Jump to content
Libswatter

$15/Hour Minimum Wage

Recommended Posts

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Why are you using $20/hr as an example?  Of course most ppl would not turn down $20/hr.   $20/hr is not the issue.  It’s wages LOWER than the base cap.

I never fucking said someone would "turn down $20/hr" you illiterate cretin.  I could have used ANY number and the point would be exactly the same.  Here, try this-

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $100/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $100/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $10/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $10/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $5/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $5/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $1/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $1/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

 

 

If you still can't grasp the amazingly simple point that I am making, then there may be no hope for you...

 

Good luck.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

I read it the first 3x’s.  I’ll pass from now on, as should you.

Well you obviously didn't understand it, or I wouldn't have to keep posting it.  If you would finally learn how to read, we could both save a lot of time here.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

This may come as a surprise to you... but often in an effort for analogies to hit home... people will inject their counterparts as the example.   Ergo- you are the employer looking to negotiate destitute wages to people for the purpose of personal profits.

But employers in general paying low wages (without using FORCE or FRAUD) will not result in larger "personal profits", so your dumb argument is meaningless.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

🤣🤣🤣 Bcus black people are the only ones earning low wages??  That couldn’t be a more racist statement if you were wearing a pointed hood.  
 

I suppose you’ve never seen a trailer park loaded w/ caucasians.  

Sigh... apparently my pleas for you to finally learn how to read (or to have someone else read my posts to you) have been in vain...

 

I never, ever said a fucking thing about "black people are the only ones earning low wages" you illiterate sack of shit!!!  Are you truly too damn stupid to know the difference between the words "especially" and "only", moron?  The undeniable point I was making is that moronic MW laws ESPECIALLY hurt unskilled blacks (just as many of the liberal politicians originally pushing them openly admitted), not that they are the ONLY ones hurt, dolt.  Of course these moronic MW laws hurt many low-skilled whites as well.  Duh.

 

And if you think this claim is wrong, there is a book that explores this topic written by Walter Williams-

 

As detailed in my recent book "Race and Economics" (2012), during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment and blacks were more active in the labor market. For example, in 1948, black teen unemployment was less than white teen unemployment, and black teens were more active in the labor market. Today black teen unemployment is about 40 percent; for whites, it is about 20 percent. The minimum wage law weighs heavily in this devastating picture.

 

Are you saying that this author is racist against blacks for having this view?  Yes or no?

 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Sure, they can tell them to F off... but you can’t tell everyone to F off if its not going to change the base pay, so why bother continuing w/ this analogy?  

I never, ever said that would have to "tell everyone to F off", just the cheapskate ones that try to underpay them, dunce.  If there are significantly underpaid workers doing some type of job, then there will undoubtedly be countless other greedy people eager to steal these workers away from the cheapskates with higher wages so that they can get most of the massive profits for themselves.  I very, very, very clearly explained to you how this would work with a very simple example, that you were apparently to dumb to comprehend.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Abd what productivity is below the MW threshold?   This what I’ve been asking for days.    

Obviously, most of the unskilled workers that are currently involuntarily unemployed because of moronic MW laws are people that are likely to have productivity below the current MW threshold, dumbass.  If they truly had productivity significantly above the MW level, then some greedy employer would obviously be employing most of them to make some of that evil profit.  Duh.

 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

You’re retort in so many words is... [paraphrasing] ‘whatever the employee/employer negotiate.’

No, I never said anything of the sort.  Actually, I very, very, very clearly told you that wages in general do not depend on "negotiations" between the employee and employer, you illiterate twit.  Wages in general are determined by companies competing against each other for workers, numbskull.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

And I will say this for the millionth time... you’re $20/hr  - .50 cent analogy doesn’t mesh.  

 

A 20/hr job does not correlate to a .50 job. 
 

You’re trying to compare a  $20/hr job to a .50 cents/hr job as if they are corresponding.  
 

Your gap b/t the two figures impedes on your ability to make a fair & sound analogy.  
 

Bcus one job ($20) is something most will not haggle over.

 

The other (.50) will come w/  consequential disputes.  

I never, ever said that a "20/hr job correlates to a .50 job", you illiterate fool!  The $20/hr was just an example to illustrate the point.  The point I was making would be true for ANY wage level.  Here, try this-

 

If some type of workers have a productivity of say $100/hr and there is no MW law, then greedy employers can WANT to pay them $50/hr until their ass bleeds, but it won't do them any fucking good because they won't be able to successfully do this without using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

 

If some type of workers have a productivity of say $10/hr and there is no MW law, then greedy employers can WANT to pay them $5/hr until their ass bleeds, but it won't do them any fucking good because they won't be able to successfully do this without using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

 

If some type of workers have a productivity of say $5/hr and there is no MW law, then greedy employers can WANT to pay them $2.50/hr until their ass bleeds, but it won't do them any fucking good because they won't be able to successfully do this without using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

 

If some type of workers have a productivity of say $1/hr and there is no MW law, then greedy employers can WANT to pay them $.50/hr until their ass bleeds, but it won't do them any fucking good because they won't be able to successfully do this without using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

 

 

If you still can't grasp the amazingly simple point that I am making, then there may be no hope for you...

 

Good luck.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Then go live in China & NK where that reality exists.

 

Why aren’t you packing right now if that is your ideal haven?

 

If you think we live in a country of the haves and have nots... go park yourself in those provinces for a while.

Again- these countries do not have anything even slightly resembling the labor market for which I am advocating, moron.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

And what labor would that be?   That could only be negotiated if there is no option (depression-like state) or the employer is seeking low wage/destitute labor for personal monetary benefit.  
You haven’t given me an example of why anyone would be in favor of making less than the MW.  

Yes, I fucking did.  I very, very, very clearly explained to your ignorant ass that someone who is UNEMPLOYED COMPLETELY because of a moronic MW law would be in favor of making less than the MW because that would obviously still be higher than the fucking ***ZERO*** they are making with no job at all, idiot.

 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

You gave me example of poor countries or provinces that institute MW to an already impoverished province; in which the corp decided to cash in on the business rather than pay the mandated wage.  


Neither example explained if they could pay or wouldn’t pay the new mandate. 

 

In short:. use countries that either aren’t socialistic in practice (switzerland), previously destitute (whatever island), or preserved by gov’t regulations of appeals (PR).

see above 👆

I gave you the logic, reason, and theory as to why moronic MW laws cause unemployment, and despite your complete inability to refute these arguments in any way whatsoever, you refused to accept them and demanded I provide you with real-world examples.  Then I gave you some real world examples that clearly showed the skyrocketing unemployment and economic DEVASTATION that resulted from very high MW laws, showing that the logic, reason, and theories do indeed hold true in the real world, and you still would not accept it.  Since those were not enough, here is a post earlier in this very thread where I gave a virtual MOUNTAIN of studies showing the real world harm of moronic MW laws- Link

 

If you still refuse to accept the reality of the harm of moronic MW laws, then it can only be because you simply don't WANT to accept reality, and thus there may be no hope for you...

 

Good luck.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Then why do all low wage jobs pay virtually the same?   

The same reason that all identical jobs with identically-skilled workers in a given region pay virtually the same- because this is the value that these types of workers generate for their employers, and thus the market price for this type of job is set accordingly by the market.  Duh.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

You know anyone who earns $20/hr working fast food or retail?  

No, because the productivity of these jobs is not generally that high.  Duh.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Know any engineers that make less than $25/hr starting out?

No, because the productivity of these jobs is not generally that low.  Duh.

 

 

You are really not very bright, are you?  Lol...

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

 

Bcus one is encumbered by laws that protect the well-being of society.  It applies to both salary workers but is only actually relevant to the low wage earner.

yes... now see the fast food/retail  example above 👆

That is negotiation in theory.  In practice, I will refer to you to my examples above 👆

 

For low wage position, your bargaining power is only so much.  In high demand positions, you have much more leverage.

 

Again, do you know a burger flipper that negotiated $20/hr?

 

You may have come across one or two in your lifetime that leveraged a buck or two bcus they are undeniably good or reliable. But nowhere have you seen a run-of-the-mill laborer broker from a MW salary to a different tax bracket. 

 

That is not reality.  That is not how the world works.

Again, it has nothing to do with "bargaining power" or "negotiation" and the $20/hr was just used as an example to illustrate the point I was making.  Here, try this (assuming there is no moronic MW law whatsoever)-

 

For example, if some type of worker can produce value for their employer of say $5/hr, and some evil cheapskate employer is only paying them say $1/hr, then how would that evil cheapskate stop another second company from coming along and stealing his workers by offering them $2/hr?  After all, that is still fantastic profit for the second company and the workers will surely jump at the chance to make more money.  And how would this second company stop a third company from coming along and stealing them by offering them $3/hr?  And how would this third company stop a fourth from offering them $4/hr?  And what is to keep this from going on and on and on and on until these workers are eventually getting paid somewhere close to the $5/hr they are producing and it is no longer worth the effort to steal them anymore?  Other than illegally using FORCE to stop the workers from moving to another job, there is not a fucking thing that would stop this from happening, dunce.  That is why your dumb little ignorant theory is complete bullshit.

 

 

If you still can't grasp the amazingly simple point that I am making, then there may be no hope for you...

 

Good luck.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Against MW - Got it!  You never have to post this again.

 

... even though you will

No, apparently you haven't "got it", because that is not what I was saying.  I was very, very, very clearly explaining to you that I am against employers using FORCE, such as when there is slavery, dumbass.

 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 9:51 PM, jrock2310 said:

Addressed - Multiple times - They protect each other through various laws & political, socio-economical implementations.

And I very, very, very clearly explained to you earlier about Switzerland-

 

Those union agreements only apply to the companies that have contracted with those unions.  If some company is not contracted with a particular union, or with any union whatsoever, then they can freely pay whatever the market will bear and the unions can't say jack shit about it.  For example, if some company with no union agreement wants to pay it's workers the equivalent of $1 US/hour, and they can successfully find any workers voluntarily willing to work for that amount, then they are free to do so.  This keeps the lowest-skilled and minority workers from getting locked out of the labor market completely, as they do in countries with moronic MW LAWS, numbskull. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

Continually repeating a myth does not magically make it become true.  I have very, very, very clearly explained to you why it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for evil, greedy employers to significantly underpay their workers below their level of productivity without using FORCE or FRAUD, and yet you keep on claiming that it was actually happening and that is why these moronic laws were "triggered in the first place", like some kind of blithering idiot.  If something is logically IMPOSSIBLE, then it obviously was not actually happening, dimwit!  If you can show a flaw in the logic of my explanation of why it is IMPOSSIBLE, instead of just blindly claiming that it happened with no explanation as to how, then let's see you do it.

 

Good luck.

Bcus there is no standard fare set on productivity.  THE “FORCE” you are so fervently against protects laborers from leaches like you.

 

If you simply want to give someone $4-5  — by all means.  As an employer running a business that pays taxes,  you cannot hire that person and pay them below the minimum threshold.  Period.

 

The “FORCE” is a protection.  
 

Again... if you want to give someone money - that’s called charity.  If you’re going to hire them & place them on a payroll... you have to pay them the minimum or you are breaking the law.

Quote


No, you aren't answering my questions.  You are continually arguing against things I have never, ever stated, like I am supposedly in favor of slavery, and you are showing your illiteracy by misunderstanding the things that I actually do post.
 

 

Quote

 

 

And I very, very, very clearly told you what would stop an evil, greedy employer from paying "destitute rates" (assuming the productivity of the work was above these rates)- the MARKET itself would keep them from doing it!!!  Why is this so hard for you to comprehend???

How many low wage laborers do you know who have successfully, fundamentally raised their “market value” beyond what is the standard rate of say retail or a fast food?  Know any fast food employees killing it flipping burgers, earning a wage substantially beyond average of $9-11?

 

No... bcus that is the national average of low wage labor.  

Quote

 

Let's try this example- the market price of a barrel of WTI crude oil is currently around $58 - Link.  Also, there is currently no government law setting a minimum price for crude oil.  Let's suppose there is some evil, greedy business owner that uses crude oil somehow to make his products.  What is keeping this evil, greedy person from underpaying for his oil, such as only paying say $30 per barrel instead, since there is no government enforcement of a minimum price?  Isn't paying $30/barrel going to save this greedy person money compared to paying $58/barrel, and thus allow him to make more evil profit?  So why can't he do this without using FORCE or FRAUD?
 

You’re talking about a product (oil) not labor, LD.  


This ENTIRE conversation is about labor. 

Quote

 

Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

I never fucking said someone would "turn down $20/hr" you illiterate cretin.  I could have used ANY number and the point would be exactly the same.  Here, try this-

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $100/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $100/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

The reason your analogies don’t work is bcus you’re taking someone who CAN earn $100/hr (trying to) place them in an unenviable position.  But its not unenviable if the person making $100 has to make slightly less than $100/hr.

 

The analogy works for low wage workers bcus of the threat of destitution.  If someone goes from $100-90... that person is going to be okay.  If someone goes from $10-5 - we got a problem.  This person can no longer support themselves.  

Quote

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $10/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $10/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.
 

Says who?  You keep surmising the market, as if this bidding for labor will somehow solve all the woes.   The market stipulates ones value, not ones negotiating power.  Anyone working low wage positions are not in enviable positions.  They typically do not garner the power or leverage or broker much more than the national average due to the quantity of people willing & searching for anything.  Therefore, employers can simply turn the page on anyone who suggest they are worth $20/hr, bcus the guy right behind him will do it for $10.  

Quote

 

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $5/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $5/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

And who is stipulating the value of $5/hr labor?  That can only be an employer.  No employee is going to marginalize their own value by taking less.  
 

We tried this in the past and it hurt people.

 

*Again & again & again... if you want to give charitably or you want to offer the homeless guy $3 for washing your windshield— by all means.  BUT... If you are going to employ this person, you have to met the modern standards of today or you are exploiting their value for your profit.  You are fleecing their time while they could be somewhere earning standard minimum while you rob them of it.  
 

Imagine explaining to someone who is homeless... ‘Hey, wanna earn $5/hr?  Sounds good right?  Better than the nothing you have, right?’

 

Then I come along and say:  ‘Sir, your Iegal value is beyond what he is offering.  He is exploiting your labor.  I can pay you the legal minimum which is more than he’s offering.  
 

Your argument suggests it is somehow ethical or noble to negotiate down from MW.  Give charitably if you want to help people.  Give the homeless man a nice tip for cleaning your windshield.  But if you employ him for your licensed business... you must meet the standards of the day.

 

The way to support people is to pay them an equitable rate for their time.  Otherwise, you’re only contributing to the problem. As an employer, you have an obligation to treat your fellow employees humanely.

Quote

 

If a type of worker has a productivity of $1/hr, then employers in general will have to pay them near $1/hr even if there are no moronic MW laws whatsoever.  Period.

See above 👆

Quote

 

 

If you still can't grasp the amazingly simple point that I am making, then there may be no hope for you...

 

Good luck.

 

Well you obviously didn't understand it, or I wouldn't have to keep posting it.  If you would finally learn how to read, we could both save a lot of time here.

 

But employers in general paying low wages (without using FORCE or FRAUD) will not result in larger "personal profits", so your dumb argument is meaningless.

 

Sigh... apparently my pleas for you to finally learn how to read (or to have someone else read my posts to you) have been in vain...

 

I never, ever said a fucking thing about "black people are the only ones earning low wages" you illiterate sack of shit!!!  Are you truly too damn stupid to know the difference between the words "especially" and "only", moron?  The undeniable point I was making is that moronic MW laws ESPECIALLY hurt unskilled blacks (just as many of the liberal politicians originally pushing them openly admitted), not that they are the ONLY ones hurt, dolt.  Of course these moronic MW laws hurt many low-skilled whites as well.  Duh.

Then why bring race into the equation at all?  As a rational human being, I can grant you the courtesy to infer that you know *ANY* race is susceptible to destitution w/ no further implication or explanation needed. 
 

So why did you feel compelled to do the opposite? 

Quote

 

And if you think this claim is wrong, there is a book that explores this topic written by Walter Williams-

 

As detailed in my recent book "Race and Economics" (2012), during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment and blacks were more active in the labor market. For example, in 1948, black teen unemployment was less than white teen unemployment, and black teens were more active in the labor market. Today black teen unemployment is about 40 percent; for whites, it is about 20 percent. The minimum wage law weighs heavily in this devastating picture.

 

See above 👆

Quote

 

 


 

 

 

 

Are you saying that this author is racist against blacks for having this view?  Yes or no?

I didn’t read this book.  But I can say that cherry-picking stats isn’t how you engage in formidable discussion on race or race relations. 

Quote

 

 

I never, ever said that would have to "tell everyone to F off", just the cheapskate ones that try to underpay them, dunce.  If there are significantly underpaid workers doing some type of job, then there will undoubtedly be countless other greedy people eager to steal these workers away from the cheapskates with higher wages so that they can get most of the massive profits for themselves.  I very, very, very clearly explained to you how this would work with a very simple example, that you were apparently to dumb to comprehend.
 

You’re initial dispute is that it is somehow okay for one party to pay another less than a protected value simply bcus both parties may agree.  No, its not okay, even if a bidding war breaks out;  bcus a bidding war doesn’t regress.
 

Your vision of markets seems to be that your value can start from 0 & be valued or negotiated from there.  No.  You’re value is protected & stipulates that you cannot be devalued, marginalized or exploited by people seeking personal benefit from your time & labor.  If I may be permitted to translate, in laymen terms, what MW means:.  If you are incapable of compensating a standard minimum wage, you are incapable of running a business. 

Quote

 

Obviously, most of the unskilled workers that are currently involuntarily unemployed because of moronic MW laws are people that are likely to have productivity below the current MW threshold, dumbass.

Sure, and if it wasn’t for those pesky murder laws,  I could chop off all the heads I want.

Quote

If they truly had productivity significantly above the MW level, then some greedy employer would obviously be employing most of them to make some of that evil profit.  Duh.

This is what I’m talking about... what does “truly” mean in the context of that sentence?  Who is determining value of the productivity?  
 

- Markets are measuring sticks.  

- Not all markets are created equal.  

- Markets are an arena of dealings.  Not all  dealings have required standards or rules.
- Markets can be deterministic and/or manipulated.


In a nutshell... if there is no objectively true law of markets, then there can be no objectively true standard of practice.

