Put up or shut up.

[Leopard]

ok, fine - was gonna wait for someone to start spouting socialist propoganda about a 'living wage' etc, then bring the hard cold facts of economic reality crashing down - but I am just too darned impatient!

Minimum Wage:
As some have alluded to, it only plays a VERY minor part in raising the cost of goods and services (including housing) etc. The main effects are:
UNEMPLOYMENT:
fact: every type of labor has an associated wage. for instance, lawn mowing - if you and the neighbor kid determine that $10 is fair to mow your lawn, yet the government says you MUST pay $20 - then one of two things will occur: (1) You yourself will mow the lawn, or, (2) the lawn will go unmowed. The type of labor influences this as determined by the labors' elasticity (ie: if you have a brain tumor and need it to be removed, you will likely pay much more than the 'market rate' to the doctor to do so - this is an example of a very 'inelastic' service). Most things have a much larger degree of elasticity. So, when a minimum wage is forced on the market those jobs which are valued at below the minimum will cease to exist for the most part. Since this occurs at the bottom rung of labor values, the main group of folks this effects are entry-level positions. This is a VERY important rung on the ladder of success and development as this is where our teenagers and uneducated exchange their labor at cheap rates in return for learning new skills and develop responsibilities. Once they have learned these skills and developed the discipline required by other employers (dependability, timeliness, work ethic, honesty, etc) then their labor has increased in value and they are able to garner higher wages. Denying these folks the ability and opportunity to learn these skills propels them towards governemnt dependence and sustinence and cripples our overall productivity - do not wonder why companies are 'outsourcing', the labor they are seeking is below the government mandated minimums... it is not a choice between employing folks here or there - it is a choice between employing there or NOWHERE!

the second main effect is...
MONOPLOY WAGES GRANTED TO LABOR UNIONS:
since minimum wage laws restrict entry into the work force, those already within the workforce have less competition and are then able to garner monopolistic wages from their employers. Basically, the wages of the 'under the minimum' jobs are transferred to those 'over'. The main beneficiaries of this are labor unions and/or any other labor guild systems (like doctors, lawyers, etc - those that require state licensure for entry - another rant altogether!) which are ALWAYS the main proponent of minimum wage laws/increases.

The government CANNOT dictate how much a job is worth! If it could then why not increase the minimum wage to $100/hour? sheer madness and irrationality to believe otherwise...

along these lines:
we are beginning to see the cumulative effects of a variety of government intrusions upon our market. These 'intrusions' or 'programs' are: forced public schooling, welfare, medicaid/medicare, minimum wage laws, overtime compensation laws, mandatory holidays, maximum/minimum work weeks. There are a variety of deteriotous effects but the main one is that citizens have lost the knowledge of becoming self-reliant and knowledgable participants in the market. Workers have abstracted themselves into powerless cogs in some corporate machinery losing sight of a simple economic facts: (1) they have just as much power at the bargaining table as do employers, and, (2) a job is NOT a 'right' - it is a business and like every other business, workers need to satisfy the demands of consumers (themselves) if they are to succeed. This means that it is incumbent upon the 'worker' to continually gain skills and knowledge (self-investment of capital) to make themselves more productive which leads to higher wages and wealth. There are PLENTY of folks in this world that are doing this, mostly outside of our country. We have a choice, either compete as effectively as we can, or stagnate, wither, and die... it is not our businesses which are failing our country, it is US!

How to combat this trend:
Eliminate all minimum wage jobs. Eliminate all licensure jobs. allow free market competition into education.
EFFECTS:
A great increase in vocational training and apprenticeships which give our under-educated the ability to increase their productivity and access to greater wealth and capital formation.
An increase in the flexibility of our labor force to respond quicker to changing market situations (ie: if an industry loses comparative advantage to a foreign nation and thus declines, its labor force needs to be able to reorganize into other, more efficient industries by easy and continual access to skill development and retraining)
A decrease in pricing of highly valued services like medical care and law. This would allow a greater portion of our citizens access to health coverage (and its benefits of prevention over treatment) and would greatly increase the protection of private property rights and help prevent all rights infractions.


