SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"In what has become a running joke amongst those skeptical of the claim that minimum wage increases have no effect on unemployment, a recent report by the Employment Policies Institute showed that 174 of the 184 co-sponsors of a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour hired unpaid interns."
"In a review of over 100 studies, economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that,A sizable majority of the studies surveyed ... give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries." http://www.nber.org/papers/w12663.pdf
"Yes, minimum wages still do increase unemployment."
https://mises.org/blog/seattles-minimum-wage-supporters-ignore-facts
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 30 2017, @08:45AM (29 children)
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin
And he was 100% correct in that. Whether it's the rich buying congressmens' votes for money or the Democrats buying the poor's votes for money, it makes no difference. This nation is absolutely doomed unless we remove the possibility to vote corruption in for the sake of an extra dollar. Minimum wage is just as destructive to this nation as the FTC approving every merger it sees.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @09:47AM (12 children)
Where did FDR say people can vote themselves money? He said business that can't afford to pay a living wage doesn't deserve to be in business. People who can't afford to live can't afford to work. Paying people less than they need to live for a day for a full day of work is exploitative and should be recognized as a crime. Punishing crime is the job of government.
You're a piece of shit, Uzzard, you pathetic excuse for a human being.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:29AM (8 children)
A self evident truth and evidence of market economics at work. A minimum wage distorts this, the end result of a minimum wage is simply inflation. Rent controls are a more sane anti-exploitative proposition than minimum wage, they would also limit the economic advantages of property price inflation by those same exploiters calling for a minimum wage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @03:58PM
Well, then food prices would just go up.
Okay, so you're adding food prices to your controls.
Now gas prices go up.
Let's add controls for that.
Next is electricity prices, again going up.
...
It's almost as if when some party has an advantage, they may try to prevent losing that advantage.
Side effect of market economics: they (may) work if all participants have roughly equivalent power. If not, i.e. if one party can affect another party to a far greater extent than the converse, you need controls.
And if you start adding in controls for all the tricks that may be employed to preserve the advantage, you end up regulating everything. Sort of like communism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:55PM (6 children)
This represents a market failure as people have to have some source of food and shelter. The US lacks a comprehensive set of programs to ensure that citizens have access to at least the bare necessities which puts many people in a position where they have to work for minimum wage if there aren't jobs available that are paying more.
Ultimately, the minimum wage itself is lower than it used to be, had it kept up within inflation it would be over $20 an hour now, and if it kept up with the increases in worker productivity, it would be closer to $30. So, to say that there are businesses out there that can't afford to pay $15 an hour is misleading and probably wrong. Back when the minimum wage was closer to a living wage, you still had businesses in business, so one might reason that there were plenty of businesses that could afford to pay it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @03:13AM (5 children)
Note that having a need is here considered a "market failure". That demonstrates a profound ignorance of economics since the whole basis of economics is that those with agency have needs and wants to satisfy.
Further it ignores that even in the complete absence of government intervention, we have a comprehensive set of programs to ensure that not do citizens have access to the bare necessities, but quite a bunch of other materialistic needs or wants. But you have to pay for them. For most people, that means working.
That's quite the fairy tale. Even if the US were to erect a huge wall to keep out the cheap, evil foreign labor competition that would otherwise put vast numbers of US workers out of work at that inflated level, you still have the outside world progressing faster than the inside one (and that sort of economic and power differential has never worked in favor of the weaker party) and you have institutional runaway inflation (such inflation would probably not be at the level of hyperinflation, where one would strongly optimize for holding US dollars as little as possible, but it's still harming how we plan for the future through investments and savings).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @03:44PM (3 children)
The market failure here is that companies can bring in labor from other markets, or can send the work overseas to people that can afford to work for less. The result is that an increasing number of people are in a position where they have no bargaining power at all because all of the jobs available are paying the same kind of money.
That's a major market failure. I'm really not surprised that you don't get it though. It's abundantly clear that you failed econ 101.
As for my fairytale, that's not even remotely true. There's more than enough money to make it happen, where do you think all those trillions of dollars that are held by the richest came from? Here's a hint, most of it is money that traditionally would be paid out to people actually producing the products and services that are being sold.
Yes, the jobs may have disappeared, but because of the problems associated with high unemployment, I see no reason to believe that the scenario you're outlining would ever happen. Places with high unemployment and little hope of improvement invariably become cesspools with high crime and terrorism before too long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:18PM (2 children)
You keep using the term "market failure" for something that is actually a market function. Firms seeking out affordable labour and friendly tax regimes are normal functions.
