DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
quote:
So, we need government to intervene to raise wages, but we, then, will need government to intervene to cap prices so the wages won't be for naught (or, cap prices lower than what they currently are to make one's current wages have more buying power). What happens when you cap prices, though? What signals does that send to the Market, and what is the likely response of the Market?
It depends on which sector of the economy we’re talking about. If, for example, rents were capped and controlled (along with a vacant property tax which doubles each month), then businesses will likely see their overhead drop immensely, which would free up capital for higher wages and investment.
Rent caps generally lead to shit holes. Adding the tax in will likely lead to government taking over the rental business, too. I'm sure that will go swimmingly. 
quote:
quote:
Shit, I'm glad there's a stigma attached to a minimum wage job. Just another motivation to improve oneself to merit more than minimum wage.
That may be fine for the individual, but if society and businesses still need that job to be done, then it doesn’t serve anyone’s interests to intentionally create stigmas and powerful disincentives to anyone actually doing the job.
And if we really don’t need these jobs to be done, why would anyone waste money to hire someone just to have them do pointless busywork? Does that make any sense from a business point of view?
If business can't find anyone willing to work the job at the wages offered, then what?
quote:
But the stigma also has other consequences, as you made the point about the guy earning $15/hr. If the minimum wage rises, then he’s going to want a comparable raise due to the stigma of earning at or near minimum wage. It seems that it has very little to do with any scientific or practical “business” concern as much as it has to do with pacification of egos. That’s where the argument starts to break down.
The minimum wage is all about pacification of egos. We're defining the value of a job that requires little to no skill; a job that pretty much anyone can do. Increasing the minimum wage that someone can offer means the standards for that position will go up, too. Under the guise of caring about "the poor" or "the working class," the opportunities for those who have the least skills to offer will be reduced. And that makes it more difficult for those people to find positions where they can gain skills that will help them merit positions that offer higher wages.
The Recession hit youth pretty hard. Once businesses resumed hiring, there were an awful lot more applicants, and, to get the best bang for the buck, those with the least job skills (generally solely because they had the least job experience) weren't hired, in favor of people who had job experience and more skills.
Why aren't people allowed to agree to work for wages below the minimum wage?
quote:
quote:
And, I wish there was more of a stigma on public assistance. It used to be that way. I would much rather people earn their own way, but still have a net to catch those who fall on rough times.
Well, again, what you’re addressing is a cultural matter, not something can be fixed systemically.
Yet, that's what's going on, no?
quote:
quote:
It comes down to how we vote. You don't want a crook running government, don't vote for a crook.
I try, but I can only cast one vote. All the other voters are a different story.
James Traficant ran a re-election campaign from prison, after he was convicted of racketeering. He did not win, but he did get votes. Really makes one scratch one's head.
quote:
quote:
You don't trust the GOP or Democrat Party to not run a crook? Don't vote for GOP or Democrat. It won't be quick. It won't be easy. But, it can be done. If the people we have elected actually are representative of us as Americans, we're hurting, and hurting bad.
Well, again, I think that the problem we’re facing (regarding the voters) is an entrenched ideological one. The people don’t intentionally vote for crooks, but they do vote for (mostly) single-issue, one-trick ponies.
There are also certain prevailing notions about politics and politicians which seem to be common among voters. For example, I’ve often heard voters say things like “I’m voting for candidate X because I don’t think that candidate Y has enough experience.” As if “experience” has anything to do with whether or not somebody is honest.
A business owner might be pro-choice but still vote for an anti-choice candidate if he sees that candidate as more friendly to business interests. These are the kinds of choices voters are presented with. It’s not quite so simple as “Don’t vote for a crook.”
But, that is a voter's right, isn't it? Everyone makes a value assessment when they choose. Even if it's a choice between getting X now at the expense of Y. Which do you want first, X or Y? If you can't afford Y, yet, do you placate yourself with X, even though it makes attaining Y that much further out? If your issue is that you don't want to vote for a crook, then don't. If you can't find a candidate to vote for that isn't a crook, that's another story.
quote:
I understand what you are saying, but, personally, I don't care how much money someone has in their life, as long as they got it legally.
“Legally” is a tricky word to use here, especially if we’re talking about wealth which was gained within the United States. I see no reason to be coy about how the wealthy in this country got to where they’re at.
Oh? Do tell.
quote:
quote:
Paris Hilton didn't illegally gain her wealth, but I have little respect for her. All her wealth can be attributed to the work her father did. So, she's a rich bitch. Big deal. It was her father's money for him to dole out as he saw fit. Government already got it's taxes out of that income. It was given to her. It's hers to waste as she sees fit.
