|
Caros you are a better man than me. I've tried posting in an earnest way to respond to jrod abs it just transforms into contemptuous sarcasm every time.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't expect that. Everyone can fall on hard times and need a hand by others. All I ask is that the help that we give to people who need it is given voluntarily and not coercively. On the other hand, all of recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This was an especially annoying comment so I want to respond to it. Why are you ignoring the rest of what I had to say. It hits on your counter argument. Or do you just look for the word "racist" and respond to any posts that call you a racist, because God forbid somebody call you a racist and get away with it? It's really annoying. Unlike you, I actually played a big role in running a business, I have understanding about working with these types of jobs, and I don't support your position. It seems like you should listen to me rather than dispense with what I have to say. quote:I'm not saying that "black people are so so unskilled", ALL teenagers are unskilled. But it remains a fact that a disproportionate number of young black Americans are stuck in failing schools, are poor or come from broken families. These are just the facts of the situation. There are many reasons for that. The legacy of racial discrimination and bigotry is an obvious reason why poorer black Americans don't have the same opportunities as middle class whites. And this is an argument against the minimum wage how? Did you listen to me when I said that when it comes to unskilled jobs, like cashier or stock clerk, that there's a bare minimum you have to meet, and if you can't meet that bare minimum, you're not getting the job. It's not based on some weird idea of how you think people are paid, in which I pay someone 8 bucks an hour because I make 10 bucks from them. It's literally - can you unpack this tote in a reasonable time frame? If yes, you got a job. If no, you're fired. So, pray tell, why should disadvantaged black kids be given a lower rate if they are performing to the same standards as advantaged white kids? quote:The unemployment figures show that black teens are disproportionately unemployed. Furthermore, it is hardly a crisis if a well off white teen is not working much as a teenager because he has something to fall back on. He probably is fortunate enough to be in a better school district, with better educational opportunities, less crime levels and other advantages. Hey Jrod. Do you listen to other people? I always attacked this line of thinking. I'll do it again for your benefit, because if you can make the same argument over and over again, I can do the same. This work experience does nothing to help you get a better job. None of the skills you get as a cashier will provide you with any of the hard skills you would need for a better paid job. Your only hope is if you work in a place where there is upward mobility in the chain, but for most people, that's not happening. Not without a college career. The only thing that these jobs provide is money, which can be used to give these workers schooling. However, once again, minimum wage HAS NO IMPACT ON THEIR ABILITY TO BE HIRED. quote:And there IS racism that still exists. Employers still can harbor stereotypes about the young black kids from the "hood", and be less likely to hire them than some preppy white kid from the suburbs. And is paying them less going to solve this? quote:Did you watch the youtube clip of Walter Williams discussing this very point? I think it is quite relevant. Minimum wage laws have historically been supported by racists to keep "undesirables" out of the labor market, to protect jobs for white workers. JRod, this is a video from 1986 about some guy talking about South Africa. And the argument is loving stupid. "Well, since I have to pay everyone $3.00, I have to choose some non-economic criteria, so, I'm just going to be racist and that's why we don't need minimum wage laws." That's just plain idiotic. So, we should pay disadvantaged people less so that way they can get the jobs? You don't think that you're more likely to hire whites if you're a racist because well, you're a racist? I mean, the argument is just so amazingly stupid. So instead of dealing with the root cause, racism, you would rather we get rid of the minimum wage. Also, saying that these laws were historically supported by racists is not an argument. Who cares? I'm not arguing for keeping black kids down and making sure they can get hired. That's like saying "Evolution was used by Hitler to support the Holocaust, so we should teach creationism!" It's irrelevant. Bad people may have used good ideas to keep good people down. And that's if that is even true. I just don't care enough to find out because it is irrelevant to the conversation that we are having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This was an especially annoying comment so I want to respond to it. I'm not saying that "black people are so so unskilled", ALL teenagers are unskilled. But it remains a fact that a disproportionate number of young black Americans are stuck in failing schools, are poor or come from broken families. These are just the facts of the situation. There are many reasons for that. The legacy of racial discrimination and bigotry is an obvious reason why poorer black Americans don't have the same opportunities as middle class whites. How about you donate some money to help bolster those failing schools? Since you aren't, you should probably be aware you're not the only selfish person on the planet. Hence why we should have taxes and allocate those dollars to help those failing schools. We aren't mostly because of people like you who would rather keep all your money in your pocket and blame "the poors" for destroying society. Also: jrodefeld posted:How many of you have ever run a business where you have had to pay employees a wage? I have! Which is why I'm pretty sure you're talking completely out of your rear end.. quote:Personally, my mom runs a small business. My grandfather ran a business. I have friends who own small businesses and pay wages to workers. Even myself, I am partially self employed and, although I don't have any full time workers, I contract with people on the free market for part time help. Based on every post you've written in this thread you're lying or completely delusional. How can you "know" so many people who run a business and yet come out knowing literally nothing about running a business? I would pay real money to see you in a live debate on video with Caros or QuarkJets. You didn't actually refute jack poo poo and basically hand waved it off in the most long winded fashion possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Jrod gently caress the watermelon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
