quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm going to go ahead and guess that the reason the City owns them is because no one else wants them. I'm sure the City would much rather have the property paying taxes (one of the things that blows people's minds 'round here is when the City and County raise a levy to increase spending on Metroparks, and continually increase the amount of land that is under their conservatorship; requires more money, and decreases the property taxes at the same time; and, it usually passes, because, in all honesty, we have very nice parks and they do a good job; the real question is whether or not they should continually increase the size of their holdings). It doesn't look good when you tout Toledo to business and they come to see the area and see boarded up buildings all through downtown.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Business is always going to look for the best deal for itself. That's business.

Businesses are also comprised of citizens, and citizens have obligations, too. Such as the obligation to follow the law. And since we live in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then business does not and should not get a pass here.

You'd rather they don't look for the best deal for themselves? You do realize, don't you, that business getting the best deal for itself will, generally, result in you getting a good deal for yourself, too, right?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Government, otoh, is supposed to uphold the laws. If a law isn't worth upholding, it should be repealed. Unless you are in favor of government ignoring the laws on the books and letting business do whatever it wants, you aren't being represented by the people elected to represent you.

That’s why I advocate change in how we do things in this country.

What change are you advocating that speaks to this point?

quote:


Have you not seen how price controls have failed? In reality?

quote:


Yep. The issue is about paying a living wage. It's not about them paying a living wage, but about others paying a living wage. For them to put their money where their mouths are, they would need to create companies and pay living wages. Instead, they just go and tell others what others need to do. It's not about what they, themselves, have to do.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I'm really shocked that you get this worked up over this.

Just like businesses get worked over proposals to raise the minimum wage or a few extra pennies in taxes?
Some 150 years ago, a bunch of business owners got all worked up and even started a Civil War because they thought the government was going to tell them they couldn’t own slaves. You don’t think that their malice and lies to the American people are not worth getting worked up over?

The government was telling them they weren't going to be able to own slaves.

quote:


It's not about "a few extra pennies in taxes," either. More like a few extra pennies per dollar.

quote:

quote:


Because people can’t afford to live on it. Quite frankly, wages need to be higher all across the board, not just minimum wage. Either that, or prices need to be lower.
Or…if neither of those options are acceptable to you, then the other option would be rethink the basis and philosophy of our country and civilization.

Most of the people "living on it" aren't really living on it. The largest age group earning at or below the minimum wage is 16-19 year olds. And, the group that earns less than minimum wage doesn't have their tips included, so they may be earning more than minimum wage all income considered. But, the BLS data doesn't include that stuff.

quote:


When that's the only thing argued, then, yes, there's something wrong with that.

quote:


It's not that we can't question what those bad things would be. It's that we don't have the right to tell them how to run their businesses. You don't have the right to tell them how much is enough. That's a benefit of owning your own business. You get to call those shots.

quote:


If "the rich" get richer, what does that matter? "The poor" continue to get more, too.

quote:


The standard of living has increased in the US greatly, including since Reagan.

quote:


Those who own and/or run the businesses are going to make more money. And, they should. So, why is it that surprising that the rich, who tend to own the businesses, keep getting richer?

quote:

No. We don't get to decide how much someone gets to make. We don't get to decide what profit margin is acceptable, nor do we get to decide what profit (dollar amount) is acceptable.

quote:


Coerced? So, Guy A can't stand up against Big Biz because he's afraid he'll lose his seat to Guy B, who is in Big Biz's pocket. You're rationalizing corruption because there is corruption. It's not okay for Guy A to accept bribes, even if it means he loses his seat. It's not okay for Guy B to accept bribes, either.

quote:

Businesses don't vote, though. People do, including people who run businesses.

quote:


And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

quote:


It is debatable as to whether or not they are still able to eat and live, in the long run (prices won't shoot up quite as quickly). The majority of individuals working for the minimum wage aren't out there supporting themselves, let alone families.

quote:

quote:

It’s not “what the job is worth.” It’s what somebody thinks the job is worth. That may not seem like a big difference, but it is.

Very true. It's what the person in charge of paying the wages thinks the job is worth.

quote:


The business community isn't going to riot if demand drops.

quote:

Actually, they were rioting in the UK because government increased the amount of schooling the student would have to bear (tripled it, I believe). In Greece and Spain, it was about government finally running out of money and could no longer maintain the entitlement spending, so austerity was put in place. It's true they could have imposed price controls, but how would that have worked out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

quote:

quote:

Business is always going to look for the best deal for itself. That's business.

Businesses are also comprised of citizens, and citizens have obligations, too. Such as the obligation to follow the law. And since we live in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then business does not and should not get a pass here.

You'd rather they don't look for the best deal for themselves? You do realize, don't you, that business getting the best deal for itself will, generally, result in you getting a good deal for yourself, too, right?

Not necessarily. I wouldn’t even say that it happens “generally,” either. I would say “sometimes.”

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Government, otoh, is supposed to uphold the laws. If a law isn't worth upholding, it should be repealed. Unless you are in favor of government ignoring the laws on the books and letting business do whatever it wants, you aren't being represented by the people elected to represent you.

That’s why I advocate change in how we do things in this country.

What change are you advocating that speaks to this point?

Well, as I’ve been saying, I think the problem is cultural, and this also includes the culture within government. I think they uphold some laws actually. Some people get caught and sent to prison (like Traficant, as we previously discussed), although doesn’t really seem to solve the problem overall. Or at least, it doesn’t appear to be much of a deterrent when one hears about the local government “losing” $230 million. It’s like that in cities all across the country, and then there’s the state and federal governments as well.
I might have a few ideas as to how to change things in this country, although they tend to revolve around the notion that We The People are the owners of the government. We keep talking about business owners, but in a very real sense, the government is a “business” that all of us own. One idea I’ve floated here and there is making each Cabinet post a separate elected position, and perhaps other non-Cabinet Executive Branch posts as well. Similar to the way states elect attorneys general, state treasurers, and other state-level posts separately from the gubernatorial election.

quote:

quote:

Have you not seen how price controls have failed? In reality?

In reality, have you not seen how price controls have succeeded? They were implemented during WW2 and helped stabilize the economy, which is what was so badly needed during that critical time. We were still technically in the Depression (although past the worst part of it). They didn’t have time to pussyfoot around with “the market” on certain critical matters, so wage and price controls were implemented (but not permanently and not very long). It was war.
It didn’t wreck our economy. It may have saved our economy. The policy was largely successful, as our economic and industrial output was a significant factor in contributing to the Allied victory. In the aftermath, Americans enjoyed an unprecedented period of boom and prosperity, with our standard of living growing by leaps and bounds.
True, I remember you’ve previously cited instances where price controls failed, although that can be said of anything, I suppose. Any policy can sometimes be successful or sometimes be a failure. It just depends on who implements it and how they do it.

quote:

quote:

Yep. The issue is about paying a living wage. It's not about them paying a living wage, but about others paying a living wage. For them to put their money where their mouths are, they would need to create companies and pay living wages. Instead, they just go and tell others what others need to do. It's not about what they, themselves, have to do.

There are some liberal business owners out there who do that. However, they also know that if workers don’t get a living wage and don’t have enough for the basic necessities of life (which get more and more expensive every day), then “someone” is going to end up paying for it one way or the other. People qualify for food stamps even if they’re still working and don’t make enough money.
Of course, society can always cut them off and leave them to starve, which would also have consequences, such as a potential increase in crime, where that aforementioned “someone” will also have to pay for more law enforcement and prison space. Not to mention the opportunity costs which come from social decay.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Because people can’t afford to live on it. Quite frankly, wages need to be higher all across the board, not just minimum wage. Either that, or prices need to be lower.
Or…if neither of those options are acceptable to you, then the other option would be rethink the basis and philosophy of our country and civilization.