Now, if you were to say that a desirable outcome would be the devaluation of the dollar to the point that midwestern american labour were justifiable again, that would at least be an open question in international finance. Arguably the dollar is overvalued for a number of reasons - but within that context, firms going overseas in search of affordable labour is a simple consequence of supply and demand.
Actual market failures are not simply supply and demand at work, but situations where perverse incentives lead to destructive outcomes, such as pollution, or people eating seed corn or whatever. The fact that some guy somewhere can't get a job isn't a market failure.
Now, if you're trying to make the case that an imbalance in labour rates and outcomes is a market failure, you have quite a hill to climb. For example, you'd need to illustrate that it's not just a temporary imbalance in a high friction market (which labour is well known to be).
But maybe you have that proof on hand. The floor is yours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @10:01PM (1 child)
This isn't simply a case of supply and demand, this is a case of the virtual cartelization of employment by companies that have no incentive at all to negotiate over the wages offered as for many of them it's cheaper just to buy politicians that can change the rules for them. You see it all over the place with the spread of anti-worker language being required to be employed. Things like those non-disclosure and non-compete clauses that have been proliferating as well as the requirement that disputes be settled via binding arbitration rather than in the courts.
They're probably not literally taking up these terms after talking with each other, but the people that write these contracts know each other and they see what the courts do with them. Everytime there's a new court ruling that says it's OK, those terms magically start to pop up elsewhere.
A lot of this is because there's an inadequate supply of jobs being offered to allow the workers to participate in the market. You can't really negotiate if there isn't another job offer from somebody with different terms. It's basically, take it or leave it and the government itself isn't getting involved on behalf of the employees.
Now, if the government weren't owned by corporations, I'd be more inclined to believe that this isn't a market failure, but it takes a herculean effort to come to any other conclusion. The system nearly ate itself in a literal sense only 6 years ago.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @11:31PM
No, it's not. There's a vast sea of employers out there.
This is a perverse outcome of defending against litigation. Mere inappropriate language can cost a business tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US (with similar consequences in many EU countries as well). So now there's a business case for policing language at work.
Well, there's a solution. Either decrease the supply of labor or increase the demand for it. The latter is nicer and more beneficial.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 02 2017, @02:06AM
Who-boi! Sounds like khallow is winding himself all up to show you his! Enjoy!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 30 2017, @12:17PM (1 child)
What do you think saying "I will raise the minimum wage if elected" is besides saying "I will give you money if elected"? Fool.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @06:49PM
you better go watch some pr0n kid instead of sprouting all this stupidity. anything mises.org is just shit
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @03:38AM
And Trump promised to Make America Great Again. Maybe you should look elsewhere than the empty words of politicians? FDR was selling his policies 100%. He's not going to talk about the ugly side of those policies.
(Score: 5, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:48AM (14 children)
Benjamin Franklin has never been credited with this phrase in any historical context, although Alexis de Tocqueville has been with something very similar.
Corruption... you keep saying that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work. Doing otherwise on the other hand is not only signs that the system isn't WaD, but clear evidence that the system is designed to work AGAINST the people. And, don't give me any canned "but muh tyranny of the majority", that only applies when the majority is demanding something tyrannical.
A state which does not obey the will of it's people, regardless of how destructive, is a state deserving only of doom. All people deserve the right to self-determination, including when this right causes them to destroy what they have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:07AM (1 child)
"Giving the populace what it demands [gallup.com] is not "corruption", but democracy at work."
So if the population "demands" that you give it all your money... or let's up that a bit... if the population "demands" that you are worthless and should be killed that is "democracy at work"?
(Score: 2, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:15AM
Come on dude, at least troll me with something that wasn't preemptively rebutted in the very next sentence. This is just embarrassing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 30 2017, @12:14PM (6 children)
You don't think "take their shit and give it to me!" is tyrannical? Interesting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday July 30 2017, @01:44PM (2 children)
Running a business is not compulsive. "They" are welcome to move to another country, the free market will quickly fill the void as you libertarians love to point out.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 31 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
You won't trust the market to employ people, but you will trust it to fill a void when you've ruthlessly stamped out the last employer who tried to fill that void? And you think that the market is somehow "free" in that situation?