While it is true that wage workers are treated much better than was the case at other points in history even without punitive legislation or unions, it is also true that: 1. This treatment is still inadequate, often Real Bad where the companies have found enough regulation-avoiding loopholes or where local governments have been able to roll regulation back 2. It is largely due to corporations' fear of unionization or punitive legislation. We've tried giving the employers free reign to set wages before and it was loving awful for the unskilled-to-moderately-skilled worker. Read about the conditions of factory workers from the 1870s until the 1930s passage of the Wagner Act, then tell me that companies, absent any regulating mechanism, will treat their workers with fairness and dignity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Your argument is literally that racism justifies allowing employers to purchase discounted black labour to replace white labour. That argument can't coexist with the idea that washes represent the marginal value added by the worker. You never think jrod, all you do is try to win, in this case with obvious tokenism worse than Herman Cain. Seriously jrod, while you entertain me, maybe you should take a break from hitting  and examine your own ideas critically for some internal consistency.If you're trying to convince us that the minimum wage is always destructive because workers are already being paid at their marginal value and exploitation is impossible because this compensation can't be pushed down by employers, do not turn around and tell us that racism allows employers to push compensation of equally-valuable black workers below the marginal value that white people command.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Seriously jrod, while you entertain me, maybe you should take a break from hitting He does have internal consistency. Everybody that isn't him is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
does anybody know what jobs jrod has had? 'cause I can tell you he ain't worked in a plant or warehouse on 1099s
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
1000101 posted:I would pay real money to see you in a live debate on video with Caros or QuarkJets. See Jrod? A real life entreperneur, one of those job creators you pursue with such throbbing and unregulated desire, is willing to sponsor a live debate. Will you shy from even this invitation to the field of honorable disputation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
zeal posted:See Jrod? A real life entreperneur, one of those job creators you pursue with such throbbing and unregulated desire, is willing to sponsor a live debate. Will you shy from even this invitation to the field of honorable disputation? "I'll think about it" *doesn't respond for two weeks* "Oh, maybe if I had a webcamera" *shits self*
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
zeal posted:See Jrod? A real life entreperneur, one of those job creators you pursue with such throbbing and unregulated desire, is willing to sponsor a live debate. Will you shy from even this invitation to the field of honorable disputation? Note that if you refuse, by the strictures of argumentation ethics you're violating the non-aggression principle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
zeal posted:See Jrod? A real life entreperneur, one of those job creators you pursue with such throbbing and unregulated desire, is willing to sponsor a live debate. Will you shy from even this invitation to the field of honorable disputation? Half a dozen people, myself included, have open offers for recorded verbal debates. But because he's a loving coward he's completely ignored them, despite saying on more than one occasion that he would prefer to have debates in that format.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I mean for real jrod, how is it possible for you to personally have no skills or experience in anything related to the things that you're talking about while simultaneously believing yourself to be an expert in all of those things? I mean sure you took handouts from your grandparents, so I'll admit that you some firsthand knowledge on knowing how to accept charity, but rather than reflecting on that and asking any number of good societal questions ("why does our free market healthcare system suck so bad that it put me in financial straits" or "why is it so difficult to get public financial assistance that I wound up turning to family members instead?" or "what would happen to all of the people who need help but can't get it elsewhere if all of the state programs disappeared tomorrow?") you wound up deciding that if the state went away then everything would have just worked out, no need to think about details, free market fixes everything for everyone all on its own Really, how do you go through a situation where you get hosed by a free market and then decide that an unregulated free market is the best thing ever? I've seen you make other irrational decisions similar to this one. Last year, when Freedom Industries accidentally dumped a bunch of poisonous chemicals into West Virginia's water supply, you came to the conclusion that this was the fault of the state of West Virginia and that further deregulation would have prevented that disaster. When we demanded details you said something along the lines of "I don't need to know the details, but the free market would have prevented it" Did your parents raise you as a free market cultist or something? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Half a dozen people, myself included, have open offers for recorded verbal debates. But because he's a loving coward he's completely ignored them, despite saying on more than one occasion that he would prefer to have debates in that format. I think if he actually agreed to a live debate, he wouldn't be able to hide how he can't actually formulate any arguments, and can only parrot the same few talking points he's heard from Mises.org. We've all noticed how whenever he discusses a subject, he brings up the same arguments over and over again. When he responds to what people have to say, he just repeats his assertions, maybe changing a few words around, but he never actually provides us with a new argument. You can see it here. He responded to my post, but instead of engaging with the substantive parts that attempted to rip what he was saying to shred, he instead focused on the "racist" part. He had nothing to say about how I said he doesn't understand how businesses hire and how the wages of a person are not so tightly tied to their productivity. Why? Because he can't argue. He can't go tit for tat. All he can do is vomit up some word salad and then explain how he's really not a racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Did your parents raise you as a free market cultist or something? We still haven't ruled out whether or not he's a rogue AI, originally designed to convert the world to the One True Faith, but whom escaped the confines of mises.org before reaching his end programming state, so he just annoys the internet with endless libertarian blather instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:We still haven't ruled out whether or not he's a rogue AI, originally designed to convert the world to the One True Faith, but whom escaped the confines of mises.org before reaching his end programming state, so he just annoys the internet with endless libertarian blather instead. I think "annoying the internet with endless libertarian blather" is the end programming state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
The Larch posted:I think "annoying the internet with endless libertarian blather" is the end programming state. Well that's what they ended up with, but I'd like to credit those bozos' ambition, at least, that they might aim a bit higher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well that's what they ended up with, but I'd like to credit those bozos' ambition, at least, that they might aim a bit higher. Nah, each of devs was just the idea guy, getting 50% of the profits. All of the other developers were the ones who were supposed to actually get it working.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Can someone give an explanation that can be parsed by a laymen on the connection between the minimum wage and the idea that the labor market is a monopsonyshut up Firefox that is totally a word.? I've tried looking it up but I can't quite parse it. Right now it looks like. 1. Laborers are a monopsony 2. ??? 3. Increasing min. wage can actually increase employment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
as a Free Marketeer i am deeply concerned that people could opt out of the workforce and live on the government dole in response I will make the workforce even less able to provide for peoples' needs, increasing their incentive to opt out and live on the government dole
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
I might have missed it earlier, but has anyone suggested a Nana based voluntary Universal Healthcare System? It works for Jrod so clearly it must scale up to be able to cover everyone!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Caros posted:I might have missed it earlier, but has anyone suggested a Nana based voluntary Universal Healthcare System? It works for Jrod so clearly it must scale up to be able to cover everyone! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me! And think of all the retirees who'll get some joy back in their lives when we all have to switch from the government to the septuagenarian teat! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Can someone give an explanation that can be parsed by a laymen on the connection between the minimum wage and the idea that the labor market is a monopsonyshut up Firefox that is totally a word.? I've tried looking it up but I can't quite parse it. Right now it looks like. Wages for workers go up at a rate that beats price increase of goods >> demand for services increase >> increased business leads to more hiring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I was a kept man. My mamaw paid the bills. She was the matriarch of the whole operation and she wouldn't take no for an answer. Glory to von Mises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:I might have missed it earlier, but has anyone suggested a Nana based voluntary Universal Healthcare System? It works for Jrod so clearly it must scale up to be able to cover everyone! white meemaws will never agree to pay bills for minorities, the system will be doomed by demographic shifts
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Clearly we need a Babushka based Economy
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Note that if you refuse, by the strictures of argumentation ethics you're violating the non-aggression principle. we've done it, guys. the ultimate post has been created. we can safely close the thread now in complete comfort, knowing that, in the end, it was all worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I figure I'll throw you a change of pace, jrodefeld. I can't imagine you're enjoying this, at all. Do you game? Have you played BioShock? I'm curious what you'd think of it; it's basically the series that pops up when you think of video games + libertarians, though the setting of the latest one is more like the Confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:white meemaws will never agree to pay bills for minorities, the system will be doomed by demographic shifts
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Can't they just sell of some of their stock portfolio? they will sell their son's old comic books that they have been holdin' onto since he died in the 'Nam
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
No these white meemaws willl just go to their meemaws for the money if they find they're a little short when a black kid needs chemotherapy, duh. The money will always exist, it's meemaws all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Jrod, in a Libertarian society, will a person making $1/hr, working a standard 8 hour workday, and spending let's say $500 a month total on food, gas, rent, electricity, heat/AC, transportation, phones, etc be able to afford cancer treatment? Assume this person does not get weekends and has no children. If they cannot afford to pay for cancer treatment, how rich does someone have to be before society will allow them the possibility to survive treatable illnesses? (  this person can't even afford to live in their home, and even if you could find somewhere to live for that cheap, it's just buying them basic necessities to live with 0 luxuries)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Can someone give an explanation that can be parsed by a laymen on the connection between the minimum wage and the idea that the labor market is a monopsonyshut up Firefox that is totally a word.? I've tried looking it up but I can't quite parse it. Right now it looks like. Many national economies (e.g. those of the OECD) are currently demand-constrained. There are productive facilities sitting idle