WHEW! Now thats a rant... enough for now, I am pooped!

liberty first,
michael

[castille]

Funny how college students who spend their parents money feel superior to rich people....

[Leopard]

OOPS! I typed wrong! the phrase should be ' eliminate the minimum wage LAWS' not jobs! lol

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Originally posted by castille, Funny how college students who spend their parents money feel superior to rich people....

Pointing at someone here or just making a general observation?

What do those students think of the poor schleps who pay thier own way through school?

[Young]

I reject the outright Stereotyping of the poor as Lazy. I understand narrow minds seeing some as being like a tic, but some have real problems caused by Gov't. Say Your married with two kids and your paying on a home and two cars, this assures you'll need credit cards in order to manage other expenses. Now Imagine that because of Bush's Tax Cuts a Company that is trying to improve its stock price decides cheaper labor is the best course of action so they plan to move to a new production facility in Mexico. Now Your out of a Job, the House is foreclosed on, the Cars are picked up, and the credit card companies can't call because your phone has been shut off. Now Some have family, others who don't are on the street, and while some of You are so Eager to dismiss them as Lazy...A Little Child hasn't ate today. Atheists might be living lives that are clouded, but if You believe a word of the New Testament then You Know Jesus Would Help that Child. All of You will have Fun trying to explain the stock end of the debate one day, just remember who you'll have to tell.


Young

[commonsense]

Quote: Kyran

Socialism does not give the individual the Right to Free Enterprise; you have the choice of Job or Starve

Minor Correction:

Job and Starve!

[joshjosh]

doesn't job and starve sound a bit like capitalismt though?

and why are you equating all socialism to the Stalinist USSR?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I find it amazing that some will point at our country that has lasted more than two hundred years and claim it is inherently flawed, but when they look at socialism which has yet to last a significant fraction of that time anywhere they blame it on anything they can find. Talk about a double standard. Tell me, does this sort of viewpoint make one cross-eyed?

[commonsense]

If it doesn't, then perhaps other activities they engage in do.

[Golgo13]

Corporations don't control the government.

Their interests, however, are taken into heavy consideration and affect political decisions substantially, and they are capable of making decisions that affect entire populations of people.

So in a sense they are a form of government, just not a form that's accountable.

[Leopard]

Golgo13,
The problem here is that you are only looking at a 'top layer' - you KNOW there is a problem and you see companies benefitting and apparently able to oppress citizens - then you stop looking and figure you have enough info to describe the problem. Let's take a situation which happens too frequently in the United States:

A company is desiring to locate a new building or factory in a particular location, yet the costs of purchasing all the little parcels of land which comprise the total area they desire would not only be time intensive, but the folks who currently own the land would hike up the prices they desired when they discovered that this company was buying up all these pieces. So now the company has a problem: the total cost to purchase all the land is not as low as they desire (note: EVERYONE has this same exact problem!). It is not 'legal' for the company to actually force or intimidate the property owners into selling at a lower price... BUT, there is another avenue open to them... they can lobby the government, perhaps inticing them with the prospect of 300 new jobs for the politician's constituency or mabye the potential of alot of $$$ in taxable dollars which will flow through the government, or, maybe even just skip the 'legal' stuff and appeal directly to the politicians with individual bribes and so forth. The result is that the government excercises its awesome power to force property owners off their land and take whatever the government determines is fair compensation - even if the property owner just plain does not want to sell, no matter what the price. Once the government gains control of the land, it can then transfer by sale or gift to there prized new friend, the company.

