|
Badger of Basra posted:Kill all whites. See, if I were to be emotional, I would resist this. But my pragmatic side says that, perhaps it would be good if the white man were allowed to disappear from the earth and I will even volunteer for this cause if I were allowed to join in the fun, enlisted as a member of the White Suicide Squad that does the missions no one else will do, like jumping cars off ramps into White Country Club Rallies, or infiltrating the heavily guarded Whitesphere (where the white agenda is set)
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Why is it necessary that people work? I actually don't think it is, I think people who don't work deserves a guaranteed standard of living. But if you are defending the minimum wage (as oppose to GMI), presumably you think people should be working.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Value is the benefit provided by a good or service. If value == price then trade is pointless, because you'll never be able to derive surplus value from an exchange. You will only be able to exchange one good or service for a good or service of the exact same value/price. How many trades or professions have any rational relation between value and price of labor? What value does, say, the labor of a highly compensated associate at a big law firm, freshly out of law school provide? Is that at all in line with their compensation? Is the value of labor provided by minimum wage workers valued accurately by the price it commands by government fiat, or is it over/undervalued?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:I actually don't think it is. there's a transition stage you have to worry about- of people's well-being in the present day, before completely communal infrastructures with socialized benefits have been put into place and practice. you don't just Sim Sala Bim up a utopia by saying "we're going to do this."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:I actually don't think it is, I think people who don't work deserves a guaranteed standard of living. Most if not all people posting for increased min wage would rather have UBI or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Typo posted:Because then you are simultaneously giving them an incentive to work as well as providing them with a guaranteed standard of living. So you're saying we should be rewarding companies that are unable to find meaningful work for people? I don't want to encourage people to do jobs they don't need to do. Most current work is make-work. We should not create incentives for keeping that up.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So you're saying we should be rewarding companies that are unable to find meaningful work for people? I don't want to encourage people to do jobs they don't need to do. Most current work is make-work. We should not create incentives for keeping that up. Bring back the telephone exchanges and the typing pool!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Bring back the telephone exchanges and the typing pool! Computers used to be an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, we should rid ourselves of these damnable silicon contraptions and go back to doing it the old fashioned way!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
So just out and out trolling D&D is what the cool kids are up to nowadays huh
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:How many trades or professions have any rational relation between value and price of labor? What value does, say, the labor of a highly compensated associate at a big law firm, freshly out of law school provide? Is that at all in line with their compensation? Is the value of labor provided by minimum wage workers valued accurately by the price it commands by government fiat, or is it over/undervalued? The problem is that you're treating value like it is objective. Value is subjective, there's no getting around that. You may not value the inexperienced lawyer as much as their law firm does, but obviously the law firm must value them at at least the price they are paying for their labor; otherwise they won't be employed by the company for long. When the government sets a minimum wage, it isn't declaring that "the value of a worker's labor is at least $x." Rather, in pragmatic terms, the government is simply saying, "we don't care what the value of labor is, the price you pay for it must be at least $x." This is why the government should not be setting price controls unless doing so is absolutely necessary for social welfare. Price controls can really gently caress up markets and reduce productivity by making trade impossible, because trade is all about the surplus value (relative to price) that individual actors derive from an exchange. The way to get around this is simple: just tax the motherfuckers, and use the taxes to pay for the social welfare. Typical Pubbie fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Personally, I blame women for this debacle.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I blame the children.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Them too.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
What? Someone's noticed the real reason behind raising the minimum wage? *throws illuminati hat to the ground* Dammit, now I'll never shut down those honest mom and pop stores. How could anyone have seen through it? I spent all that time faking scientific studies 'disproving' the link between unemployment and minimum wage...all for nothing!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
I literally have no idea what is happening in this thread anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:How could anyone have seen through it? I spent all that time faking scientific studies 'disproving' the link between unemployment and minimum wage...all for nothing! There is no link between unemployment and the minimum wage because the federal minimum wage in America is pitiful and raising it by a paltry amount doesn't have much of a discernible effect on anything.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:I literally have no idea what is happening in this thread anymore. We're patiently waiting for a response to the watermelon loving inquiry.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:I literally have no idea what is happening in this thread anymore. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What? Someone's noticed the real reason behind raising the minimum wage? *throws illuminati hat to the ground* Dammit, now I'll never shut down those honest mom and pop stores. In Capital, the reason given is improving quality of life. There's an indirect effect that smaller shops (where conditions are worse) who could only compete with larger ones by cutting on costs that would benefit laborers' wellbeing, are harmed by having to do things like "provide safety measures." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm quote:What could possibly show better the character of the capitalist mode of production, than the necessity that exists for forcing upon it, by Acts of Parliament, the simplest appliances for maintaining cleanliness and health? In the potteries the Factory Act of 1864 “has whitewashed and cleansed upwards of 200 workshops, after a period of abstinence from any such cleaning, in many cases of 20 years, and in some, entirely,” (this is the “abstinence” of the capitalist!) “in which were employed 27,800 artisans, hitherto breathing through protracted days and often nights of labour, a mephitic atmosphere, and which rendered an otherwise comparatively innocuous occupation, pregnant with disease and death. The Act has improved the ventilation very much.” [214] In economically-undeveloped areas where there are only a few smaller producers that compete in commodity production with larger production in regional or world markets, this can mean the Only Shop In Town in some rural nowheresville has to shut up shop (rightly so, because they use tainted beef or because they don't care about worker injuries). That lost production is absorbed by larger firms in locations better situated on regional logistics chains. The reason why a producer would choose to set up shop in some rural nowheresville instead of a city (close to its outlets of distribution and with a ready consumer base) is because then they can exercise a local monopoly over hiring and take advantage of the desperation of the local population to pay at such a low rate that it makes up for extra shipping costs. If there's a national minimum wage, why would they bother with that when they'd be paying the same amount for labor in well-connected urban areas? That might explain why rural areas vote Republican, and why say West Virginians would continue to hold anti-regulatory attitudes even after hundreds of thousands of people were affected by chemicals leaking into their water supply from industrial neglegence and not being able to drink water. Far from the liberal mantra of "they're voting against their own interests": they know their interests, and that's that they want to eat. They know that they live precariously, in a place where a few employers hold them hostage. It's either bad local working conditions or none at all, and they aren't organized enough/have enough saved up to stand through a few months being starved out while they protest for better conditions. Such a shift would be regional, not national. Also, it draws on older theory which might not apply in newer, more liberalized late capitalist economic environments. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:32 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Don't worry OP I have the solution. We raise the minimum wage to $15, but then we nationalize the health insurance industry and implement single payer UHC. Now workers make more and businesses don't have to pay health insurance for each of their employees. The cost of labor is a wash, so there isn't a drive to layoff workers, and now that people have more money to spend and less fear of crippling medical debt the economy booms. You're welcome, vote Bernie Sanders 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Minimum wage has little effect on employment but thread accurately named, voted (1)5(an hour).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Minimum wage has little effect on employment but thread accurately named, voted (1)5(an hour). Voted 1 for the 401k I don't have.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Voted 1 for the 401k I don't have. You don't need a 401k, once you get your PhD you can just get a tenure track faculty position with a respectable pension. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:You don't need a 401k, once you get your PhD you can just get a tenure track faculty position with a respectable pension. Yeah. Sure. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:See, if I were to be emotional, I would resist this. But my pragmatic side says that, perhaps it would be good if the white man were allowed to disappear from the earth and I will even volunteer for this cause if I were allowed to join in the fun, enlisted as a member of the White Suicide Squad that does the missions no one else will do, like jumping cars off ramps into White Country Club Rallies, or infiltrating the heavily guarded Whitesphere (where the white agenda is set) Pitch this idea to Image comics because I want to read that.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Guys I heard paying workers more money is bad for the economy. c/d?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Guys I heard paying workers more money is bad for the economy. c/d? d
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Money is an illusion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Money is an illusion. Finally, someone speaks sense!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
$20 an hour free college free healthcare. Fight me
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:$20 an hour free college free healthcare. Fight me this is what we call "you cant have your cake and eat it too." WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 10:07 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:$20 an hour free college free healthcare. Fight me How about free college, but we ban all degree programs that don't lead directly to job placements
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:How about free college, but we ban all degree programs that don't lead directly to job placements I think Free College should be first degree is job focused, second degree is a choice made by you. But you have to be employed at least 10 years before you can decide on a second degree
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Other way round.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:Other way round. Right - but if we can reform healthcare to eliminate all the garbage-tier health plans, surely the US can step in and reform college so that garbage-tier degrees aren't an option for 18-year old kids to even think of choosing
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
thehomemaster posted:Other way round. How? I dont want some dipshit getting a lovely degree and having to wait 10 hears for his opportunity. gently caress that. every 18 year old should have mandatory education focused on a skill or trade or mandatory military service For at least 4 years.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:How? I dont want some dipshit getting a lovely degree and having to wait 10 hears for his opportunity. gently caress that. every 18 year old should have mandatory education focused on a skill or trade or mandatory military service For at least 4 years. The nature of capitalism means that if everyone gets a degree in a certain trade, then the job market will be saturated and unemployment would ironically increase far higher than if students just studied the kind of thing that they want to study. Because that's pretty much what university should be about.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:10 employees at 15 bucks an hour now costs you 150 instead of 100. a 33% increase in operating costs in a split second. Please tell me some businesses that could handle losing 1600 per day for 10 employees. Why is the company paying 10 people to do a job that can be more profitably done with 9? You know that businesses want this thing called profit, right, the difference between income and expenses? If a business can cut expenses without hurting income too much, and come out ahead in profit, they wouldn't wait for the minimum wage, they would do it right now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Are there really any arguments against raising minimum wage that don't center around made up numbers/correlations and "gently caress the poor"?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:25 |
|
|
Venomous posted:The nature of capitalism means that if everyone gets a degree in a certain trade, then the job market will be saturated and unemployment would ironically increase far higher than if students just studied the kind of thing that they want to study. Also if you spend all your time studying something you're not actually good at or enthusiastic about you are going to get left behind in the job market because people who are good at what you studied and actually enthusiastic about it will beat you to the punch every time. No one wants or needs a lovely engineer, scientist, or mathematician. If you're better off being the undisputed Lord of Underwater Basket Weaving then just go do it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 11:37
|
|