

 

Economic theory revolves around the allocation of scarce resources to accommodate unlimited demand. Emotion is removed from the subject entirely, as the economics deals solely with individual wants, with the premise that survival and growth are sought after.

 

Individual choices and behaviors that are extraneous to said desires (such as compassion, generosity, familial bonds, friendship) aren't considered at a macroeconomic level. The MW discussion does not speak to the value of individuals, it speaks directly to the market valuation of individual labor.

 

You've exemplified some strong confirmation bias by choosing to link that article. Beyond self-assertion, attempting to render a certain proposition fact because it holds some support, and mischaracterizing the arguments offered by supply-side economists in favor of alarmist quotes, that article offers nothing substantial.

 

Small businesses find themselves on two roads. One where they don't have any money, again because trickle down economics doesn't actually exist in the real world, and two, where they have plenty of money and can afford to pay the wages without doing things like upping prices, or letting people go - because they're legitimately decent at business. A fundamental difference, essentially, that lies in believing in big business assurance of how economies work, and the reality that it doesn't actually work that way at all.

 

Petitio principii on laissez-faire.

 

Minimum wage raises that cut workers are results of poor business practice, or actions called consequences to threats to a "bottom line" that exists for greed, not growth. This is true when companies that cut these workers, when they can afford to pay them, like Wal-Mart or Target do it, and cite the same reason as businesses that can't afford to do the same.

 

Arbitration injects a standard which directly interferes with market reality, to claim that something is "poor" because it doesn't match up to your preconceived notion of what must work is unabashed immaturity. 

 

Growth (or maintaining a bottom-line) is definitely core to business decisions. Wal-Mart and Target see their operating costs rise when the MW is hiked, and thus take action to reduce production costs to enable growth. Greed? I agree, but that characterization is irrelevant to matter at hand. 

 

The economic game also changes fundamentally periodically, because the way the world is changes fundamentally, frequently, notably with the internet and the growth of social media, and how that connectivity has, for example, created jobs on and off the net.

 

Wrong, the fundamentals remain exactly the same. The advent of technologies shape industries and means for which people could gain capital and access to resources, but the central principles regarding the relations of supply and demand remain unchanged across all of recorded human history.

 

Even the argument that inflation is an uncontrollable beast(whether or not you believe people are responsible, which has only one logically sound answer - people are because choice, human choice, is required for every variable that results in inflation) has no place, because the issues are ethical, not economical. Raising the minimum wage, and protecting that raise against inflation,solves that problem, and has already been proposed(and past), depending on your area. This is an ethical issue, not just because of what the living wage stands for, but because of the minimum wage, for what it originally stood for and was meant to be used for, is no longer possible without a raise that doesn't cause, or is immediately invalidated by, inflation.

 

So this is a debate of morals and ethics, it isn't a cold hard debate of economics. It's about what we deserve, and why there shouldn't be any artificial consequences to that, especially not when they're paraded around as "natural, scientifically logical conclusions."

 

The chain of "human choices" through all governing elements of inflation collide headfirst into the nonnegotiable reality of supply and demand. Inflation is marked by a holistic increases in prices and could occur for multitude of reasons, declining productivity, increasing aggregate demand, and/or increase in money supply. All of these trace back to the simple quandary of satisfying demand for a scarcity of supply.

 

You're extremely ignorant on not just this issue, but any topic regarding economics. Until you bring anything beyond ill-founded supposition, I can ignore you without having missed anything noteworthy. 

 

Still on the fence about minimum wage increase, I could go either way.

 

Ok, looked it up. America has a minimum wage since 1938. How exactly were you doing bad in the last 7 decades again?

 

A policy that falls in line with either growth or decline as determined by any theory doesn't singlehandedly provide a saving grace or pronounce a death knell.

 

The absurd amount of growth in our manufacturing, telecommunications, and service sectors post-World War II, along with low effective tax and interest rates dwarfed the impact of the minimum wage in the decades since. 


L o y a l t y              |             B l o o d l i n e

ZmZNGgT.gif

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users