This scenario, when laid out in this fashion, is so blatantly wrong and immoral, but, it happens often. You look at this example and according to your statement, you would say 'Bad Bad evil company! This is another example of big money excerting its force over the lives of ordinary citizens!' and who you be only 'surfacely' correct. The 'company' is only searching out options available to it to accomplish a goal and it chooses sometimes the option which cost it the least amount of money or pain. This is a 'legal' option! And the true problem can be highlighted once you realize that 'the company' can be replaced by ANY sort of person or group of folks which have a concentrated desire and have an option to use government to 'spread the cost'. I would not fault the company or group of people - they are acting EXACTLY as human beings tend to act in this situation. Also, the politicians are also acting EXACTLY as human beings tend to act - both sets of 'players' are acting in their own self-interest, just as you or I do everyday when we make purchases or choices which affect our lives. This is HUMAN! The 'problem' is that we have ceeded power to the 'government' which we ourselves do not have - the power of Eminent Domain. It is plain to see that it is just 'wrong' for me to come up to you and force you to give or sell me your property if you do not agree to it. Then WHY have we given this power to the 'government'? Isn't it irrational to beleive that once power like this is legitimatized into the government that it will be used in only the benevolent manners which we think it will? Do we really think that folks in positions of governmental power are ANY different than you or I in that they are not influenced by personnal goals or outside pressures? They are human too and they will tend to act in their own self-interst FIRST before acting in the interest of others. So the problem does not lie with corporations, or even politicians, it lies in our granting special privilages to the government which we recognize as being wrong if everyone had ad excercised such powers.

Libertarians do not want to abolish the government to leave a power vacuum which corporations or others would surely fill - they want to restrict government SOLELY to protecting the rights (property rights protections, the right to be free from violence (force), coercion (force), fraud, and plain old theft). If the powers of government protected only these things, then corporations and concentrated masses of wealth COULD NOT exert oppressive influence or force roughshod over citizens. Just as it would be illegal for me to force you to give me your land, it would be illegal for a company.

sorry about the rant,
michael

[Mia]

good points.

[commonsense]

Well said Leopard.
Unfortunately I suspect it falls upon deaf (or plugged) ears.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Very nice post michael.

As far as how the brats treat people that pay their own way, they assume that we are given a free ride as well. But where I am going to school, those put through school by the government far outnumber everybody else.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Young, I reject the outright Stereotyping of the poor as Lazy. I understand narrow minds seeing some as being like a tic, but some have real problems caused by Gov't. Say Your married with two kids and your paying on a home and two cars, this assures you'll need credit cards in order to manage other expenses. Now Imagine that because of Bush's Tax Cuts a Company that is trying to improve its stock price decides cheaper labor is the best course of action so they plan to move to a new production facility in Mexico. Now Your out of a Job, the House is foreclosed on, the Cars are picked up, and the credit card companies can't call because your phone has been shut off. Now Some have family, others who don't are on the street, and while some of You are so Eager to dismiss them as Lazy...A Little Child hasn't ate today. Atheists might be living lives that are clouded, but if You believe a word of the New Testament then You Know Jesus Would Help that Child. All of You will have Fun trying to explain the stock end of the debate one day, just remember who you'll have to tell.

Now say you took 10% of your income over the years and invested it, one way or another. Then let’s say you also have been taking one or two extra classes a semester at a college to improve whatever education level you're at. Your wife also works and she too invests some of her income. You can take your investments and start a company, or at least give yourself the ability to live comfortably while looking for another job if you're fired. This is a Capitalist economy, as such everyone has to think like a Capitalist, however, too much Socialism is infiltrating out thought process, at the benefit to some very rich people, but at the disadvantage to the rest of us. Now, you talked about what Jesus would do when a little Child's doesn't eat. I don't know any group of people who give more money to the poor than the wealthy, especially Businessmen.
The problem isn’t that being fired is a possibility; the problem is that no one is being taught how to account for it.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.”
–Marianne Williamson

[Leopard]

Excellent Suburbanite! This IS our #1 problem - not 'outsourcing, not Iraq, not even taxation... to put it simply: People do not need to learn to act 'capitalist', people need to learn how to act RESPONSIBLY!

[Suburbanite]

I agreed with your above (larger) post. I feel that Capitalism is not the problem, of course there are those in it who are corrupt, but it is not their fault Capitalism is ruined, it is the fault of people who don't seek to stop them. Capitalism isn't evil, laziness is. People need to take charge of their own life a lot more.

[Osborn F Enready]

Which is what he meant by responsibility I think Sub.... 8)

Personal responsibility.

[bishop]

setting mininum wages and income taxes should be done at the state level. the cost of living in new york and idaho are infinately different - yet the same laws apply.

people in urban areas typically suffer from a high cost of living. their minimum wages jobs earn them much less than similar workers living in the boondocks.