I don’t really care about Paris Hilton. For reasons I can’t quite fathom, either the media want to distract the public with her antics, or there is a significant portion of the populace which finds her interesting enough to elevate her to celebrity status. Either way, it’s a sad commentary on what our culture has degenerated to.
But all of this is beside the point I was trying to make earlier. Sometimes, when business types scream about “big government” and “tyranny” all because they may have to pay a few extra pennies in taxes or just a wee bit extra in minimum wage, it just makes me roll my eyes. They’re still doing okay; they’re still living comfortable, luxury lives – far better than the vast majority of the rest of the people on this planet. Is that not good enough for them?
I agree with Paris Hilton's popularity being unfathomable.
It is rarely about paying a "few extra pennies," or "a wee bit extra."
We don't get to define what is "good enough" for anyone but ourselves.
quote:
Sure, Paris Hilton is wealthy, and seems to be enjoying herself. But there are others who don’t seem happy with what they have, or they seem obsessively worried that someone might have more or that some government might try to take it.
And, there are others that aren't happy with what they (the wealthy), and want it for themselves (the not wealthy). But, rather than take the difficult road, they choose the government option.
quote:
quote:
No, government doesn't want businesses to fail. I argue that they shouldn't prop businesses up, though. Not propping a business up doesn't meant you want it to fail, though.
I think that propping up business is more an indication that something within the overall system is failing.
I always keep in mind that much of our system is based on faith, and it’s largely been up to the government to maintain that faith in the system. They’re not just propping up a business, they’re also propping up an illusion in order to keep the faith. The last thing they want is for anyone to panic. Whenever there’s widespread panic and fear in a society, bad things start to happen.
Better to let the emperor think he has clothes on?
quote:
quote:
Wait. People want to buy the cars, but can't afford to buy the cars. If people can't afford the products, there is the reason for the low demand. They use the style and luxury features as a way to explain the high cost. But, if people can't buy the product, and the auto companies aren't rolling out products people can afford, then the auto companies aren't filling the needs expressed in the Market. That's what happened to the Big 3 in the early 2000's. People wanted smaller, more fuel efficient cars and the Big 3 weren't providing those options very much.
It’s happened even before then. They should have gotten their wake-up call back in the 1970s, when the Energy Crisis made everyone go for the more fuel-efficient cars made in Japan. More and more countries have built up their industrial base to where they can start producing their own brands of cars, so the global market will also become more competitive.
One thing that also just came to mind in regards to bailouts and the automakers is that not only do they produce cars and trucks for civilian use, but they also produce for the military, too. So they’re part of the military-industrial complex, which is another dimension to our economy in which the arguments for “pure capitalism” tend to fall apart. That’s a problem faced in any large industrial nation, the argument over “guns vs. butter,” as it were.
Yep. The argument that we had to bail out the automotive sector because we'd need the vehicle manufacturing ability in case of war was trotted out to defend the bailouts, before, too. That ignores what tends to happen when companies fail. Failed companies don't disappear from existence. They leave remnants. Drive through downtown Toledo, Ohio, and look at the boarded up buildings for proof. The manufacturing plants wouldn't have disappeared. The capacity wouldn't have disappeared. Penske was going to buy Saturn (not sure why that deal fell through) and keep making those vehicles. One has to wonder if Ford would have bought up any part of GM or Chrysler.
In an ironic twist, the iconic Jeep, that was originally an American WWII vehicle manufacturer, has been owned by a German company (Daimler) and is now owned by an Italian company (Fiat).
quote:
quote:
So, when sales dwindled, shit hit the fan. And, then, when the Recession hit and further hammered sales, GM and Chrysler needed bailing out. Ford had already done a ton of work to realign it's lineup with demand, so it was able to weather the Recession without taking a bailout. If GM and Chrysler are back to losing sales because they aren't putting out cars that people both want and can afford, then, when will the next bailout happen? A failed business plan was propped up, and looks like it might end up redemonstrating why it was a failed plan in the first place.
I think that there’s a market for discount vehicles that wouldn’t need to cost as much. There are some areas in the country where just getting to and from work can be a major struggle for those without their own vehicle. I suppose an alternate use of the bailout money could have been spent on public transportation, although that would probably just get wasted, too.