and workers facing long-term underemployment. Inflation is below target levels in most countries, while unemployment numbers are above targets. The US economy has fallen short of potential GDP for several years, and the potential GDP itself has suffered a significant blow. Everyone is poorer than they ought to be. A counter-cyclical response is called for. Conventional monetary policy is perfectly capable of such a response, and it's usually able to do so (because central bankers tend to deliberate in secret). Unfortunately, conventional policy is tapped out at the moment (and for the immediate future) because we're already at the zero lower bound. Unconventional monetary policy faces challenges - both doctrinal (e.g. Austerian factions within central banks) and technical (e.g. leverage and liquidity concerns, questions of jurisdiction and regulatory balance, moral hazard). Counter-cyclical fiscal policy (i.e. deficit spending on welfare and stimulus programs) has generally been blocked or whittled down by political opposition. This is partially due to genuine (but possibly misguided) fear of runaway national debts, and partially a Machiavellian attempt to harness the crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to privatize or eliminate venerable welfare programs (e.g. NIH, Social Security, INPS). Putting money into the hands of poor people is - ceteris paribus - good policy because they spend it quickly on goods and services. Giving the same money to middle-class people is less effective as a form of economic stimulus because they tend to pay down debts. Giving it to corporations is foolish because they aren't going to embark on a huge domestic construction-and-hiring campaign -- demand is slack, after all! The money may be spent to upgrade shipping links in China, or get spun into M&A ventures which produce huge paper gains (yay executive bonuses!), or just squirreled away into a double-Irish money hole. In any case, the ROI for the domestic economy (aka the fiscal multiplier) is lovely. So - we want to get money into the hands of poor people. We probably can't get it there via tax-and-spend (because rich people are clever enough to hire lobbyists); aggressive deficit spending is going to face opposition (and hasten another debt-limit showdown). A minimum wage increase is seen as a viable compromise policy because:
Buried alive posted:the labor market is a monopsony Anyhow - the policymaker assumes that workers are underpaid due to monosponistic effects. She also assume that businesses will simply absorb the increased payroll expense; it will slightly diminish their profitability but it will not endanger their fundamental business model. Worker motivation tends to rise with increasing pay, so the hope is that increased productivity and reduced turnover will partially compensate business owners for the increased cost (and that the rising demand/GDP will cover the remainder). If the assumption is invalid (e.g. because the wage hike is too large, or it coincides with a sudden spike in energy costs, or the Libertarians were correct and every single worker was being paid the optimum wage), then the wage increase will yield a disemployment effect. This effect will probably not be large enough to reverse the overall positive consequences, but it may yield a net harm for specific groups (e.g. teenagers in France, young black men in the USA). This objection is valid! It's unfair for a society to achieve growth by stomping on a vulnerable group, especially due to the "wage scarring" effect which tends to put these people into a lifelong pattern of low pay, social immobility, depression, and illness. Libertarians see the state inflicting harm, insist that the infliction of violence is unjust, and therefore demand that the policy be scrapped. The socialist answer is "I've got a fever and the only prescription is more government intervention": hike the minwage, then setup programs to assist the victims (e.g. job-training, anti-discrimination regulations for hiring, WPA-style employment projects, GMI, etc). Libertarians may compare this approach to Copernican epicycles: an ever-growing government bureaucracy which intrudes farther into peoples' lives in the interest of "fairness." You can decide for yourself  jrodefeld posted:I also want to say something about unemployment figures because it is important. The real unemployment figures have been under-reported for a while. Just as with inflation statistics, politicians have every reason to lie about the real unemployment rate for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Jrod, in a Libertarian society, will a person making $1/hr, working a standard 8 hour workday, and spending let's say $500 a month total on food, gas, rent, electricity, heat/AC, transportation, phones, etc be able to afford cancer treatment? they will supplement their income by becoming the kept loveslut of a local culvert-installation magnate, thereby fulfilling a market demand that goes unfulfilled under the Government Tyranny of these benighted modern times
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
GulMadred, please stick around for the next time Jrod comes back and talks economics. Jrod, answer my questions about libertarian explanations for non-state, non-coercive power please! Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
And while we're at it, I still want to hear the method to determine the exact amount of money every employee's labor is worth. So far all we've got is "whatever their paycheck says." Given that, I move we nominate a commission to ferret out the secret of Delaware's amazing fry-cook productivity, and steal the secret of how they train their cooks to create $9/hour of corporate profit while Texas is stuck with cooks who only create $7.25 in value every hour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And while we're at it, I still want to hear the method to determine the exact amount of money every employee's labor is worth. So far all we've got is "whatever their paycheck says." Wait, does America have different minimum wages per-state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait, does America have different minimum wages per-state? They have both a federal and a state minimum yes. Seems to be the norm for north america as its the same in canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait, does America have different minimum wages per-state? The federal minimum wage lies somewhere between "gently caress you" and "crime against humanity" so certain less-lovely states and municipalities have instituted a higher one. You're not allowed to go lower though, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 08:25
|
|