Most of the people "living on it" aren't really living on it. The largest age group earning at or below the minimum wage is 16-19 year olds. And, the group that earns less than minimum wage doesn't have their tips included, so they may be earning more than minimum wage all income considered. But, the BLS data doesn't include that stuff.

Not all 16-19 year olds are necessarily living at home just working a job for pocket money. Some are in a more precarious and risky situation. Their parents may also work at a crappy job at a crappy wage. The parents themselves might be crappy (which is another can of worms altogether). The schools may also be crappy (many of them are).

quote:

quote:

It's not that we can't question what those bad things would be. It's that we don't have the right to tell them how to run their businesses. You don't have the right to tell them how much is enough. That's a benefit of owning your own business. You get to call those shots.

But they still have to live in this country, don’t they? They’re not in their own private sovereign domain. It might be something analogous to a homeowners’ association. Yes, you own your own home and call the shots, but you can’t have a bunch of trash and vehicles up on blocks in your front yard. That would be an eyesore, bad for the neighborhood, bring down property values, and even diminish the reputation of the community.
Likewise, no one is telling anyone how to run their businesses, but they can’t fuck up their neighborhood, community, or country. There are reasonable limits which can be set. I respect property rights, but that’s not the same thing as absolute sovereignty, especially when the lives of other people are involved. Obviously, the small businesses are at a lower level and individual proprietors’ decisions may not affect a lot of people. But at the higher corporate levels, the decisions and attitudes of those at the top can affect a great number of people.

quote:

quote:

If "the rich" get richer, what does that matter? "The poor" continue to get more, too.

Again, it’s not an automatic, sure thing. There have been times where the poor get less. In fact, real wages have been pretty much stagnant since the 1970s. As I mentioned before, just to keep up with the cost of living, the minimum wage should already be over $10 an hour by now. Since it’s not, then you may wish to reconsider your analysis.

quote:

quote:

The standard of living has increased in the US greatly, including since Reagan.

I’m not so sure of that. It may have created the illusion of wealth based on borrowed money and creative financing. But that’s more akin to an artificially-induced high, not a genuine improvement in living standards. If you look at real wages, the relative standard of living has actually gone down since the early 1970s.
That’s when inflation started getting out of control, industries were shutting down/laying off, oil prices were quadrupled. We never really did recover from that. Reagan’s “recovery” was artificial, creating a bubble economy which has been in the process of bursting these past few years.

quote:

quote:

Those who own and/or run the businesses are going to make more money. And, they should. So, why is it that surprising that the rich, who tend to own the businesses, keep getting richer?

It’s the gap between rich and poor which is the larger concern, as well as the diminishment of the middle class. A large middle class is absolutely essential to the strength, stability, and safety of our nation (or any nation, for that matter). The reason why “third world” countries are what they are is because their middle class is too small. They have a few rich people at the top, a lot of poor people at the bottom, and very little in between. Is that what you want for the U.S.?

quote:

quote:

No. We don't get to decide how much someone gets to make. We don't get to decide what profit margin is acceptable, nor do we get to decide what profit (dollar amount) is acceptable.

You seem very adamant about this. Do you see any room for compromise on any of these points? Are you aware of the potential consequences to America if business refuses to compromise on anything?
One thing I’ll say about politicians: At least they’re willing to compromise and negotiate some of the time. After all, we don’t live under a dictatorship.
But from what you’re saying here, you suggest that business must never ever compromise no matter what. Given what we’ve seen from business in terms of their general character and personality, that’s their apparent philosophy. They act like petty tyrants over their own domains just because they can, yet have the audacity to whine about “tyranny” if the government taxes them or interferes in their business. And they’ve gotten so used to getting their way for so long that they can conceive of any other way than acting like spoiled children with an overinflated sense of entitlement.
This is part of the culture of which I speak, and this is part of what will have to change if we’re ever to recover from this mess.

quote:

quote:

Coerced? So, Guy A can't stand up against Big Biz because he's afraid he'll lose his seat to Guy B, who is in Big Biz's pocket. You're rationalizing corruption because there is corruption. It's not okay for Guy A to accept bribes, even if it means he loses his seat. It's not okay for Guy B to accept bribes, either.

Both A and B would be facing the same situation. But then there might be Guy C who wouldn’t take a bribe and would be willing to take the heat. (“Mr. Smith”)
He might find a lot of negative press and various people saying bad things about him. The question is, will the electorate disbelieve and reject the media and still support Guy C as the honest, incorruptible politician he is? (Keep in mind that the media will say he’s dishonest and could even fabricate evidence which might suggest he’s guilty of something.)
Will the people continue to stand behind Guy C no matter what they hear in the press? If not, then we may have identified a significant part of the problem.

quote:

quote:

Businesses don't vote, though. People do, including people who run businesses.

Businesses send money to political campaigns, political action committees, sponsor local and national media (thus influencing their content and the flow of information). As the saying goes, “follow the money.”

quote:

quote:

And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

And they’ll still need food, shelter, medical care, etc. Human needs don’t stop just because an accountant gets a headache.

quote:

quote:

It is debatable as to whether or not they are still able to eat and live, in the long run (prices won't shoot up quite as quickly). The majority of individuals working for the minimum wage aren't out there supporting themselves, let alone families.

So, should there be a separate wage structure based on whether workers have families to support or not?

quote:

quote:

quote:

It’s not “what the job is worth.” It’s what somebody thinks the job is worth. That may not seem like a big difference, but it is.

Very true. It's what the person in charge of paying the wages thinks the job is worth.

And that’s where a large part of the disagreement emanates from. Such disagreements have led to strikes, work stoppages, lockouts – and even violent, deadly riots from time to time in our history.
I guess that’s why I get a bit bristled by a certain cavalier attitude from the business community on this matter. Their track record when it comes to determining what they “think” a job is worth has been fraught with upheaval and discord over the course of history. At the very least, if they’re going to presume to reach some sort of mathematical conclusion, then they should at least have to show their work.

quote:

quote:

The business community isn't going to riot if demand drops.

Perhaps not “riot” in the conventional sense, although they’ve been known to engineer a military coup here and there in various spots around the world. When there have been revolutions, the business community might help finance counter-revolutionary activities.
These people are not choir boys.

quote:

quote:

Actually, they were rioting in the UK because government increased the amount of schooling the student would have to bear (tripled it, I believe). In Greece and Spain, it was about government finally running out of money and could no longer maintain the entitlement spending, so austerity was put in place. It's true they could have imposed price controls, but how would that have worked out?

Uncertain, although perhaps there might have been less rioting. People riot because they’re angry and afraid. They’re afraid of the future, and they’re angry that the government and business community haven’t given any satisfactory assurances that they even know what they’re doing or have any ideas as to how they’re going to get out of this mess.
Also, in the history of these countries, there were times when the lower classes were viewed as “peasants,” subject to cruel and unusual punishments at the whimsy of their upper class “lords.” Even in the industrial era, they would work long hours at horrible wages (because someone “thought” that’s what their job was worth). Sounds of beatings, screams, and crying could be heard from factories late into the night. This is part of their collective historical memory (and some of their descendents brought those memories here to America, too, so it’s part of our memory now).
How can I make it any clearer? People don’t want to go back to those days again! And based on the cavalier, malicious attitudes demonstrated by business in recent years (“just because they can”), some people feel they can’t be trusted, that they’re a malignancy in society and a grave threat to our civilization.

quote:

Honestly, I don’t really want to roll over business. But from what you’re telling me, the business community seems dead set on just doing whatever they want to do, just because they can. As you say, it’s their business, and they get to call the shots. But it’s our country. The People get to call the shots. And if the People demand and elect a government which raises the minimum wage, raises taxes, etc., then that’s what we’ll get.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html

quote:


Yet, if the liberals that opine for a "living wage" were to start their businesses and offer a living wage, they would have no problems finding adequate applicants for every position they want to fill. They would, you would have to imagine, be able to market their company as one that pays a living wage, to help gain customers for their products. Not only would they likely be able to cherry pick the best of the best from other companies, those other companies would have pressure to increase their wages to compete for talent.

Personally, I have no issue with wages going up. I take issue with the manner in which they go up. The Market organically raising wages is my preference, rather than government edict. Liberals tend towards government edict.

quote:


I would guesstimate the number of 16-19 year olds you're talking about isn't very high, meaning we're talking about making a change that will impact many based on a very small data set. That's not really a good way to go about it, is it?

quote:


No, you don't have the authority to tell a business how much profit is enough.

quote:


The Market will do that, if allowed. You don't have the authority to tell someone they have made enough money. You can decide those things for yourself.

quote:

You're saying the economic bubble that caused the 2008 Great Recession was started by Reagan?

quote:

Did he have a hand in passing the CRA in 1973 that started the shift towards reductions in mortgage standards leading to higher risk mortgages, too?

quote:


Reagan isn't blameless, imo. But, he still oversaw plenty of credit expansion and loose monetary policy, as did Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

quote:


Again, you don't get to define what is enough or too much.

quote:


It isn't a zero sum game, either. A businessman expands his business and employment and his business' income grows, and, if he's lucky, so does his profit margin. Was he the only one to gain? He may have gained more than anyone else, but he still employed more people. They gained, too.

quote:

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.
…

Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.
Experienced economist: "If you eat it I'll give you $20,000!"
Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he's better off eating it so he does and collects money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit.
Not so experienced economist: "Now, if YOU eat this shit I'll give YOU $20,000."
After evaluating the proposal experienced economist eats shit getting the money.
They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: "Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don't see us being better off."
Experienced economist: "Well, that's true, but you overlooked the fact that we've been just involved in $40,000 of trade."

quote:


I disagree with your interpretation of why Third World countries are Third World countries. They are, in part, that way because of the ruling class abusing the ruled class and corruption. That was part of the issue with the condition of Haitians that came to light after the 2010 earthquake. For a country so small, the US has sent huge amounts of money to help it, yet they live in relative squalor. The aid that went for Haitians only went for the ruling Haitians, and was used to improve their lives, rather than the lives of all Haitians. That truth is another reason I tend to oppose foreign aid in the form of money, preferring, rather, to extend economic aid as specific projects (ie. desalination plants to increase/improve water supplies to areas that need it).

quote:


Of course they have to compromise. But, that's a Market force, not a governmental force.

quote:


A business can charge whatever it wants for its products and plan for whatever profit margin it wants. But, the trade off, is that the higher the price and the greater the profit margin, the more competition it's going to face for market share. If prices and profits are too high, they'll signal the Market and more money will come in to compete for those profits, leading to lower prices. WalMart coming in and lowering prices on brand named goods hurt many chains' sales. But, WalMart is facing competition today they didn't have to face before. Why? Profits were enough that competition arose to get some for itself. I applaud that. It will lead to benefit for more people, across socioeconomic lines.

quote:

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, a practical economist, and an old drunk are walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill. Who gets it? The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures.
…

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

quote:


The people will, if they care to find out the truth.

quote:


Yep. And, when government hands out money, you must follow that, too. I have long advocated for separating Big Biz from Big Gov. I still think the best way to do that is to reduce the amount of control of the Federal government, so there is less benefit for Big Biz to buy it. It's apparent that we're not likely to vote "Mr. Smith's" into office.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

And they’ll still need food, shelter, medical care, etc. Human needs don’t stop just because an accountant gets a headache.

But, won't those people be making enough, if the minimum wage is $50/hr.?

quote:


Wage structure? Nope. But, people who are supporting families should work to earn jobs that pay enough to support families.

quote:

quote:


And that’s where a large part of the disagreement emanates from. Such disagreements have led to strikes, work stoppages, lockouts – and even violent, deadly riots from time to time in our history.
I guess that’s why I get a bit bristled by a certain cavalier attitude from the business community on this matter. Their track record when it comes to determining what they “think” a job is worth has been fraught with upheaval and discord over the course of history. At the very least, if they’re going to presume to reach some sort of mathematical conclusion, then they should at least have to show their work.

Their work is largely ignored, though. The work it took to build that business (which they certainly did build) is ignored. The sacrifices they took. The risks they dared face. All that stuff is ignored.

quote:


No one stated they are. What does business do when demand drops?

quote:


You are taking a page out of the liberal playbook (which is not me calling you a liberal) scaremongering that removing a policy will automatically lead to the situation the policy was enacted to get rid of.

quote:


Look at the Union debates. All the horrors (and there were horrors) of the pre-Union era are trotted out when there is anti-Union talk. Yet, most of those horrors are part of US code and not reliant upon Unions anymore.

quote:


There is no going back to that era and those abuses, even if Unions were heretofore abolished. Plus, having been through those times, I contend that we have learned at least a little something to prevent that from happening again.

quote:


And, we will have to live with the results of those actions. Hell, we already are living with the results of those actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html

Well, of course, conservative economists would be against price controls. Their arguments and overall position are based totally on self-interest, which is why anything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt. Lower prices means less money for business, and that’s why they’re against it.

quote:

quote:

Yet, if the liberals that opine for a "living wage" were to start their businesses and offer a living wage, they would have no problems finding adequate applicants for every position they want to fill. They would, you would have to imagine, be able to market their company as one that pays a living wage, to help gain customers for their products. Not only would they likely be able to cherry pick the best of the best from other companies, those other companies would have pressure to increase their wages to compete for talent.
Personally, I have no issue with wages going up. I take issue with the manner in which they go up. The Market organically raising wages is my preference, rather than government edict. Liberals tend towards government edict.

Perhaps, but liberals tend to be closer to center/moderate positions than anything really leftist or socialist. An honest, objective look at the political spectrum would have U.S. liberals and conservatives closer to each other than not. Yet, it only seems that they’re distant because of (mostly) manufactured political rhetoric.
It’s never been totally one way or the other in the United States. We have a balance between the free market and measured government edicts when deemed necessary. Over the course of history, we’ve learned that such things are necessary.

quote:

quote:

I would guesstimate the number of 16-19 year olds you're talking about isn't very high, meaning we're talking about making a change that will impact many based on a very small data set. That's not really a good way to go about it, is it?

So, then, why is youth unemployment even an issue at all? Your point has been that the minimum wage hurts youth looking for work, but other than the “small data set” we’re talking about, these youth ostensibly don’t even need work. If the issue is for them to gain job skills and experience, then there’s plenty of volunteer work available.

quote:

quote:

No, you don't have the authority to tell a business how much profit is enough.

I never said that I do.

quote:

quote:

The Market will do that, if allowed. You don't have the authority to tell someone they have made enough money. You can decide those things for yourself.

Of course, I don’t have the authority. I don’t see why you keep making these “you don’t have the authority to tell a business…” when I’m not telling them anything, nor am I even advocating that.

quote:

quote:

You're saying the economic bubble that caused the 2008 Great Recession was started by Reagan?

Not in 2008.

quote:

quote:

Reagan isn't blameless, imo. But, he still oversaw plenty of credit expansion and loose monetary policy, as did Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Reagan and Greenspan implemented a number of far-reaching changes to how things are done in this country. A large part of it was justified by the same arguments and positions you’re taking now, which is why I’ve been resistant to what you’re saying. Reagan was a huge fan of free market economics, outsourcing, deficit spending, deregulation, privatization – the whole fiscal conservative package that led us to the dead-end we’re at now – a non-productive country swimming in red ink.
I blame Democrats for not doing enough to challenge it, and some Democrats (like NAFTA-supporting Clinton) went along with it. The country is hurting now because of it.

quote:

quote:

Again, you don't get to define what is enough or too much.

I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I can or can’t do.

quote:

quote:

It isn't a zero sum game, either. A businessman expands his business and employment and his business' income grows, and, if he's lucky, so does his profit margin. Was he the only one to gain? He may have gained more than anyone else, but he still employed more people. They gained, too.

Did I ever share with you the economics jokes?

quote:

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.
…
Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.
Experienced economist: "If you eat it I'll give you $20,000!"
Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he's better off eating it so he does and collects money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit.
Not so experienced economist: "Now, if YOU eat this shit I'll give YOU $20,000."
After evaluating the proposal experienced economist eats shit getting the money.
They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: "Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don't see us being better off."
Experienced economist: "Well, that's true, but you overlooked the fact that we've been just involved in $40,000 of trade."

quote:

quote:

I disagree with your interpretation of why Third World countries are Third World countries. They are, in part, that way because of the ruling class abusing the ruled class and corruption. That was part of the issue with the condition of Haitians that came to light after the 2010 earthquake. For a country so small, the US has sent huge amounts of money to help it, yet they live in relative squalor. The aid that went for Haitians only went for the ruling Haitians, and was used to improve their lives, rather than the lives of all Haitians. That truth is another reason I tend to oppose foreign aid in the form of money, preferring, rather, to extend economic aid as specific projects (ie. desalination plants to increase/improve water supplies to areas that need it).

And the reason the ruling class was able to do that was because they could. There was nothing to stop them. There was no middle class to bring about political stability. This is the logical result of the economic system you’re advocating. You yourself said that businesses want to get the best deal, to maximize their profits, and (as you keep beating me over the head with this) nobody gets to say how much it should be or whether it’s enough. So, that’s exactly what the ruling class in that country did.
Such abuse happens when there are no safeguards or checks and balances to prevent it.

quote:

quote:

Of course they have to compromise. But, that's a Market force, not a governmental force.

You speak of “market force” and “government force” like they’re two different planets. Respectfully, I think that’s an erroneous way of looking at it.

quote:

quote:

A business can charge whatever it wants for its products and plan for whatever profit margin it wants. But, the trade off, is that the higher the price and the greater the profit margin, the more competition it's going to face for market share. If prices and profits are too high, they'll signal the Market and more money will come in to compete for those profits, leading to lower prices. WalMart coming in and lowering prices on brand named goods hurt many chains' sales. But, WalMart is facing competition today they didn't have to face before. Why? Profits were enough that competition arose to get some for itself. I applaud that. It will lead to benefit for more people, across socioeconomic lines.

Yeah, I see what you’re saying, and all of this is correct. But I still think you’re missing the forest through the trees.
Time for another economist joke:

quote:

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, a practical economist, and an old drunk are walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill. Who gets it? The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures.
…
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"

quote:

quote:

The people will, if they care to find out the truth.

Maybe, but it’s generally much easier for all concerned if they care to find out the truth sooner than later.

quote:

quote:

Yep. And, when government hands out money, you must follow that, too. I have long advocated for separating Big Biz from Big Gov. I still think the best way to do that is to reduce the amount of control of the Federal government, so there is less benefit for Big Biz to buy it. It's apparent that we're not likely to vote "Mr. Smith's" into office.

Reducing the amount of control of the federal government would necessarily entail increasing the amount of control the People have over the federal government. Best way to rein in government is to give more power to the People.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

And they’ll still need food, shelter, medical care, etc. Human needs don’t stop just because an accountant gets a headache.

But, won't those people be making enough, if the minimum wage is $50/hr.?

Presumably, as long as prices stay under control.

quote:

quote:

Wage structure? Nope. But, people who are supporting families should work to earn jobs that pay enough to support families.

It’s easy to say what people should do, isn’t it?

quote:

quote:

quote:

And that’s where a large part of the disagreement emanates from. Such disagreements have led to strikes, work stoppages, lockouts – and even violent, deadly riots from time to time in our history.
I guess that’s why I get a bit bristled by a certain cavalier attitude from the business community on this matter. Their track record when it comes to determining what they “think” a job is worth has been fraught with upheaval and discord over the course of history. At the very least, if they’re going to presume to reach some sort of mathematical conclusion, then they should at least have to show their work.

Their work is largely ignored, though. The work it took to build that business (which they certainly did build) is ignored. The sacrifices they took. The risks they dared face. All that stuff is ignored.

Ignored? In what way? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

quote:

Earlier we were talking about businesses being in it solely for the money, yet here, you’re talking about them like they’re white knights – making sacrifices, taking risks, saving damsels in distress. Let’s at least try to stay on the ground, shall we?
And, point of order: It’s not strictly true that the person deciding how much a job is worth is the same exact person who actually built up the business, made the sacrifices, and took all the risks. For many big businesses today, those who actually started and built the business have long since been dead.
What we’re dealing with mainly today are the inheritors, the spoiled brats who had everything handed to them and never did a hard day’s work in their lives. They took no risks, made no sacrifices, and built absolutely nothing.
And when we’re talking about the corporate world, the person deciding how much a job is worth is likely not the person who sacrificed and risked to build the company either. It’s probably some bureaucratic mole whose “hands are tied” and who “would like to help but can’t.”
All the inspirational speeches and heroic epics surrounding capitalism and the free market are put into perspective when faced with some spineless, paper-pushing sycophant with the personality of an adding machine.

quote:

quote:

No one stated they are. What does business do when demand drops?

It depends on which business and the circumstances. They could cut supply, reduce prices, advertise to generate more demand, use creative marketing techniques, and possibly other options which might be open to them.

quote:

quote:

You are taking a page out of the liberal playbook (which is not me calling you a liberal) scaremongering that removing a policy will automatically lead to the situation the policy was enacted to get rid of.

It’s not exactly out of the liberal playbook, though. I’m not trying to scaremonger, either. I just think we should pay heed to history. All of these social programs and governmental edicts which you oppose were put in there for a reason.
And this situation still exists in other countries, where working conditions are rather horrid.

quote:

I don’t really see how “liberal” fits into this, especially when considering situations of such abject cruelty and malice illustrating yet another example of man’s inhumanity to man. I know many conservatives who would be just as outraged at such abuses and atrocities, but then again, they may not be very proactive or go out of their way to look for such things either.

quote:

In a way, perhaps liberals and conservatives share a similar fault. Conservatives tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to business and the free market, just as they view that liberals tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to the government.

quote:

quote:

Look at the Union debates. All the horrors (and there were horrors) of the pre-Union era are trotted out when there is anti-Union talk. Yet, most of those horrors are part of US code and not reliant upon Unions anymore.

True enough, although being part of the US code, that means they’re reliant upon “Big Bad Gov.” If unions are no longer able/willing to protect workers, then government is all they really have. Yet, if you take government out of the equation and separate them from business (which is what you’re advocating), doesn’t that leave a huge potential for abuse?

quote:

quote:

There is no going back to that era and those abuses, even if Unions were heretofore abolished. Plus, having been through those times, I contend that we have learned at least a little something to prevent that from happening again.

There are no real guarantees with anything. I don’t think it will revert to as bad as it was back then either. But a possible way to prevent abuses is to have an aware, informed, and active electorate to be watchful and vigilant of any and all powerful institutions in society, whether it’s government, business, religion, media, etc.
I’d like to think that we’ve learned at least a little something, true, but it would have been nice if we had learned a little more.

quote:

quote:

And, we will have to live with the results of those actions. Hell, we already are living with the results of those actions.

Yes, but we seem to disagree as to which actions have led to the unfortunate results we are now facing. All of what we’re facing now has been predicted and warned against for decades. We always knew that the Day of Reckoning would come, but now that it’s upon us, people are acting as if it’s something Obama did all by himself.

• It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
  
  
• Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
  
  -- H.L. Mencken

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, there is the whole idea of prices going down over time for the same product and all. Plus, when there is over-supply or under-demand, the desired response is for lower prices. But, go on...

quote:

quote:


Perhaps, but liberals tend to be closer to center/moderate positions than anything really leftist or socialist. An honest, objective look at the political spectrum would have U.S. liberals and conservatives closer to each other than not. Yet, it only seems that they’re distant because of (mostly) manufactured political rhetoric.
It’s never been totally one way or the other in the United States. We have a balance between the free market and measured government edicts when deemed necessary. Over the course of history, we’ve learned that such things are necessary.

There is disagreement on what is and what isn't necessary. And, the "measured" part is more along the lines of "how much can I get away with before the population turns on me."

quote:

quote:

quote:

I would guesstimate the number of 16-19 year olds you're talking about isn't very high, meaning we're talking about making a change that will impact many based on a very small data set. That's not really a good way to go about it, is it?

So, then, why is youth unemployment even an issue at all? Your point has been that the minimum wage hurts youth looking for work, but other than the “small data set” we’re talking about, these youth ostensibly don’t even need work. If the issue is for them to gain job skills and experience, then there’s plenty of volunteer work available.

It's an issue because it doesn't have to be inflated due to government edict. It's even worse among minority youth. And, the "very small data set" would be 16-19 year olds that are working for pocket money and living at their parents home. It's not all 16-19 year olds.

quote:


So, why do people who are trying to support a family (even if it's just a couple without kids) accept minimum wage jobs?

quote:

quote:

quote:

No, you don't have the authority to tell a business how much profit is enough.

I never said that I do.

Sure you are. You've argued that raising the minimum wage doesn't have to increase prices. How else is that going to be accomplished?

quote:


You've asked "how much is enough?" with the subject as business profits, too. That implies you think they are making too much in profits. Ergo, you are trying to tell business how much is enough.

quote:

quote:

quote:

The Market will do that, if allowed. You don't have the authority to tell someone they have made enough money. You can decide those things for yourself.

Of course, I don’t have the authority. I don’t see why you keep making these “you don’t have the authority to tell a business…” when I’m not telling them anything, nor am I even advocating that.

But, you are. The whole "a few more pennies in tax" and stuff like that. That is saying that these people are making too much money.

quote:


Why did Reagan deficit spend? It wasn't because he reduced taxes. He raised taxes because Congress (primarily Republican) didn't cut spending like they were supposed to.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Again, you don't get to define what is enough or too much.

I would appreciate it if you would stop telling me what I can or can’t do.

I would appreciate if you'd stop presuming to have the authority to tell others what is enough or too much for them.

quote:

quote:

quote:

It isn't a zero sum game, either. A businessman expands his business and employment and his business' income grows, and, if he's lucky, so does his profit margin. Was he the only one to gain? He may have gained more than anyone else, but he still employed more people. They gained, too.

Did I ever share with you the economics jokes?

None of that actually pertains to the comment you were supposedly responding to.

quote:

quote:


And the reason the ruling class was able to do that was because they could. There was nothing to stop them. There was no middle class to bring about political stability. This is the logical result of the economic system you’re advocating. You yourself said that businesses want to get the best deal, to maximize their profits, and (as you keep beating me over the head with this) nobody gets to say how much it should be or whether it’s enough. So, that’s exactly what the ruling class in that country did.
Such abuse happens when there are no safeguards or checks and balances to prevent it.

Yet, we keep just sending money in, don't we? We were sending money in to aid those countries because they are impoverished. The aid was supposed to change their plight. But, it didn't. Yet, ATM USA keeps on churning, doesn't it?

quote:


When did the US's Middle Class show up?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Of course they have to compromise. But, that's a Market force, not a governmental force.

You speak of “market force” and “government force” like they’re two different planets. Respectfully, I think that’s an erroneous way of looking at it.

Show me how they aren't, then.

quote:


Then show me.

quote:


Yeppers. Oooohhhhh... just had a crazy thought. How about we place limitations on government, so that it can't just grow and grow and grow in both size and power? If only there was something we could put on paper to provide a framework for what that would look like...

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

And they’ll still need food, shelter, medical care, etc. Human needs don’t stop just because an accountant gets a headache.

But, won't those people be making enough, if the minimum wage is $50/hr.?

Presumably, as long as prices stay under control.

Why would prices rise?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Wage structure? Nope. But, people who are supporting families should work to earn jobs that pay enough to support families.

It’s easy to say what people should do, isn’t it?

It's easy when it's completely logical. I bet most kids could get to that answer.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And that’s where a large part of the disagreement emanates from. Such disagreements have led to strikes, work stoppages, lockouts – and even violent, deadly riots from time to time in our history.
I guess that’s why I get a bit bristled by a certain cavalier attitude from the business community on this matter. Their track record when it comes to determining what they “think” a job is worth has been fraught with upheaval and discord over the course of history. At the very least, if they’re going to presume to reach some sort of mathematical conclusion, then they should at least have to show their work.

Their work is largely ignored, though. The work it took to build that business (which they certainly did build) is ignored. The sacrifices they took. The risks they dared face. All that stuff is ignored.

Ignored? In what way? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

"You didn't build that."

quote:


The hard work that went into it might be done, but it can all be for naught pretty damn quick, too. How many chain stores have been successful and then died?

quote:


All the "spoiled brats" are living off the hard work of their forebears, and that's the way it should be, if that's their choice. If I make it rich, am I not allowed to determine what I do with my wealth? Am I not allowed to decide what happens to my wealth when I pass?

quote:

quote:

quote:

No one stated they are. What does business do when demand drops?

It depends on which business and the circumstances. They could cut supply, reduce prices, advertise to generate more demand, use creative marketing techniques, and possibly other options which might be open to them.

Yet, why can't a person do the same for him/herself? Perhaps because individuals are limited in what they can do as a response? You know, they can't even "reduce prices" below some government-defined number.

quote:

quote:

quote:

You are taking a page out of the liberal playbook (which is not me calling you a liberal) scaremongering that removing a policy will automatically lead to the situation the policy was enacted to get rid of.

It’s not exactly out of the liberal playbook, though. I’m not trying to scaremonger, either. I just think we should pay heed to history. All of these social programs and governmental edicts which you oppose were put in there for a reason.
And this situation still exists in other countries, where working conditions are rather horrid.

The conditions in other countries is a bit outside the authority of the US government and the US population.

quote:

quote:

I don’t really see how “liberal” fits into this, especially when considering situations of such abject cruelty and malice illustrating yet another example of man’s inhumanity to man. I know many conservatives who would be just as outraged at such abuses and atrocities, but then again, they may not be very proactive or go out of their way to look for such things either.

Really? You don't see how this action is exactly what liberals do damn near every time one of their pet projects or sacred cows is challenged? How many times have I been accused of wanting to go back to pre-Union conditions because I don't support the current actions of Unions? The liberals scaremonger over returning to the early 1960's if the CRA of 1965 is repealed, as if the only reason there has been any change in racial acceptance is because of the continued existence of the CRA.

quote:

quote:

In a way, perhaps liberals and conservatives share a similar fault. Conservatives tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to business and the free market, just as they view that liberals tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to the government.

Actually, it's about government letting the individual choose for him/herself.

quote:


Nope. Government is allowed to put in regulations, but it those regulations shouldn't result in harming the individuals it's meant to help. If the consumer is going to end up being harmed (not necessarily physically) by an action that isn't drastically outweighed by the benefit of the action, it shouldn't be done.

quote:


Plus, most government actions end up requiring more government action to deal with the unintended consequences of that action.

quote:

quote:

quote:

There is no going back to that era and those abuses, even if Unions were heretofore abolished. Plus, having been through those times, I contend that we have learned at least a little something to prevent that from happening again.

There are no real guarantees with anything. I don’t think it will revert to as bad as it was back then either. But a possible way to prevent abuses is to have an aware, informed, and active electorate to be watchful and vigilant of any and all powerful institutions in society, whether it’s government, business, religion, media, etc.
I’d like to think that we’ve learned at least a little something, true, but it would have been nice if we had learned a little more.

And, I contend we will continue to learn. That doesn't mean we still need some of those things to learn more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, there is the whole idea of prices going down over time for the same product and all. Plus, when there is over-supply or under-demand, the desired response is for lower prices. But, go on...

They may lower prices as a form of salvage, but (as we both apparently agree) it’s not something that they want to do. We both agreed that they want to make more money and have higher profits, so their natural tendency will be to raise prices as high as they can possibly go without losing the market completely. If they shoot too high, then they’ll be overstocked, at which point they’ll need to run a “clearance sale” to make people think that they’re getting a deal on things which should have been priced lower in the first place.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Perhaps, but liberals tend to be closer to center/moderate positions than anything really leftist or socialist. An honest, objective look at the political spectrum would have U.S. liberals and conservatives closer to each other than not. Yet, it only seems that they’re distant because of (mostly) manufactured political rhetoric.
It’s never been totally one way or the other in the United States. We have a balance between the free market and measured government edicts when deemed necessary. Over the course of history, we’ve learned that such things are necessary.

There is disagreement on what is and what isn't necessary. And, the "measured" part is more along the lines of "how much can I get away with before the population turns on me."

Isn’t that what business people do, too? As much as they can “get away with”? I would say that it’s best that the People watch both business and government and not let them get away with anything. The only reason for giving the government the upper hand over business is because the People have the ability to exercise more direct control over government than they do over business.
Seriously, do you actually believe that anything the U.S. government has done (in regards to business) has really been all that “excessive” or “unnecessary”? Even the minimum wage seems like small potatoes when you really look at it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I would guesstimate the number of 16-19 year olds you're talking about isn't very high, meaning we're talking about making a change that will impact many based on a very small data set. That's not really a good way to go about it, is it?

So, then, why is youth unemployment even an issue at all? Your point has been that the minimum wage hurts youth looking for work, but other than the “small data set” we’re talking about, these youth ostensibly don’t even need work. If the issue is for them to gain job skills and experience, then there’s plenty of volunteer work available.

It's an issue because it doesn't have to be inflated due to government edict. It's even worse among minority youth. And, the "very small data set" would be 16-19 year olds that are working for pocket money and living at their parents home. It's not all 16-19 year olds.

quote:

quote:

So, why do people who are trying to support a family (even if it's just a couple without kids) accept minimum wage jobs?

Because some people feel compelled to take whatever jobs they can get. Or maybe because they’re too proud for welfare, perhaps? Sometimes, it might mean working 2 or 3 jobs.
I often wonder why people from Central America traverse long distances, trek through harsh deserts, and go through utter hell just to get here and work jobs that pay even less than minimum wage. I can’t give an answer to every question you might ask me, but I can see the underside of global capitalism – and it just ain’t the neat, pretty picture that you’re trying to draw here.

quote:

quote:

Why did Reagan deficit spend? It wasn't because he reduced taxes. He raised taxes because Congress (primarily Republican) didn't cut spending like they were supposed to.

It wasn’t just deficit spending, although that was a large part of it. It was also the outsourcing, deregulation, and the push towards globalism which put us in this direction. The trade deficit has also been a major problem. Foreign policy and how the government deals with any social issues can also affect the economy indirectly, so it’s also not just a matter of tax or fiscal policies of the Administration.

quote:

Didn’t you like the jokes?

quote:

One of the jokes was a direct response to what you wrote about the so-called “gain” you were mentioning. Reread the joke about the experienced and not-so-experienced economist walking down the road.

quote:

quote:

quote:

And the reason the ruling class was able to do that was because they could. There was nothing to stop them. There was no middle class to bring about political stability. This is the logical result of the economic system you’re advocating. You yourself said that businesses want to get the best deal, to maximize their profits, and (as you keep beating me over the head with this) nobody gets to say how much it should be or whether it’s enough. So, that’s exactly what the ruling class in that country did.
Such abuse happens when there are no safeguards or checks and balances to prevent it.

Yet, we keep just sending money in, don't we? We were sending money in to aid those countries because they are impoverished. The aid was supposed to change their plight. But, it didn't. Yet, ATM USA keeps on churning, doesn't it?

Yes, that’s what our government continues to do.

quote:


When did the US's Middle Class show up?

I was referring to the lack of a middle class in Haiti as to reason why their economy is so unstable and impoverished. I wasn’t referring to the U.S. middle class.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Of course they have to compromise. But, that's a Market force, not a governmental force.

You speak of “market force” and “government force” like they’re two different planets. Respectfully, I think that’s an erroneous way of looking at it.

Show me how they aren't, then.

“Market force” = Citizens making choices at the market
“Government force” = Citizens making choices at the polls
The common thread is that the same people in society are the ones making the choices, whether it’s at the market or at election time.
The private sector and public sector come into contact with each other and overlap frequently, so it’s not as if they’re completely separate from each other. Those who work in government might have worked in the private sector at one time, and vice versa. They’re all multiply-connected to each other – citizens/consumers, government, business. Religion and government try to stay separate in accordance with the Constitution

quote:

quote:

Then show me.

What I’ve been trying to say is that it seems as if you view economics in a theoretical vacuum. Your various points are correct to a point, but only when presented in neat, compartmentalized little pictures.
At one time, the subject of “economics” was called “political economy,” which makes more sense actually. It’s a social science, not a hard science, yet you speak of it as if it is. A lot of economists do that, too, so you’re not alone. They speak of their subject as if it has the conclusiveness of scientific laws.
You say that you want to separate economics from politics, but economics IS politics.

quote:

quote:

Yeppers. Oooohhhhh... just had a crazy thought. How about we place limitations on government, so that it can't just grow and grow and grow in both size and power? If only there was something we could put on paper to provide a framework for what that would look like...

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And, if we raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. there will still be people at the bottom of the ladder.

And they’ll still need food, shelter, medical care, etc. Human needs don’t stop just because an accountant gets a headache.