Speaking of Sci-Fi, I often wished we had transporter technology so we wouldn’t even have to worry about cars. Either that, or technology where you could just step into a portal, state your destination, and be instantly beamed there. Hell, according to the Back to the Future timeline, we’re due to have flying cars and Mr. Fusion by now.
Discount cars? The Yugo comes to mind...
I think too much aim has gone towards flux capacitor research. Personally, I think the key answer is in dilitium crystals.
quote:
quote:
I see "right to work" meaning that everyone has a right to work without having to enter into an association with a group that it doesn't agree with. Now, "right to a job" might mean more along the lines of what you were thinking (and we'd agree that no one has a right to a job).
True, although if there are able-bodied people who are genuinely looking for work and can’t seem to find anything, then that’s a problem that might have to be addressed at a societal level (which it already is, to some extent). It’s not that their “right to work” is being violated, although if someone truly wants to work, I don’t see how society can just toss them aside.
Society isn't tossing them aside. "Society" may be pricing them out of the workplace with minimum wage laws.
quote:
quote:
Actually, that Union has made a lot of noise in Wichita. This Subaru dealership wasn't the first place. I guess they also picketed the local YMCA, too. From what I've read (and I've posted some links just a bit earlier), I don't get the feeling that the Union was involved in the renovations at all. There was a flyer given out to any that wanted them (by those hired to hold the signs) that showed a rat in a house eating an American flag, meaning not hiring Union labor is eating away at America. Though the dealership hired a local construction company, a local architect, and employs locals, it's eating away at America.
That does seem a bit strange to me. While I won’t fault the union for sticking up for their own membership, I would still wonder if there’s something more behind the scenes that might be going on.
I would have thought someone here would have dug that up in defense of the union. That no one has, might indicate that there isn't much more going on (which does not mean there isn't anything else going on).
quote:
quote:
I understand why Unions were started. I sadly shake my head that business had us in position to need Unions. And, we did need Unions. But, the Unions of today don't stand for or do what the Unions originally stood for or did. And, that makes me sadly shake my head again.
Some of the original reasons unions were formed were made irrelevant by various government reforms, such as minimum wage laws, overtime laws, OSHA, and other such things that unions had been advocating for decades. Unions were instrumental to the cause of labor, so I would never dismiss their purpose or their enormous sacrifices and dedication to making better lives for American working men and women.
Business did not make it easy for them. Neither did government, for that matter. It was a violent, murderous time in our history, looking back at the early days of the labor movement. But it’s also a reflection on the history of business in this country and how far they’ve been willing to go for the sake of higher profits.
As for unions of today, I’m not so sure. I’ve never been asked to join a union in any job I’ve held, so the matter has never come up for me personally. In the past, I’ve worked in places which I thought might benefit from the workers being unionized, but most workers were afraid of getting fired. And there wasn’t anyone from any union coming around there anyway. My brother tried to get a job in construction in California when he was much younger, and he went to a company that was willing to hire him, but only if he joined the union first. So, he went down to the union hall to join up, but they wouldn’t let him join.
I am not dismissing the work unions originally did. I just don't believe their prior work and achievements justify their continued existence when they aren't serving the same purpose. Employee abuse has been reduced to a great extent because of unions. Getting defense against employee abuse codified has been a huge achievement for unions. But, now that employee abuse isn't as rampant, what's next?
quote:
It would be nice if unions were more all-inclusive and supported the benefit of all workers in this country, but they seem to operate more like exclusive little cliques and cadres – only concerned about themselves and to hell with the rest of America.
The local bus drivers here are represented by the Teamsters, and there have been a few strikes and stoppages over the years, as well as noticeable increases in fares. They’ve also been wanting to raise the fares for the poor and disabled, although they’re getting a lot of resistance on that. Essentially, their raises are paid for by gouging passengers who are worse off than they are. That’s what it’s come to these days.
"Buy American." That doesn't really mean "buy American." That means "buy Union." American made vehicles with foreign nameplates are sometimes even more "American" than vehicles with American nameplates. My Dad was looking at a Toyota and a Dodge. The Dodge dealer made the "foreign car" pitch. Dad hit it out of the park by noting the Toyota he was considering was actually built in America while the Dodge he was considering was built in Canada (note: that's not a disparagement of Canada, but a comment that Canada is not part of the USA), so buying the Dodge wasn't supporting Americans as much as buying the Toyota would be. The claim of the profits going to the country of the car company also gets lost as Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles are included in the "Buy American" campaign, yet are owned by Fiat, which is not in the USA.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Literally LOL'ed! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread