Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CIVPhilzilla, Jun 18, 2006.
Fair enough, but I think my example satisfies both.
What about those 5% of workers without a job. If we lowered minimum wage, then corporations can afford to hire them. Surely you agree that more people making money is better than a few making more?
I don't see how you and rmsharpe can live in the same state together.
there IS no such thing, but what makes you thing there cant be? we can get much closer than we currently are, and that is what we should try to do.
think these things through... and you will discover...
I don't think that's a correct supposition. Most of those workers simply wouldn't accept a job of such low-wage. It would cost them more to take the job then they'd get out of it.
Why do you say that?
Again, cost is related to the price of the product.
You two are quite opposites.
I gotta get off to do some Math homework so I can get a good job as a manager and exploit the lower and working classes.
Until we meet again!
People can move from job to job now and many do so especially if it is a hot market for their particular skills. But for those at the lower end of the pay spectrum most do not have either the willingness or skills to negotiate their own market price. Many of thsoe people have a hard time even showing up for work on a regular basis. Cities and states have some sense of their local employement markets and can be held accountable to some extent by voters. You have to keep in mind that the goal is two pronged: match wages to the job and provide for people. You cannot ignore one in favor of the other.
If we could improve our education system, we would have more interesting options.
Why is that?
Even if they don't result in economic isolation, they result in less economic expansion, which is never a good thing.
The US economic growth of the late 1800s, as far as I know, had nothing to do the tariffs in place, but rather was in spite of them, which was possible because the world wasn't nearly as economically globalized then as it is now. And perhaps it should be noted that immigration (which could be considered trade of human capital) greatly helped the U.S.'s economy at the time.
Well, in moderation they'd only be moderately bad.
Regardless, the outsourcing of IT jobs from America to India is an example of trade that has benefited both countries. If trade between the two countries were truly free, the only difference is we'd be seeing more of this.
If you won't bring it up any further, I'm sorry for continuing, but...
Outsourcing and what you call "exploitation" are not bad things, unless of course you think people in wealthy countries are entitled by birth to their jobs, and people in poor countries must die miserable deaths, lest multinational corporations pay them for their labor and let them step on the first rung of the ladder toward economic prosperity. (I'll admit this is an oversimplication, but by and large I think it's a good one. )
There are certainly problems with CAFTA, but by my knowledge, they have little to do with free trade, and more with allowing environmental destruction and flooding foreign markets with subsidized American products for geo-political reasons.
Can you back that assumption up with data from past raises? Was there mass flockings to the unemployment line?
Not significantly. If minimum wage is abolished there won't be a significant price decrease because the number of workers it effects would be small.
How so? On economic manners I find myself quite often agreeing with Mr. Sharpe
What many do not realise is the imposing a minimum wage effectively makes unemployable those whose skills allow them to provide labour whose value is less than the minimum wage . It also makes unprofitable all businesses which are labour-intensive , use the labour described above , and have small margins .
So I'm for abolishing it .
The amount of people in America that fall into that catagory is quite small.
Well, I would say raise it to adjust for inflation, but that isn't much and it is largely based on the fact that I am a working grunt.
Actually, in Alberta the minimum wage is not very relevant since there are so many jobs. Almost no one actually makes minimum wage except high school kids who don't know any better.
Might be worth noting that in the most recent country to adopt a minimum wage (the United Kingdom in 1999 which set it much higher than in the US) the following happened:
Inflation went down
Productivity went up
The moral: Don't let yourself think that any economic theory is 100% correct. Reality may not necessarily indicate it is
Whats the population of the U.K. again? Where did these numbers come from?
I trust wikipedia about as far as I can throw it, mainly when it stars throwing percentages at me. I doubt these numbers and feel that the low unemployment in the U.K. has to do with a change in the way its accounted. I geuss this is just cycism though.
We don't need it anymore, so get rid of it.
They can, so long as its above the federal limit. For instance, in California the minimum wage is higher than the national mw.
The population of the UK is about 60 Million. As for the numbers they are actually referenced on wikipedia and come from a Low Pay Commision (Government) Report
Not so much cynicism as an automatic rejection that the numbers might actually be right perhaps
If you can find numbers to the contrary please feel free to cite them.
Nah, they are probably fairly accurate and it would take some real research to come up with third party numbers on the U.K.s unemployment rate. It is a surprise and is very counter-intuitive though. I would say that because it worked there, that it doesn't make for good policy here. Our taxes are vastly less, our costs are less as well.
Someone pointed out that california has a higher min. wage, this is true because of the increased costs of living there. Its also true in several other states.
Maybe , but you are telling that group of people that they can never be employed , ever . You are dooming them to perpetual unemployment , which is the grossest of injustices .
I voted to eliminate it altogether. It's bad for the economy and creates unemployment.
It also encourages people to hire illegals and pay under the table (which of course can be a good thing ).
Separate names with a comma.