 

Quote

 

 

No, I never said anything of the sort.  Actually, I very, very, very clearly told you that wages in general do not depend on "negotiations" between the employee and employer, you illiterate twit.  Wages in general are determined by companies competing against each other for workers, numbskull.
 

What is the distinct difference in low wage labor to other low wage labor?  I’ll help you out ... nothing!  Its low wage for low wage.
 

This has to be a world record for illustrating the same point over & over &  over again... a low wage laborers ability to leverage themselves in a market is, by in large, limited to other (wage) comparable markets.

 

For instance:. How many burger flippers are leveraging their employer for more money, otherwise they’ll take that partnering position at the law firm?

 

That’s not how low wage laborers leverage.  They do so in the confines of other low wage institutions.

 

A doctor doesn’t leverage his negotiating power by bringing burger king to the table.  No... he uses other high profile, job compatible institutions.  
 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 10:35 AM, Libswatter said:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/

 

"The city’s escalating minimum wage has meant a slight increase in pay among workers earning up to $19 per hour, but the hours worked in such jobs have shrunk, a study commissioned by the city found. It estimates there would be 5,000 more such jobs without the Seattle law. "

 

 

WHEN LARGE LARGE NUMBERS OF VOTERS GO TO THE POLLS AMERICA ALWAYS BECOMES A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE THIS TURNOUT PRODUCES THE MODERATE GOVERNMENT THAT PROTECTS VOTING RIGHT, KEEPS WOMENS RIGHTS IN PLACE, KEEPS AMERICA EMPLOYED WHICH PRODUCES THE ECONOMIC GROWTH WHICH KEEPS THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE USA WAY ABOVE NORMAL.  $15 PER HOUR IS LESS THAN $33,000 PER YEAR BEFORE TAXES.

 

DOCTORS AND LAWYERS MAKE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AN HOUR,

CEO'S MAKE MULTI MILLIONS A YEAR,

CEO'S ARE AWARDED MILLIONS IN THEIR GOLDEN PARACHUTE PACKAGES,

THE VERY WEALTHY ARE PROVIDED LOOPHOLES THAT WHICH ALLOW THEM TO PAY NO TAXES

CARS COST TENS OF THOUSANDS

HOMES COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF $$$$$

MEDICAL INSURANCE COSTS TENS OF THOUSANDS ANNUALLY

SPORTS TEAMS ARE AWARDED BILLIONS IN TAX DOLLAR SUBSIDES

 

AND CONSERVATIVES ARE WORRIED ABOUT HARD WORKING PEOPLE MAKING $35 AN HOUR OR $64,500 A YEAR?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 6:50 AM, merrill said:

 

 

WHEN LARGE LARGE NUMBERS OF VOTERS GO TO THE POLLS AMERICA ALWAYS BECOMES A BETTER PLACE BECAUSE THIS TURNOUT PRODUCES THE MODERATE GOVERNMENT THAT PROTECTS VOTING RIGHT, KEEPS WOMENS RIGHTS IN PLACE, KEEPS AMERICA EMPLOYED WHICH PRODUCES THE ECONOMIC GROWTH WHICH KEEPS THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE USA WAY ABOVE NORMAL.  $15 PER HOUR IS LESS THAN $33,000 PER YEAR BEFORE TAXES.

 

DOCTORS AND LAWYERS MAKE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AN HOUR,

CEO'S MAKE MULTI MILLIONS A YEAR,

CEO'S ARE AWARDED MILLIONS IN THEIR GOLDEN PARACHUTE PACKAGES,

THE VERY WEALTHY ARE PROVIDED LOOPHOLES THAT WHICH ALLOW THEM TO PAY NO TAXES

CARS COST TENS OF THOUSANDS

HOMES COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF $$$$$

MEDICAL INSURANCE COSTS TENS OF THOUSANDS ANNUALLY

SPORTS TEAMS ARE AWARDED BILLIONS IN TAX DOLLAR SUBSIDES

 

AND CONSERVATIVES ARE WORRIED ABOUT HARD WORKING PEOPLE MAKING $35 AN HOUR OR $64,500 A YEAR?????

 

How does that address what the Seattle Times article said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2020 at 9:18 AM, Nighthawk said:

No, you do not have to use any models or real world data analysis to prove the effect of moronic MW laws when it can easily & definitively be proved with logic and reason.  As I have very clearly explained to you numerous times, statistics & data should only be used as a secondary back-up to the theory, at most.  The reason for this is that it is completely impossible to isolate the variable of the MW law itself when doing an analysis.  This means that any analysis will involve making assumptions and estimates of the effects of all the other variables involved, which can invariably lead to errors in the conclusions if the wrong assumptions are made.  Why the hell is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?

 

Now, if you can actually be the very first person to ever disprove anything I have posted using logic and reason, instead of cowardly ducking and dodging like a scared little chickenshit, then let's see you do it for fuck's sake.

 

Good luck.

Theory is for the weak and simple minded who can't back up their claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

Bcus there is no standard fare set on productivity.  THE “FORCE” you are so fervently against protects laborers from leaches like you.

If you knew how to read, you would have seen that the FORCE I was referring to in my statement was that being used by the EMPLOYERS to successfully underpay workers, as that and FRAUD are about the only ways that they can achieve this, dunce.  In other words, if employers put guns to people's heads and FORCE them to work, then yes, they can indeed successfully underpay them in those situations.  Without doing these things, then any attempts by employers to significantly underpay workers will be a foolish waste of time because it won't work.  Therefore, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for moronic MW laws to try to prevent this from happening.  All that are needed are laws against employers using FORCE or FRAUD.  Why the hell is this so hard for you to comprehend???

 

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

 

If you simply want to give someone $4-5  — by all means.  As an employer running a business that pays taxes,  you cannot hire that person and pay them below the minimum threshold.  Period...

 

 If you’re going to hire them & place them on a payroll... you have to pay them the minimum or you are breaking the law.

No fucking duh.  Why the hell do you keep on posting obvious things that do not refute a single thing I have ever posted, nimrod?  I obviously know how moronic MW laws work and what they require.  I am just telling you that they are a horrible and harmful policy that should be completely abolished, dolt.

 

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

The “FORCE” is a protection.  

Again, it is a "protection" that is completely unnecessary.  What you inevitably end up doing is "protecting" the lowest skilled workers, especially the black ones, from having any job whatsoever.   With "friends" like you, who the fuck needs enemies?

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

Again... if you want to give someone money - that’s called charity.

No fucking duh.

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

How many low wage laborers do you know who have successfully, fundamentally raised their “market value” beyond what is the standard rate of say retail or a fast food?  Know any fast food employees killing it flipping burgers, earning a wage substantially beyond average of $9-11?

 

No... bcus that is the national average of low wage labor.  

Why the hell would anyone expect someone to raise their market value above the level of the productivity of the work they are performing, idiot?  Where the hell did I ever say that such a thing would happen? 

 

Why the hell do you keep on arguing against things that I have NEVER, EVER said???  Is it since you can't disprove something that I actually do say, so you just make up some dumb claim, pretend that I said it, and then argue against that instead?  Lol...

 

 

On 1/18/2020 at 10:10 PM, jrock2310 said:

You’re talking about a product (oil) not labor, LD.  


This ENTIRE conversation is about labor.

Yes, but the principles are exactly the same, dope.  The laws of basic economic theory apply to both goods and services!  This is why the reason that some evil company cannot underpay for labor anymore than they can underpay for oil or any other raw material (without using FORCE or FRAUD), no matter how fucking greedy they are.

 

So why don't you just indulge me and answer my amazingly simple question instead of cowardly dodging it?  Here it is again for you-

 

Let's try this example- the market price of a barrel of WTI crude oil is currently around $58 - Link.  Also, there is currently no government law setting a minimum price for crude oil.  Let's suppose there is some evil, greedy business owner that uses crude oil somehow to make his products.  What is keeping this evil, greedy person from underpaying for his oil, such as only paying say $30 per barrel instead, since there is no government enforcement of a minimum price?  Isn't paying $30/barrel going to save this greedy person money compared to paying $58/barrel, and thus allow him to make more evil profit?  So why can't he do this without using FORCE or FRAUD?

 

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

The reason your analogies don’t work is bcus you’re taking someone who CAN earn $100/hr (trying to) place them in an unenviable position.  But its not unenviable if the person making $100 has to make slightly less than $100/hr.

 

The analogy works for low wage workers bcus of the threat of destitution.  If someone goes from $100-90... that person is going to be okay.  If someone goes from $10-5 - we got a problem.  This person can no longer support themselves.  

The point I was making had nothing whatsoever to do with what is "unenviable" or whether someone can "support themselves."  That is all completely irrelevant.  Even if workers with a productivity of $100/hr can "support themselves" at $90/hr, their evil, greedy employers STILL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY THEM MUCH BELOW $100/HR, you damn imbecile!  They will either pay close to $100/hr or they won't be able to successfully recruit and retain those workers.  They have no say in the matter.  Period.

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Says who?  

Says basic economic theory and simple logic, that is who.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

You keep surmising the market, as if this bidding for labor will somehow solve all the woes.  

No, I said it would result in workers getting paid close to the level of productivity of the work being performed.  Period.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

The market stipulates ones value, not ones negotiating power.  Anyone working low wage positions are not in enviable positions.  They typically do not garner the power or leverage or broker much more than the national average due to the quantity of people willing & searching for anything. 