But, won't those people be making enough, if the minimum wage is $50/hr.?

Presumably, as long as prices stay under control.

Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

And that’s where a large part of the disagreement emanates from. Such disagreements have led to strikes, work stoppages, lockouts – and even violent, deadly riots from time to time in our history.
I guess that’s why I get a bit bristled by a certain cavalier attitude from the business community on this matter. Their track record when it comes to determining what they “think” a job is worth has been fraught with upheaval and discord over the course of history. At the very least, if they’re going to presume to reach some sort of mathematical conclusion, then they should at least have to show their work.

Their work is largely ignored, though. The work it took to build that business (which they certainly did build) is ignored. The sacrifices they took. The risks they dared face. All that stuff is ignored.

Ignored? In what way? I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

"You didn't build that."

Well, I’m not going to be drawn into defending Obama, but I tend to agree with the general point. After all, everything standing today was built upon something else which was built upon something else which was built upon something else.
The United States is an advanced industrial power with a modern transportation and communications infrastructure. The majority of our population is literate, with at least a H.S. diploma. Our democratic-republican political system is relatively stable (although that’s not a sure thing forever), and we are a first world nation with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Anyone wanting to build a business here would have quite a few advantages right off the bat, as compared with someone wanting to build a business in Afghanistan or somewhere like that.
Somebody else built all the things necessary for you to build your business. We’re all part of a community and no man is an island.

quote:

quote:

The hard work that went into it might be done, but it can all be for naught pretty damn quick, too. How many chain stores have been successful and then died?

Quite a few. I suppose each story is unique as to the cause of each company’s demise.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

No one stated they are. What does business do when demand drops?

It depends on which business and the circumstances. They could cut supply, reduce prices, advertise to generate more demand, use creative marketing techniques, and possibly other options which might be open to them.

Yet, why can't a person do the same for him/herself? Perhaps because individuals are limited in what they can do as a response? You know, they can't even "reduce prices" below some government-defined number.

How many would really want to do that?
I don’t think individuals are all that limited. I think that we both agree that individuals can and do improve their lot in life, but the reason for these various government mandates and social programs is to protect the individual – whether as an employee, consumer, or citizen.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

You are taking a page out of the liberal playbook (which is not me calling you a liberal) scaremongering that removing a policy will automatically lead to the situation the policy was enacted to get rid of.

It’s not exactly out of the liberal playbook, though. I’m not trying to scaremonger, either. I just think we should pay heed to history. All of these social programs and governmental edicts which you oppose were put in there for a reason.
And this situation still exists in other countries, where working conditions are rather horrid.

The conditions in other countries is a bit outside the authority of the US government and the US population.

Yes, it’s outside of our authority, but we can still watch and pay heed – and try to make sure that the same thing doesn’t happen to this country.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I don’t really see how “liberal” fits into this, especially when considering situations of such abject cruelty and malice illustrating yet another example of man’s inhumanity to man. I know many conservatives who would be just as outraged at such abuses and atrocities, but then again, they may not be very proactive or go out of their way to look for such things either.

Really? You don't see how this action is exactly what liberals do damn near every time one of their pet projects or sacred cows is challenged? How many times have I been accused of wanting to go back to pre-Union conditions because I don't support the current actions of Unions? The liberals scaremonger over returning to the early 1960's if the CRA of 1965 is repealed, as if the only reason there has been any change in racial acceptance is because of the continued existence of the CRA.

I never mentioned anything about the CRA, but I would be against its repeal as well.
Besides, when it comes to “scaremongering,” conservatives have done more than their share of it, so fair is fair. McCarthy was quite the scaremonger. Then there was Goldwater, the Grandfather of Conservatism. Reagan was also a scaremonger with his “evil empire” talk. He also launched the current “war on drugs” which is another bit of scaremongering.
But all I’m really doing is just going by our own known history. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

In a way, perhaps liberals and conservatives share a similar fault. Conservatives tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to business and the free market, just as they view that liberals tend to be somewhat naïve and trusting when it comes to the government.

Actually, it's about government letting the individual choose for him/herself.

Conservatives and liberals would both claim that they believe in individual freedom. In practice, however, there seems to be some differences in interpretation.
Certainly, the government lets the individual choose for him/herself, with the understanding that, whatever they choose, it must not violate the rights of others. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory. As to how it works in practice, that’s where the differences in interpretations come into play.
Also, in order to let the individual choose, the government has to protect the individual, even if it means protecting him/her from an angry mob. An individual is outnumbered against a group or an organization (such as a business), and the individual should be the government’s primary concern.

quote:

quote:

Nope. Government is allowed to put in regulations, but it those regulations shouldn't result in harming the individuals it's meant to help. If the consumer is going to end up being harmed (not necessarily physically) by an action that isn't drastically outweighed by the benefit of the action, it shouldn't be done.

Ideally, that would be a fair and equitable balance – enough regulation to protect consumers and employees, but not so much as to eliminate private ownership or the market economy altogether.

quote:

quote:

Plus, most government actions end up requiring more government action to deal with the unintended consequences of that action.

Yep. Our government is a continuing work in progress. We haven’t worked out all the kinks yet.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

There is no going back to that era and those abuses, even if Unions were heretofore abolished. Plus, having been through those times, I contend that we have learned at least a little something to prevent that from happening again.

There are no real guarantees with anything. I don’t think it will revert to as bad as it was back then either. But a possible way to prevent abuses is to have an aware, informed, and active electorate to be watchful and vigilant of any and all powerful institutions in society, whether it’s government, business, religion, media, etc.
I’d like to think that we’ve learned at least a little something, true, but it would have been nice if we had learned a little more.

And, I contend we will continue to learn. That doesn't mean we still need some of those things to learn more.

I think that ultimately, we need to learn from the past in order to look to the future. But I also think that we need to take a coherent, realistic look at what kind of future we’re facing. I’m not saying that the future is bleak. However, as individuals and as a society, we should be careful about the choices we make, in my opinion.
Whatever we choose to do, they should be informed choices and not made in an ideological vacuum.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes. Even some of the things they do to support business are excessive and/or unnecessary.

quote:

quote:


So, then, your issue is mainly that it’s done by government edict?

Is that a serious question? Of course my issue is that it's done by government edict. If the effective minimum wage was $80/hr. (my finger just went to the '8') as decided by the Market, then I'd have no issue with that being the effective minimum wage. That's pretty much been my point all along.

quote:


You want to know why? Because it's better than they can do back home. People choose to work in sweatshops in 3rd World countries, because they are better jobs than what they can otherwise get. No one goes out and looks for the shittiest job, in the shittiest and most dangerous conditions for kicks. They do it because it's better than what else they can get.

Why can't those people get jobs that pay more than minimum wage?

quote:


There isn't anything wrong with outsourcing jobs to countries that can get the job done for less. It lowers costs.

quote:


You have brought up work conditions outside the US and now bring up outsourcing as a bad thing. What do you think work conditions would be outside the US if we hadn't outsourced anything?

quote:

quote:

One of the jokes was a direct response to what you wrote about the so-called “gain” you were mentioning. Reread the joke about the experienced and not-so-experienced economist walking down the road.