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday July 31 2017, @06:31AM
Note that I'm not saying that these businesses are going to be forced to fail, I'm merely saying that they can move if they don't agree with the whole "not practicing abusive employment terms" thing.
And "ruthlessly stamped out"? Universal employment terms apply to everyone, and there will still be the need for those services. If some businesses decide to pull out, others can move in and eat their bread so to speak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @02:24PM
The mighty buzzkill is st it again! Won't someone save us from his "wisdom"??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @10:59PM
It's not their money though, it's money that they acquired by stealing the proceeds of people's work. Nobody has ever become a billionaire through solely their own hard work. They became billionaires by appropriating the production of other people and making it their own.
In many cases, like with Bezos, the money doesn't even exist anywhere. It's money that he couldn't access even if he wanted to because selling all those shares of Amazon would result in the price dropping precipitously. He's probably worth only a small fraction of what people think he's worth for that very reason.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday July 31 2017, @04:52AM
I believe the saying is "democracy is tyranny by the masses".
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:02PM (3 children)
Democracy is corruption. Period, the end. The Founders carefully designed a carefully game balanced Republican form of government designed to resist the encroachments of the "universal franchise democracy" they could see destroying France and see numerous examples of similar ends in their history books.
Democracy MUST decay into Socialism because it is the winning move, short term, for everyone on the left side of the Bell Curve. And since a lack of long range planning pretty much defines the left side of the Bell Curve..... see the problem?
We were supposed to have enough popular representation to ensure the consent of the governed, thus preventing revolutions, but the idea of The People simply deciding important policy issues was an idea that almost universally terrified the people who designed our form of government.
A good guide for when the government is doing something it shouldn't, like passing minimum wage laws, etc. is to remember where our theory of government asserts that the State derives its power. It has no powers other than what we delegate unto it. It has the power to tax for lawful purposes because we consented to it, it has the power to wage war because we could delegate our Right to self defense to it. It has no authority to mandate a minimum wage because WE don't have that power to delegate. It doesn't have the power to redistribute wealth because we do not have that power to delegate to it. I DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE YOUR STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE MY STUFF AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR. THE POOR DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HELP THEMSELVES TO OUR STUFF. Therefore none of us has that power to delegate to the State to do on our behalf. If you do not like this, propose an entirely new theory of government, write out a new specific form to implement that theory and get enough States to ratify your new Constitution... or win a Revolution.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @11:48PM
Democracy is a governmental model.
Socialism is an ownership model.
The opposite of Democracy is Authoritarianism.
The opposite of Socialism is Capitalism.
In a Capitalist workplace:
- Someone besides The Workers dictates what will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates how that will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates where that will be produced
- Someone besides The Workers dictates how the profits will be used
In a Socialist workplace:
- You and your co-workers democratically decide what will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide how that will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide where that will be produced
- You and your co-workers democratically decide how the profits will be used
Socialism is Democracy extended to the workplace.
Nitwit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @12:45AM
Sorry that your country sucks so badly.
(There are better countries.)
The Founders carefully designed a carefully[-gamed,] balanced Republican form of government
True.
They also specified in that document how that document could be amended.
So far, one chance was squandered, outlawing drinkable alcohol.
Another amendment was squandered repealing that idiocy.
Now, imagine that that energy had instead gone into an amendment producing publicly-funded election campaigns--replacing the overt bribery of politicians.
.
...and there is a country that has a democracy that actually works the way a democracy is supposed to work.
Switzerland [wikipedia.org]
(BTW, that's the same country that has lots of guns but a tiny number of deaths due to gunfire.)
...but the U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A. WE'RE NUMBER 1 types won't ever recognize that their country can learn from another.
...and they won't get off their asses and demand improvement; they'll stay glued to Lamestream Media, getting the "information" that The Oligarchs want them to hear.
They won't organize and gather at the local office of their Congresscritter, demanding change nor will they attend townhalls where their Congresscritter can be publicly held to account.
Says very successful activist Ralph Nader: [csrl.org]
You get the government that you deserve.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday July 31 2017, @04:28AM
Let me suggest that you look up the definition of democracy.
Hint: it's not so restrictive that the USA cannot be defined as a democracy.
(Score: 1) by phantomlord on Monday July 31 2017, @02:19AM
On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor [archives.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 31 2017, @04:56PM
I think buzzard lives in poverty. Poor people always think the government is just a collection of social programs.