No, as I very, very, very clearly told you- wages in general, especially for unskilled labor, have very little to do with "negotiating power."  It is not employee vs. employer, it is employer vs. competing employer.  Why the hell can't you get this?  What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Therefore, employers can simply turn the page on anyone who suggest they are worth $20/hr, bcus the guy right behind him will do it for $10.  

And if those workers TRULY are worth $20/hr, then another employer will undoubtedly steal them away for more than $10/hr to get some of the massive profits for themselves.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

And who is stipulating the value of $5/hr labor?  That can only be an employer.  

I never said anything about someone "stipulating" the value.  I was stating in this hypothetical that this is what the productivity actually was.  And if the productivity of some type of labor is actually $5/hr, then the market will eventually figure this out and that is close to what those workers would be paid (absent moronic MW laws).

 

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

No employee is going to marginalize their own value by taking less.  

And I never, ever said that workers would "take less" than their productivity, dolt.  My entire point is that they would not have to because this would be logically IMPOSSIBLE for employers to do.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

We tried this in the past and it hurt people.

Complete bullshit.  Switzerland is trying it right now and they are not hurting anyone.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

 

*Again & again & again... if you want to give charitably or you want to offer the homeless guy $3 for washing your windshield— by all means.  BUT... If you are going to employ this person, you have to met the modern standards of today or you are exploiting their value for your profit.  You are fleecing their time while they could be somewhere earning standard minimum while you rob them of it.  
 

Imagine explaining to someone who is homeless... ‘Hey, wanna earn $5/hr?  Sounds good right?  Better than the nothing you have, right?’

 

Then I come along and say:  ‘Sir, your Iegal value is beyond what he is offering.  He is exploiting your labor.  I can pay you the legal minimum which is more than he’s offering.  

How the hell can I be "exploiting" someone by simply making them an offer that they can VOLUNTARILY choose to accept or not?  If I kept my mouth shut and did not offer him that job at all, would he somehow be better off?  And if you can come along and hire him for a higher wage, then my attempt at "exploiting" him would obviously not work, now would it dumbass?

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Your argument suggests it is somehow ethical or noble to negotiate down from MW. 

I never said anything of the sort.  Whether something is "ethical" or "noble" regarding job offers is completely irrelevant.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Give charitably if you want to help people.  Give the homeless man a nice tip for cleaning your windshield.  But if you employ him for your licensed business... you must meet the standards of the day.

No fucking duh.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

The way to support people is to pay them an equitable rate for their time.

And if your definition of "equitable" is "close to their productivity", then all that is needed to achieve this is a free market.  Period.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

 

 Otherwise, you’re only contributing to the problem. As an employer, you have an obligation to treat your fellow employees humanely.

How the hell is it "humane" to make the lowest skilled workers suffer from chronic unemployment with moronic MW laws?

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

See above 👆

Then why bring race into the equation at all?  As a rational human being, I can grant you the courtesy to infer that you know *ANY* race is susceptible to destitution w/ no further implication or explanation needed. 
 

So why did you feel compelled to do the opposite? 

Because moronic MW laws are ESPECIALLY harmful to blacks or other minorities, just as many of the original advocates for these laws throughout history in numerous countries have OPENLY ADMITTED was their primary intent for passing them.  So why the hell wouldn't I bring this up as an argument against these moronic laws?  What, do you not know what the word "ESPECIALLY" means?

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

See above 👆

I didn’t read this book.  But I can say that cherry-picking stats isn’t how you engage in formidable discussion on race or race relations. 

You don't have to read his book as I basically just gave you the gist of it.  So, do you claim that this author who wrote a book detailing the harm that MW laws cause to blacks is a racist against blacks?  Yes or no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

You’re initial dispute is that it is somehow okay for one party to pay another less than a protected value simply bcus both parties may agree.  No, its not okay, even if a bidding war breaks out;  bcus a bidding war doesn’t regress.

What the hell are you babbling about?  Why would a bidding war "regress"?  A bidding war will gravitate towards the productivity of the work being performed, as I have told you over and over and over and over and over.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Your vision of markets seems to be that your value can start from 0 & be valued or negotiated from there.  No.  You’re value is protected & stipulates that you cannot be devalued, marginalized or exploited by people seeking personal benefit from your time & labor.  

No, my vision is that wages in general will always be close to the productivity of the work being performed and that some evil, greedy employer foolishly trying to "seek personal benefit" by "devaluing, marginalizing or exploiting" their workers is logically IMPOSSIBLE without the employer using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

If I may be permitted to translate, in laymen terms, what MW means:.  If you are incapable of compensating a standard minimum wage, you are incapable of running a business. 

And if I may be permitted to translate, in laymen terms, what you are actually saying- "If you are inexperience and low-skilled such that you are currently incapable of providing value to an employer equal to some arbitrary number someone pulled out of their asshole, you are not going to be allowed to work at all."  How tyrannical of you.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Sure, and if it wasn’t for those pesky murder laws,  I could chop off all the heads I want.

What?!?!  Chopping off heads is immoral and evil regardless of whether there is a law against it, shit-for-brains.  So what the hell does that have to do with anything I have ever posted?  Are you just posting random dumb statements for the fun of it because you have nothing else?  Lol...

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

This is what I’m talking about... what does “truly” mean in the context of that sentence?  

You don't know what the word "truly" means???  Try opening a dictionary and looking it up, moron.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

Who is determining value of the productivity?  

The market will determine the productivity of various workers and jobs all by itself.  If some profession is generally being underpaid compared to the value those workers produce, then more and more and more and more investment will flow into that industry from greedy entrepreneurs to capture the high profits from employing those workers.  The resulting increase in demand for those particular workers will cause their wages to be bid up and up and up until the profits come back in line with the risk being taken, because the wages are now closer to their productivity, and the new entrants into the industry level off.  And the opposite will happen if workers are overpaid.  This is why wages will ALWAYS gravitate towards productivity in a free market.

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

- Markets are measuring sticks.  

- Not all markets are created equal.  

- Markets are an arena of dealings.  Not all  dealings have required standards or rules.

What does any of that have to do with anything I have ever posted?

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

- Markets can be deterministic and/or manipulated.

Then let's see you give an example of how evil employers can "manipulate" the labor market without using FORCE or FRAUD in a way that allows them to underpay workers.

 

Good luck.

 

 

On 1/19/2020 at 12:09 AM, jrock2310 said:

What is the distinct difference in low wage labor to other low wage labor?  I’ll help you out ... nothing!  Its low wage for low wage.
 

This has to be a world record for illustrating the same point over & over &  over again... a low wage laborers ability to leverage themselves in a market is, by in large, limited to other (wage) comparable markets.

 

For instance:. How many burger flippers are leveraging their employer for more money, otherwise they’ll take that partnering position at the law firm?

 

That’s not how low wage laborers leverage.  They do so in the confines of other low wage institutions.

 

A doctor doesn’t leverage his negotiating power by bringing burger king to the table.  No... he uses other high profile, job compatible institutions. 

Why the hell do you keep on "illustrating" a point that does not refute a single thing I have ever posted, numbskull?  Of course a burger flipper is not going to "leverage" against a job as a partner at a law firm and a doctor is not going to do it against Burger King.  No fucking duh.  Employers of burger flippers will be competing against other competing employers of unskilled labor up until the wages of the workers are close to the value those workers can provide to them.  This means that your moronic theory that employers of burger flippers would have some magical power that would allow them to pay significantly below the value their workers can provide is complete bullshit.  Period.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

If you knew how to read, you would have seen that the FORCE I was referring to in my statement was that being used by the EMPLOYERS to successfully underpay workers, as that and FRAUD are about the only ways that they can achieve this, dunce.  In other words, if employers put guns to people's heads and FORCE them to work, then yes, they can indeed successfully underpay them in those situations.  Without doing these things, then any attempts by employers to significantly underpay workers will be a foolish waste of time because it won't work.  Therefore, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for moronic MW laws to try to prevent this from happening.  All that are needed are laws against employers using FORCE or FRAUD.  Why the hell is this so hard for you to comprehend???

No matter how you justify it, any attempt to pay someone below MW is marginalizing their value. 
 

If you want to give them money, then give them money.  If you’re going to hire them, pay them their valid wage.

Quote

 

 

No fucking duh.  Why the hell do you keep on posting obvious things that do not refute a single thing I have ever posted, nimrod?  I obviously know how moronic MW laws work and what they require.  I am just telling you that they are a horrible and harmful policy that should be completely abolished, dolt.
 

No.

Quote

 

 

Again, it is a "protection" that is completely unnecessary.

No.  It protects them from predators like you trying to undervalue their labor.

 

If you simply want to give them money, then gove them money.  
 

If you hire then, pay them their valid wage.

 

Feels like I may be posting this a lot over & over again.

Quote

 

What you inevitably end up doing is "protecting" the lowest skilled workers, especially the black ones, from having any job whatsoever.

Nope.  It just means you’re cheap.

Quote

With "friends" like you, who the fuck needs enemies?

 

No fucking duh.

 

Why the hell would anyone expect someone to raise their market value above the level of the productivity of the work they are performing, idiot?  Where the hell did I ever say that such a thing would happen?

We already established “levels of productivity”.   You merely want to change them bcus you’re cheap.

Quote

 

Why the hell do you keep on arguing against things that I have NEVER, EVER said???  Is it since you can't disprove something that I actually do say, so you just make up some dumb claim, pretend that I said it, and then argue against that instead?  Lol...

 

 

Yes, but the principles are exactly the same, dope.  The laws of basic economic theory apply to both goods and services!  This is why the reason that some evil company cannot underpay for labor anymore than they can underpay for oil or any other raw material (without using FORCE or FRAUD), no matter how fucking greedy they are.

You wish to under pay labor so you may retain a few extra dollars bcus you’re either too cheap or can’t afford to pay the MW;. In which case, you have no business being in business.

Quote

 

So why don't you just indulge me and answer my amazingly simple question instead of cowardly dodging it?  Here it is again for you-

 

Let's try this example- the market price of a barrel of WTI crude oil is currently around $58 - Link.  Also, there is currently no government law setting a minimum price for crude oil.

Oil isn’t a human being.  I’m talking people and you’re over here valuing oil as if its the same as people.

 

Oil doesn’t have bills to pay, a family to raise.  Oil doesn’t have to buy medicine for their child, oil doesn’t have to put a roof over its head...

 

Stop comparing goods to humans.  Use a proper analogy.

Quote

 

  Let's suppose there is some evil, greedy business owner that uses crude oil somehow to make his products.  What is keeping this evil, greedy person from underpaying for his oil, such as only paying say $30 per barrel instead, since there is no government enforcement of a minimum price?

There isn’t bcus oil isn’t a human being.

 

Your problem is you view everything through the lens of a dollar.  Oil is the same as people.  They are same commodities.  Thank god you’re not in control of anything of consequence.

 

*cue up:. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OIL BEING HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  GAWD!!*

Quote

Isn't paying $30/barrel going to save this greedy person money compared to paying $58/barrel, and thus allow him to make more evil profit?  So why can't he do this without using FORCE or FRAUD?

 

Good luck.

 

Bcus oil regulations are different from regulating human labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nighthawk said:

What the hell are you babbling about?  Why would a bidding war "regress"?  A bidding war will gravitate towards the productivity of the work being performed, as I have told you over and over and over and over and over.

 

No, my vision is that wages in general will always be close to the productivity of the work being performed and that some evil, greedy employer foolishly trying to "seek personal benefit" by "devaluing, marginalizing or exploiting" their workers is logically IMPOSSIBLE without the employer using FORCE or FRAUD.  Period.

Yes, and your wish is to abolish MW laws in an effort to depreciate or recalibrate laborers value so you can save a couple extra bucks.  

Quote

And if I may be permitted to translate, in laymen terms, what you are actually saying- "If you are inexperience and low-skilled such that you are currently incapable of providing value to an employer equal to some arbitrary number someone pulled out of their asshole, you are not going to be allowed to work at all."  How tyrannical of you.

You wish wish to set a new standard.  One that begins at Zero and is negotiated via markets.  Which all markets are are jobs, & people work jobs, so its people in jobs doing jobs and comapring those job w/ similar jobs.

 

Ergo - every single time I’ve made the mcdonalds/taco bell analogy.

Quote

 

What?!?!  Chopping off heads is immoral and evil regardless of whether there is a law against it, shit-for-brains.

So is paying someone below their value.  A value you wish to reset bcus - cheap.

Quote

So what the hell does that have to do with anything I have ever posted?  Are you just posting random dumb statements for the fun of it because you have nothing else?  Lol...

In context of moral values, you do what’s moral, not what makes you happy.  Ergo - you don’t kill someone regardless.  You don’t underpay someone bcus you want to reset labor value/market.

Quote

You don't know what the word "truly" means???  Try opening a dictionary and looking it up, moron.

Dictionaries are not a problem.  Explaining yourself apparently is.

Quote

The market will determine the productivity of various workers and jobs all by itself.

So what’s to stop “the markets” from petering out at $2/hr.  
 

And don’t jist say markets bcus the market doesn’t seem to vastly helping anyone improve their value stuck in the MW category.  But if you had your way... you’d pay them less bcus markets aka I’m cheap & want to reset the markets.

Quote

If some profession is generally being underpaid compared to the value those workers produce, then more and more and more and more investment will flow into that industry from greedy entrepreneurs to capture the high profits from employing those workers.  The resulting increase in demand for those particular workers will cause their wages to be bid up and up and up until the profits come back in line with the risk being taken, because the wages are now closer to their productivity, and the new entrants into the industry level off.

Funny... it doesn’t seem to work that way in China or North Korea.  No one is bidding for their services.  There is no market competing for their labor.

 

Their either destitute, or its forced labor.  And your vision begs for more destitution. 

 

If you’re only position is - it gives people w/ nothing something... then just give them the MW.  
 

But but but... I wanna pay them less...

 

Then just give them money.  But don’t argue the only way you’ll employ someone is if you can reset and make all the rules regarding labor.  

Quote

And the opposite will happen if workers are overpaid.  This is why wages will ALWAYS gravitate towards productivity in a free market.

Yes, but you don’t get to devalue someones productivity bcus you wish to reset labor value & markets.

Quote

 

What does any of that have to do with anything I have ever posted?

 

 

Then let's see you give an example of how evil employers can "manipulate" the labor market without using FORCE or FRAUD in a way that allows them to underpay workers.
 

You.  You are the example I would use.  We did away w/ the likes & times of you bcus we lived this existence before.  It wasn’t good.

Quote

 

Good luck.

 

 

Why the hell do you keep on "illustrating" a point that does not refute a single thing I have ever posted, numbskull?  Of course a burger flipper is not going to "leverage" against a job as a partner at a law firm and a doctor is not going to do it against Burger King.  No fucking duh.  Employers of burger flippers will be competing against other competing employers of unskilled labor up until the wages of the workers are close to the value those workers can provide to them.

Yes, and that value is a hallmark of our society.  It doesn’t allow the likes of you to take us back to a time where labor can be bid on at destitute wage.

 

If your only rebuttal to this is... think of all the people who have nothing.... welp, they’re more than welcome to join the rat race.  Nothing stopping them.  But you don’t get to step in and pay someone below their legislative wage bcus that isn’t noble, its theft.  You can pay them the MW, you simply don’t want to.  
 

This isn’t a FORCE problem.  Its a YOU problem.  

Quote

 

 This means that your moronic theory that employers of burger flippers would have some magical power that would allow them to pay significantly below the value their workers can provide is complete bullshit.  Period.

 

 

Under current MW laws absolutely not; They’re protected.  
 

Under your utopia, they’d be devalued compared to our current system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 9:12 PM, jrock2310 said:

No matter how you justify it, any attempt to pay someone below MW is marginalizing their value.

How the hell is it doing any such thing if the value that worker is providing is also below the MW?  Are you claiming that if moronic MW laws were abolished and some worker with a productivity of say, only $5/hr was paid $6/hr by their employer, that this evil employer would be somehow "marginalizing their value", despite the fact that they are LOSING MONEY in the process of employing them, just because their pay is less than the magical number of $7.25/hr?  Yes or no?

 

I wonder if you are really insane enough to claim that the party that is LOSING MONEY in an economic transaction is still somehow doing something immoral in this transaction...

 

Quote

If you want to give them money, then give them money.  If you’re going to hire them, pay them their valid wage.

And your definition of "valid wage" has nothing whatsoever to do with the value the worker brings to the employer, dope?  It is simply some number arbitrarily pulled out of someone's asshole and the productivity of the worker is completely irrelevant in your fantasy world?  Lol...

 

Quote

No.

[sarcasm]Wow, I guess you really put me in my place with such a well-reasoned and thorough rebuttal of my arguments, point by point.  I guess I need to rethink my entire stance on this issue now.[/sarcam]  Lol...

 

Quote

 

No.  It protects them from predators like you trying to undervalue their labor.

 

If you simply want to give them money, then gove them money.  
 

If you hire then, pay them their valid wage.

 

Feels like I may be posting this a lot over & over again.

Nope.  It just means you’re cheap.

We already established “levels of productivity”.   You merely want to change them bcus you’re cheap.

You wish to under pay labor so you may retain a few extra dollars bcus you’re either too cheap or can’t afford to pay the MW;. In which case, you have no business being in business.

Sigh...  as I told you multiple times in a post above-

 

Let me make this as clear as possible for a dullard such as yourself-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.

 

Again-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.

 

and third times a charm-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.

 

 

I have also very, very, very clearly told you the following-

 

1.  Employers in general paying their workers significantly below the level of their productivity is logically IMPOSSIBLE without using FORCE or FRAUD, even with no moronic MW laws whatsoever.

 

2.  Regardless if there is a very high MW or no MW whatsoever, the profit margins of the surviving businesses in the long term will be ROUGHLY THE SAME, in general.

 

And have you actually made anything even slightly resembling a rational or logical argument as to how these 2 claims are supposedly wrong?  No, you just sit there and blindly say- "nuh-uh, you just wanna get rid of MW laws bcus you want to make higher profit by underpaying your workers", like some kind of brainless fucking retard.

 

Now, if you can actually and finally disprove my claims using logic and reason, as opposed to just hurling false accusations as to my motivations, then let's see you do it for fuck's sake.

 

Good luck.

 

Quote

Oil isn’t a human being.  

Neither is labor, dumbass.  We are not fucking talking about selling humans, like some kind of slaves, idiot.  We are talking about humans selling their services (i.e. labor) to other humans.  And guess who the fuck is selling oil, dipshit?  That is right- humans are selling goods (like oil) to other humans!!!  And according to basic economic theories, there is no difference between humans selling services and humans selling goods.  The buyers of these goods or services do not have some magical power that allows them to successfully underpay for them regardless of which category they are in, twit.

 

Quote

I’m talking people and you’re over here valuing oil as if its the same as people.

No, I am doing nothing of the sort.  I am simply using oil as an example to show how it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for companies to supposedly underpay for goods or services, regardless of how greedy they are (other than by using FORCE or FRAUD).  And you are just too damn stupid to comprehend it.

 

Quote

Oil doesn’t have bills to pay, a family to raise.  Oil doesn’t have to buy medicine for their child, oil doesn’t have to put a roof over its head...

And a service doesn't have to do any of those things either.  A human selling the service may have to do them, but a human selling goods may have to do them as well.  So what the fuck is your point???

 

 

Quote

Thank god you’re not in control of anything of consequence.

Oh really?  Then why don't we compare how things go where the people in control follow my intelligent positions regarding moronic MW laws, such as Switzerland, to places where people in control follow your idiotic positions regarding moronic MW laws, such as Puerto Rico & American Samoa, and see which places fared better as a result?  Oh wait, I have already done that multiple times in this thread and the facts clearly showed that your dumb ideas led to ECONOMIC DEVASTATION with massive unemployment and suffering, while mine led to ECONOMIC PROSPERITY with practically no unemployment.

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little theory...

 

Quote

*cue up:. WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OIL BEING HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  GAWD!!*

Lol...  if you knew how stupid your argument was before making it, then why the hell did you go ahead and show your stupidity anyway?

 

Quote

Bcus oil regulations are different from regulating human labor.

So let's see you show what supposed "oil regulations" prevent greedy companies from paying less than $58/barrel when they buy their oil, other than regulations or laws against using FORCE or FRAUD.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, drvoke said:

Nighthawk, How much do paid trolls get paid?

Nighthawk actually understands economics. The left in general, doesn’t have a clue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

Yes, and your wish is to abolish MW laws in an effort to depreciate or recalibrate laborers value so you can save a couple extra bucks.  

But you STILL have not come remotely close to showing how I would supposedly be able to successfully do those things, moron.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

You wish wish to set a new standard.  One that begins at Zero and is negotiated via markets.  Which all markets are are jobs, & people work jobs, so its people in jobs doing jobs and comapring those job w/ similar jobs.

 

Ergo - every single time I’ve made the mcdonalds/taco bell analogy.

So is paying someone below their value.  A value you wish to reset bcus - cheap.

See post above.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

In context of moral values, you do what’s moral, not what makes you happy.  Ergo - you don’t kill someone regardless.  You don’t underpay someone bcus you want to reset labor value/market.

The key difference between these things is that killing someone against their will involves using FORCE, dolt!  Of course using FORCE against someone is immoral.  No fucking duh.  Simply offering to pay someone a wage below some arbitrary value and that person VOLUNTARILY accepting the offer, with no use of FORCE or FRAUD whatsoever, IS NOT IMMORAL, numbskull!!!  So your analogy makes no fucking sense!

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

Dictionaries are not a problem.  Explaining yourself apparently is.

Yes, explaining things to a very dumb person who can barely read is indeed quite a problem...

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

So what’s to stop “the markets” from petering out at $2/hr.  

For the umpteenth time- market competition will stop wages from "petering out" at anything less than something close to the productivity of the work being performed.  Therefore, wages can only "peter out" at $2/hr if the productivity of the work being performed is also $2/hr.

 

Can you please tell me how many more times I am going to have to post this before it sinks through your thick skull?  Thanks in advance.

 

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

And don’t jist say markets bcus the market doesn’t seem to vastly helping anyone improve their value stuck in the MW category.  

Again- I never, ever said that the markets would somehow allow wages to go ABOVE the productivity of the work being done, you illiterate twit!  If the productivity of a burger flipper maxes out at say $9/hr, then yes, that is where the wages for those workers will also max out.  This is really not that complicated, so why can't you get it???

 

Let's try this for a random example and see if it can finally penetrate that thick skull of yours-

 

According to this website - Link - the median salary for an entry-level accountant in San Fransisco is $68,200/yr.

 

Now, why is this salary the level that it is and not lower?  Why isn't it $60,000, $50,000, or $40,000?  Wouldn't these evil, greedy employers make more of that evil profit if they only paid $50,000 instead of $68,000?  You can't use the dumb answers you gave earlier about no one would work for these amounts, because people would obviously work for $50,000/yr.  And you can't claim it is due to "bargaining power", as an entry-level worker is very unlikely to have any such power over an employer.  So how do you explain this, based on your retarded little theories of how the world supposedly works?

 

Good luck.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

But if you had your way... you’d pay them less bcus markets aka I’m cheap & want to reset the markets.

See post above.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

Funny... it doesn’t seem to work that way in China or North Korea.  No one is bidding for their services.  There is no market competing for their labor.

Of course not, idiot!  China and North Korea are not fucking free markets!!!  But it does indeed seem to "work my way" for accountants in S.F., based on the link above.

 

Damn, you really are quite stupid...

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

Yes, but you don’t get to devalue someones productivity bcus you wish to reset labor value & markets.

Again- you STILL have not come remotely close to showing how I would supposedly be able to successfully do those things, moron.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

You.  You are the example I would use.

I did not ask you for an example of "who", dimwit.  I very, very, very clearly asked you for an example of "how" evil employers can "manipulate" the labor market without using FORCE or FRAUD in a way that allows them to underpay workers.

 

What, are you just too damn stupid to know the difference between the words "who" and "how"?  I must ask again, how did you get past elementary school, as most 1st graders probably know the difference between these 2 words.  Lol...

 

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

 We did away w/ the likes & times of you bcus we lived this existence before.  It wasn’t good.

And yet you can't say it "wasn't good" for Switzerland that has had great economic prosperity for unskilled labor "w/ the likes & times of me."  Oops.

 

On 1/25/2020 at 9:44 PM, jrock2310 said:

Under current MW laws absolutely not; They’re protected.  

 

Under your utopia, they’d be devalued compared to our current system.  

If you knew how to read, you would see I was talking about how your idiotic theory that employers of burger flippers would have some magical power that would allow them to pay significantly below the value their workers can provide is complete bullshit EVEN IF THERE WERE NO MORONIC MW LAWS WHATSOEVER, retard!

 

Damn, it is like I am conversing with a brick wall or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, drvoke said:

Nighthawk, How much do paid trolls get paid?

As I have asked you numerous times, where the hell can I supposedly go to get paid to post on this forum, shithead???  Can you please hook me up with some kind of link or contact name where I can sign up for this?  So far, I have only been humiliating you idiot libs for the fun of it, like some kind of chump...

 

Thanks in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeepBreath said:

Nighthawk actually understands economics. The left in general, doesn’t have a clue. 

 

 

Image result for funny economics diploma "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, drvoke said:

 

 

Image result for funny economics diploma "

That proves your stupidity. The market dictates value. 

 

High value, high demand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nighthawk said:

How the hell is it doing any such thing if the value that worker is providing is also below the MW?  Are you claiming that if moronic MW laws were abolished and some worker with a productivity of say, only $5/hr was paid $6/hr by their employer, that this evil employer would be somehow "marginalizing their value", despite the fact that they are LOSING MONEY in the process of employing them, just because their pay is less than the magical number of $7.25/hr?  Yes or no?

There is no such thing of a Innate value.
(I NEVER SAID THAT!) 

 

Things are given value by people, not jobs, not markets.

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

 

If all economic factors align, and an employer is willing to hire someone, they are by definition not “losing money” if the employee is also making money for the employer.  In which case, said employer needs to accommodate the employee equitably in accordance to the laws.

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

 

You’re whole premise seems to begin with... if I can start everything over, and I can place my own personal efficacy on the wage matter... here’s what’d I do...

 

Thank God you don’t have that power. 

Quote

 

I wonder if you are really insane enough to claim that the party that is LOSING MONEY in an economic transaction is still somehow doing something immoral in this transaction...

Who hires someone to do something In which the value of the labor doesn’t supersede the monetary value?    
 

If someone is doing that, that’s just a poor business man or woman.

Quote

 

And your definition of "valid wage" has nothing whatsoever to do with the value the worker brings to the employer, dope?  It is simply some number arbitrarily pulled out of someone's asshole and the productivity of the worker is completely irrelevant in your fantasy world?  Lol...

CORRECT... value is arbitrary.  Which is why the gov’t stipulates that we have a minimum wage to protect workers from exploitative predators.  People who will hire people to do a job, in which the money earned does not support modern societal standards.  
 

You can always pay someone off the books to wash your car, mow your grass or walk your dog... but if you’re going to hire someone on the books, you are obligated, by law, to pay the MW.  
 

You’re arguments seems to be MW is an intrusion b/t an employer & employee.  
But no one looking to hire low wage labor is seeking to pay more... the very nature of the opposition to MW is to save on labor costs.  Hence - MW laws. 

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

Quote

 

[sarcasm]Wow, I guess you really put me in my place with such a well-reasoned and thorough rebuttal of my arguments, point by point.  I guess I need to rethink my entire stance on this issue now.[/sarcam]  Lol...

 

Sigh...  as I told you multiple times in a post above-

 

Let me make this as clear as possible for a dullard such as yourself-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.

Great... then give them what the gov’t stipulates...

 

If you and I are running similar companies... you are offering $2/hr and I am offering a legislative minimum of $8/hr, why would anyone work for you over me?

 

There’s no example you can give that anyone would voluntarily work for you over me if I am paying more for the same labor. 
 

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

Quote

 

Again-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.
 

Meanwhile you keep repeatedly devaluing laborers w/ your or predatorial practices.  
 

You think you’re heroic or virtuous by angling your position as ‘anything is better than nothing’ ... And no one is homeless or out of work bcus the MW law is what it is.  
If you want to give charitably to the less fortunate - go head.  If you want to pay them X to do domesticated work - go head.  But if you’re running a legitimate business, you have to pay your workers the  MW.   And that is to ensure the exploitative practices aren’t just enriching the employer, but also aiding the employee to a standard that seeks to control the rate in which poverty doesn’t reign.

Quote

 

and third times a charm-

 

I do not really give a flying shit about the fucking employers- I am on the side of the lowest-skilled WORKERS, especially the black ones, unlike you racist idiot libs.

 

 

I have also very, very, very clearly told you the following-

 

1.  Employers in general paying their workers significantly below the level of their productivity is logically IMPOSSIBLE without using FORCE or FRAUD, even with no moronic MW laws whatsoever.

That statement didn’t make any sense the first 30 times you said it a month ago.

 

MW does exist.  Productivity is arbitrary and/or subjective.  Jobs do not have inherent value, neither does labor.

We have standards imparted by people.
People, human beings give things value.  
(I NEVER SAID THAT!)  

Quote

 

2.  Regardless if there is a very high MW or no MW whatsoever, the profit margins of the surviving businesses in the long term will be ROUGHLY THE SAME, in general.
 

 

Quote

 

And have you actually made anything even slightly resembling a rational or logical argument as to how these 2 claims are supposedly wrong?  No, you just sit there and blindly say- "nuh-uh, you just wanna get rid of MW laws bcus you want to make higher profit by underpaying your workers", like some kind of brainless fucking retard.

You don’t have anything to prove or disprove... you just have a bunch subjective standards that you wish applied to the rest of us bcus you are too cheap.

 

You decry the use force as some cock-eyed restraint against your freedom to devalue and exploit labor. 
 

‘Geee... I hate MW laws bcus they FORCE me to pay wages above destitute levels. Waaaa 😭

 

’Why can’t I pay them $2 😩 I just want to help the poor people’
 

If you don’t understand why that isn’t abhorrent, then I can’t help you.

Quote

 

Now, if you can actually and finally disprove my claims using logic and reason, as opposed to just hurling false accusations as to my motivations, then let's see you do it for fuck's sake.

You keep insisting someone disprove claims to your subjective preferences. 

Quote

 

Good luck.

 

Neither is labor, dumbass.  We are not fucking talking about selling humans, like some kind of slaves, idiot.  We are talking about humans selling their services (i.e. labor) to other humans.  And guess who the fuck is selling oil, dipshit?  That is right- humans are selling goods (like oil) to other humans!!!

The reason you keep jumping from commodities like oil, then to humans is bcus you view them as simply commodities.  Difference is, oil doesn’t have bills to pay.  Oil doesn’t get hungry.  Oil doesn’t have kids.  Oil doesn’t have feelings.  Oil doesn’t responsibilities.  
 

This is probably going to come as a shock to you... but human beings, in general, are inherently valued more than commodities.

 

That’s why you can go in your back yard and blow holes in most things, except for humans.

 

You see a drum of oil side by side w/ a human & all you see is a price tag.

 

(I NEVER SAID THAT!  *insert expletives*) 

Quote

And according to basic economic theories, there is no difference between humans selling services and humans selling goods.

The crux of this debate is human value, not humans selling goods.  You’re trying to correlate services and goods as if anything of value is distinctly of equal value for the right price.

 

But somehow I’m sure ... 

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

Quote

 

 The buyers of these goods or services do not have some magical power that allows them to successfully underpay for them regardless of which category they are in, twit.

see above 👆

Quote

No, I am doing nothing of the sort.  I am simply using oil as an example to show how it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for companies to supposedly underpay for goods or services, regardless of how greedy they are (other than by using FORCE or FRAUD).  And you are just too damn stupid to comprehend it.

You've done nothing but jump b/t good & services and (trying to) fit this square peg in a round hole that humans services & goods are one in the same.

(I NEVER SAID THAT!) 

 

Quote

Oh really?  Then why don't we compare how things go where the people in control follow my intelligent positions regarding moronic MW laws, such as Switzerland

We alrsady discussed how Switzerland is mostly socialistic and have union support for labor.  
 

You keep repeating this tired rhetoric.

Quote

 

 to places where people in control follow your idiotic positions regarding moronic MW laws, such as Puerto Rico & American Samoa, and see which places fared better as a result?  Oh wait, I have already done that multiple times in this thread and the facts clearly showed that your dumb ideas led to ECONOMIC DEVASTATION with massive unemployment and suffering, while mine led to ECONOMIC PROSPERITY with practically no unemployment.

Never mind that we discussed this already... but the reason you conveniently selected places outside the US (yes PR is Of US ,but not of province) is bcus PR is like a state unto the US, not its own country.  Meaning they can and should modify their wage to correlate w/ their island economy, not mirror the US mainland.

 

This is why critics of MW always revert back the islands.  

Quote

 

Oops, there goes your dumb little theory...

 

Lol...  if you knew how stupid your argument was before making it, then why the hell did you go ahead and show your stupidity anyway?

bcus your positions seem to be predicated on the value of things as if human beings fall into he same category as commodities such as oil. 

Quote

 

So let's see you show what supposed "oil regulations" prevent greedy companies from paying less than $58/barrel when they buy their oil, other than regulations or laws against using FORCE or FRAUD.

By nature, laws are enforced by the imposition of penalty.    You seem to have an unhealthy relationship w/ the word force.  You seem to only recognize it as a barrier of what you can’t do and not a tool of defense or protection.  
 

Sorry not sorry we have laws that look after people. 

Quote

 

Good luck.

 

 

You too (???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

There is no such thing of a Innate value.
(I NEVER SAID THAT!) 

 

Things are given value by people, not jobs, not markets.

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

No, workers are not "given" a fucking thing by people in regards to their productivity.  A worker's productivity is simply a measure of how much goods and/or services he can produce by doing a certain job over a certain amount of time.  What, you think some evil employer just arbitrarily picks a number and proclaims- "I hereby declare that Bob has a productivity of $10/hr!" and that is how it is decided?  Lol...

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

 

If all economic factors align, and an employer is willing to hire someone, they are by definition not “losing money” if the employee is also making money for the employer...

 

Who hires someone to do something In which the value of the labor doesn’t supersede the monetary value?    
 

If someone is doing that, that’s just a poor business man or woman.

 

Hot damn!  Now we are getting somewhere!  I can't believe you actually said something at least partially correct on this subject.  Yes, employers in general (but not always, see below) will NOT hire someone when they would lose money in the process.  Now that we have established this very obvious fact, let's take it one step further-

 

Suppose that there is a MW law of $15/hr passed somewhere.  What will happen in this region to most of the group of workers that have a current "value of their labor" that is less than $15/hr?  Will they:

 

A.  be greatly helped by this law, because there are tons and tons of "poor business men or women" that love to lose money when employing people, and as a result, these low-skill workers will still be able to keep a job and they will just get to enjoy getting overpaid, with no other consequences?

 

or

 

B.  be greatly and cruelly HARMED by this law, because very few employers will want to lose money by hiring them, and thus they will not only be making ZERO, they will also be unable to gain skills and experience from on-the-job training?

 

If you are unsure of the answer to this amazingly simple question, just refer to your own statement.  Here is it again for you, in case you forgot-

 

"Who hires someone to do something In which the value of the labor doesn’t supersede the monetary value?  If someone is doing that, that’s just a poor business man or woman."

 

So do you answer A or B?

 

Good luck.

 

 

And while this does not happen in general, there are certainly some occasions where this could happen.  Perhaps someone hires a relative and overpays them just to be generous to a family member.  But I still don't know what the hell this had to do with my simple question.  It seems like you are just making a lame excuse so you don't have to answer.  So let me rephrase the question for you-

 

Are you claiming that if moronic MW laws were abolished and some worker with a productivity of say, only $5/hr was paid $6/hr by their employer, because they wanted to generously help a family member, that this evil employer would be somehow "marginalizing their value", despite the fact that they are LOSING MONEY in the process of employing them, just because their pay is less than the magical number of $7.25/hr?  Yes or no?

 

Can you answer this time, or will you just cowardly dodge it with another lame excuse?

 

Good luck.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

CORRECT... value is arbitrary.  Which is why the gov’t stipulates that we have a minimum wage to protect workers from exploitative predators.  People who will hire people to do a job, in which the money earned does not support modern societal standards.  

I was not saying that the "productivity" was arbitrary, you illiterate cretin!  I was saying that the level set for the MW is arbitrary, dolt.  My point was your claim that it is only a "valid wage" just because it is higher than this arbitrary MW number is retarded.  For the love of all that is holy, please learn how to fucking read!!!

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You can always pay someone off the books to wash your car, mow your grass or walk your dog... but if you’re going to hire someone on the books, you are obligated, by law, to pay the MW.  

Why the hell do you keep pretending like I don't know how MW laws work, dumbass?  Where have I ever said anything about it being legal to pay someone on the books less than the MW in the places that have these laws???

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You’re arguments seems to be MW is an intrusion b/t an employer & employee.  
But no one looking to hire low wage labor is seeking to pay more... the very nature of the opposition to MW is to save on labor costs.  Hence - MW laws. 

(I NEVER SAID THAT!)

No, dimwit, intelligent people such as myself primarily have an opposition to moronic MW laws because they cause higher unemployment among the lowest-skilled workers, especially the black ones, in addition to hurting the economy in general.  I don't give a flying shit if employers just "save on labor costs."  Why the hell is this so hard for you to comprehend???

 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

Great... then give them what the gov’t stipulates...

So your solution is for me to personally go out and hire every single unskilled worker in the country myself?  What, do you think I am some kind of multi-multi-billionaire?  Lol...

 

How about we simply abolish all moronic MW laws and there is no need for me to hire them as the market will provide jobs for them all on its own if it is allowed to do so?

 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

If you and I are running similar companies... you are offering $2/hr and I am offering a legislative minimum of $8/hr, why would anyone work for you over me?

 

There’s no example you can give that anyone would voluntarily work for you over me if I am paying more for the same labor.

This is exactly what I have been trying in vain to explain to you, numbskull!!!  Of course no one is likely to work for me for $2/hr when someone else is offering a similar job at $8/hr!  So if there is no MW law and some evil, cheapskate employer tries to employ a group of workers with a productivity of $8/hr for only $2/hr, when there is another competing employer offering those workers $8/hr (for similar work), would this likely to be-

 

A.  POSSIBLE for the cheapskate to be successful in their attempt to hire them for only $2/hr?

 

or

 

B.  IMPOSSIBLE for the cheapskate to be successful in their attempt to hire them for only $2/hr?

 

If your answer is B, then you need to explain why the hell we need a moronic MW law to prevent something that is IMPOSSIBLE

 

Good luck.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

Meanwhile you keep repeatedly devaluing laborers w/ your or predatorial practices.  

Where the hell have I ever said a fucking thing about "devaluing" anyone???  Of course I want workers to make more money.  The higher the better.  But this is only if FORCE is NOT being used, idiot.  If workers can be made more productive by doing things such as improving education or encouraging more capital investment, and as a result, the workers NATURALLY get higher wages to match their higher productivity, then this would be absolutely fantastic for everyone, retard.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

That statement didn’t make any sense the first 30 times you said it a month ago.

What part are you not understanding?  Or if you are just saying my statement is false, then why can't you prove it for fuck's sake?

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You don’t have anything to prove or disprove... you just have a bunch subjective standards that you wish applied to the rest of us bcus you are too cheap. 

 

You keep insisting someone disprove claims to your subjective preferences. 

 What the hell is "subjective" about my statements #1 or #2 above???  They are simply factual statements based on basic economic theory and simple logic.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You decry the use force as some cock-eyed restraint against your freedom to devalue and exploit labor. 
 

‘Geee... I hate MW laws bcus they FORCE me to pay wages above destitute levels. Waaaa 😭

 

’Why can’t I pay them $2 😩 I just want to help the poor people’
 

If you don’t understand why that isn’t abhorrent, then I can’t help you.

And as I have told you dozens of times now, if the productivity of the workers is above "destitute levels", then the market itself would make it IMPOSSIBLE for an evil cheapskate employer to pay them significantly below that.  Thus, there is absolutely no need for a moronic MW law to prevent this from happening, twit,.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

The reason you keep jumping from commodities like oil, then to humans is bcus you view them as simply commodities.

No, I am simply using oil as a random example to illustrate a PRINCIPLE, dullard.  That principle is that it is IMPOSSIBLE in general for companies to pay below market value for goods or services (without using FORCE or FRAUD), regardless of how greedy they are. 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

 Difference is, oil doesn’t have bills to pay.  Oil doesn’t get hungry.  Oil doesn’t have kids.  Oil doesn’t have feelings.  Oil doesn’t responsibilities.  

And an hour of labor doesn't "have bills to pay" or "get hungry" or "have kids" either.  It is just something that can be sold, similar to oil or other goods or services.  So what is your fucking point?

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

This is probably going to come as a shock to you... but human beings, in general, are inherently valued more than commodities.

 

That’s why you can go in your back yard and blow holes in most things, except for humans.

 

You see a drum of oil side by side w/ a human & all you see is a price tag. 

 

The crux of this debate is human value, not humans selling goods.  You’re trying to correlate services and goods as if anything of value is distinctly of equal value for the right price.

I never said that oil and humans were the same thing or were valued the same.  Holy fuck, please learn how to read!!!

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

(I NEVER SAID THAT!  *insert expletives*) 

If you know that I never said something, then why the hell are you continually pretending that I have said it?!?!?

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You've done nothing but jump b/t good & services and (trying to) fit this square peg in a round hole that humans services & goods are one in the same.

No, they aren't the same, but the PRINCIPLE that it is IMPOSSIBLE in general to pay below market value is the same for both of them.  An ounce of gold and a barrel of oil are also not the same thing and each of them have vastly different prices as well, but in both cases, people wanting to buy them have to pay market value in both cases.  And no moronic minimum price law is required to make this happen.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

We alrsady discussed how Switzerland is mostly socialistic and have union support for labor.  

And I already clearly explained how no, Switzerland really is not that socialistic and their union support does not cover all workers.  And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point anyway.  There are plenty of other "socialistic" countries that have very high youth unemployment.  The main difference is that Switzerland has no moronic MW and just as basic economic theory would predict, they have basically no unemployment of unskilled workers.  And there is no great catastrophe like you idiot libs pretend would happen without these moronic laws.

 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

Never mind that we discussed this already... but the reason you conveniently selected places outside the US (yes PR is Of US ,but not of province) is bcus PR is like a state unto the US, not its own country.  

No, the reason I "conveniently" selected American Samoa and PR is because the level of the MW was very high in comparison to the median wages, and thus the severe HARM these moronic laws caused was much easier to see.  In most of the US, increases in the MW have always been in very small increments and very close to the market value of unskilled labor for most (but not all) workers.  This makes it very hard to see the harm in all the noise from other variables changing simultaneously.  If the US had a sudden increase in the MW that was as high compared to the median wages as occurred in these territories, then you would have seen very similar economic DEVASTATION, dope.

 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

Meaning they can and should modify their wage to correlate w/ their island economy, not mirror the US mainland.

How the hell does this change the undeniable FACT that they had a massive increase in their MW laws and economic DEVASTATION resulted, just as basic economic theory would predict???

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

By nature, laws are enforced by the imposition of penalty.    

No fucking duh.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You seem to have an unhealthy relationship w/ the word force.  You seem to only recognize it as a barrier of what you can’t do and not a tool of defense or protection.  

 

Sorry not sorry we have laws that look after people. 

Sigh... as I very, very, very clearly told you in a post above-

 

THE INITIATION OF FORCE AGAINST OTHERS = BAD

 

Do you not even know what the word "initiation" means, moron?  This does not mean that all FORCE = BAD.  If someone else has "initiated" FORCE, then someone else responding with FORCE to defend against that first action is perfectly fine.  So if someone is trying to assault, rape, murder, etc.. another person, then it is fine for the government or another citizen to counter that first use of force with force of their own.  In fact, that is one of the very few legitimate functions of government to start with.

 

But none of this has anything to do with my simple question above.  Since you cowardly dodged it, here it is again for you-

 

So let's see you show what supposed "oil regulations" prevent greedy companies from paying less than $58/barrel when they buy their oil, other than regulations or laws against using FORCE or FRAUD.

 

Good luck.

 

 

On 2/1/2020 at 8:58 PM, jrock2310 said:

You too (???)

I don't need luck, because I always base my positions on basic economics and simple logic, therefore I am always on the correct side of a debate with no luck required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 6:51 PM, Nighthawk said:

Again- I never, ever said that the markets would somehow allow wages to go ABOVE the productivity of the work being done, you illiterate twit!  If the productivity of a burger flipper maxes out at say $9/hr, then yes, that is where the wages for those workers will also max out.  This is really not that complicated, so why can't you get it???

 

Let's try this for a random example and see if it can finally penetrate that thick skull of yours-

 

According to this website - Link - the median salary for an entry-level accountant in San Fransisco is $68,200/yr.

 

Now, why is this salary the level that it is and not lower?  Why isn't it $60,000, $50,000, or $40,000?  Wouldn't these evil, greedy employers make more of that evil profit if they only paid $50,000 instead of $68,000?  You can't use the dumb answers you gave earlier about no one would work for these amounts, because people would obviously work for $50,000/yr.  And you can't claim it is due to "bargaining power", as an entry-level worker is very unlikely to have any such power over an employer.  So how do you explain this, based on your retarded little theories of how the world supposedly works?

 

Good luck.

Still waiting on an answer to the question above, jrock.

 

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dontlooknow said:

The blue states are doing good with their higher minium wages. 

liberals cities still a shitholes... all welfare ghettos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...