A joke isn't really a rebuttal to a point.

quote:


You stated that the rulers could rule as they did because there was no middle class to stop them. When did the US middle class start, to prevent the rules of the US from abusing the general citizenry, like the situation in Haiti?

quote:


Government force is much different from Market force. Government force is blunt force. The thing about the US is that it's fucking huge. Central decision-making just doesn't work all that well for us. What flies in NY may not fly in FL, or CA. What flies in Toledo, Ohio, might not make it in Cleveland, Ohio. Government can't do that. The Market doesn't care about that stuff. All it cares about is supply and demand. The rest takes care of itself. Supply in Cleveland might be different than supply in Toledo, but supply will be based on the demand of the area.

quote:


Economics is about allocation of scarce resources. Politics is about power. They do overlap. I don't deny that. I don't claim economics is a hard science like math. Too much relies on the whims of the consumer for it to be a hard science.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Yeppers. Oooohhhhh... just had a crazy thought. How about we place limitations on government, so that it can't just grow and grow and grow in both size and power? If only there was something we could put on paper to provide a framework for what that would look like...

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

Abuse. Willful misinterpretation. Lawyers. That's not a complete list, either.

quote:

quote:

quote:


Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

That the only reason?

quote:


Yet, that guy did build that business. The other guy didn't, even though they went to the same school, lived in the same community, with the same infrastructure, yada yada yada. Sure, he relied on social services and stuff like that, but he paid for them, too. Hell, he probably paid more than others. His business likely paid taxes, too. All the people that provided any services that went into building that business were compensated for their labors/input. That's as far as their "claim" on that business goes. Any other claims is liberal talking point bullshit.

quote:

quote:

quote:

The hard work that went into it might be done, but it can all be for naught pretty damn quick, too. How many chain stores have been successful and then died?

Quite a few. I suppose each story is unique as to the cause of each company’s demise.

So, it might still take some work, no?

quote:


I don't know how many would want to do that? How many people are looking for a job? At some point, there is going to have to be a time when working for a wage is going to trump holding out for a job with a higher wage. If the skills of the job seeker aren't good enough to merit the wage sought, the job seeker will likely continue to be a seeker. There is only so low someone can go, though. If their skill set is dearth enough to not merit minimum wage, then what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yes. Even some of the things they do to support business are excessive and/or unnecessary.

Honestly, I don’t think most of us Americans even have any first-hand knowledge of what “excessive” truly is.

quote:

quote:


So, then, your issue is mainly that it’s done by government edict?

Is that a serious question? Of course my issue is that it's done by government edict. If the effective minimum wage was $80/hr. (my finger just went to the '8') as decided by the Market, then I'd have no issue with that being the effective minimum wage. That's pretty much been my point all along.

I should have phrased it as, is that your ONLY issue? That is, if raising the minimum wage by government edict actually improved things for workers and the business community was doing well, too (“win-win”), would it really be that big a deal if it was done by government edict? Just as long as society is doing well, the people are fed and happy, and life is good?
Or is it just the principle of a “government edict” that bothers you so much, just for that reason alone?

quote:

quote:

You want to know why? Because it's better than they can do back home. People choose to work in sweatshops in 3rd World countries, because they are better jobs than what they can otherwise get. No one goes out and looks for the shittiest job, in the shittiest and most dangerous conditions for kicks. They do it because it's better than what else they can get.
Why can't those people get jobs that pay more than minimum wage?

For reasons similar to the ones you just cited. Some people have very few choices open to them.

quote:

quote:

There isn't anything wrong with outsourcing jobs to countries that can get the job done for less. It lowers costs.

It also sends more money outside the U.S. than what comes back. It pushes pressure on U.S. wages which would ultimately (in the long run) compel U.S. workers to gradually accept lower wages in order to be competitive with workers in other countries. As the conditions for workers in other countries improve, conditions in Western countries will diminish.
We see this happening already, as you mentioned the countries of Europe where riots have taken place.

quote:

quote:

You have brought up work conditions outside the US and now bring up outsourcing as a bad thing. What do you think work conditions would be outside the US if we hadn't outsourced anything?

Whatever they might have been, it would have had no connection to us without outsourcing.
Are you seriously suggesting that outsourcing was a liberal humanitarian effort to improve working conditions in these countries?

quote:

quote:

You stated that the rulers could rule as they did because there was no middle class to stop them. When did the US middle class start, to prevent the rules of the US from abusing the general citizenry, like the situation in Haiti?

Well, it started from the very beginning in the U.S., although it probably wasn’t until the labor movement reached its critical mass that things started to turn around and become more stabilized in this country. That’s when the middle class grew by leaps and bounds, reaching its peak in the decades immediately following World War II. This also had the effect of propelling the Civil Rights movement into a new era, where they were much stronger and better organized than before.

quote:

quote:

Government force is much different from Market force. Government force is blunt force. The thing about the US is that it's fucking huge. Central decision-making just doesn't work all that well for us. What flies in NY may not fly in FL, or CA. What flies in Toledo, Ohio, might not make it in Cleveland, Ohio. Government can't do that. The Market doesn't care about that stuff. All it cares about is supply and demand. The rest takes care of itself. Supply in Cleveland might be different than supply in Toledo, but supply will be based on the demand of the area.

It’s all managed by human beings, no matter if they work in the public sector or the private sector.
The market doesn’t “take care of itself,” as if it’s some kind of organism governed solely by nature. The business people all get together and plan and come up with “market strategies.” The consumers are also somewhat organized and try to stay informed. The government officials are also duty-bound to meet the needs of society and to keep aware of things (and possibly taking action when called upon).
Businesses are actively at work seeking out what consumers think, too. Hell, some of the more unscrupulous ones will put spyware on people’s computers just to find out what their buying habits are, what they’re interested in, and what they’re willing to pay for. They’re not just sitting back in their offices looking at sales figures and graphs.
Government also actively works to find out what the voters/citizens think – and they’ve been known to use even more unscrupulous methods to find out. Government does not actively seek power once it has already attained it, so their primary focus will be on maintaining that power. In order to do that, they have to maintain political stability and keep the masses “happy” (more or less).
When things appear to be destabilizing or the masses appear to be “unhappy,” then decisions have to be made by those at the very top of the hierarchy.
These are all political processes which most definitely have an effect on the market. It doesn’t happen by automatic, and because of certain emotionally-driven, erratic qualities of human nature, it can be fraught with unpredictability. That’s why life can be so interesting. There’s nothing foolproof about it, nor is it simply a matter of “letting the market work by itself, and everything will be alright.”

quote:

quote:

Economics is about allocation of scarce resources. Politics is about power. They do overlap. I don't deny that. I don't claim economics is a hard science like math. Too much relies on the whims of the consumer for it to be a hard science.

Economics is the study of concepts and systems related to trade, commerce, business, industry, finance, etc., but it does indeed overlap with Political Science in numerous ways.
There are many ways of allocating resources in a society, many different systems one might use. The study of these various systems and how they operate would the proper realm of economics, although when someone points to one system and says “this is the best system,” then it’s no longer economics, but politics.
That’s, essentially, the crux of our discussion here. If we have the “best” system, then it’s probably more due to our political philosophy than anything to do with an economic system.
Also, when you say about minimum wage employees that “they can just get another job” or work to get skills so they can earn higher salaries. Is this because this is the “Land of Opportunity” where anyone can work hard and realize the “American Dream”? I would suggest that these are more ideologically-driven value judgments and not objective assessments of our actual situation.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Yeppers. Oooohhhhh... just had a crazy thought. How about we place limitations on government, so that it can't just grow and grow and grow in both size and power? If only there was something we could put on paper to provide a framework for what that would look like...

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

Abuse. Willful misinterpretation. Lawyers. That's not a complete list, either.

Yes, I’m sure we both could come up with some rather long lists.
Some things are just inherent to any human organization, such as abuse and willful misinterpretation. The Constitution and our system of Checks and Balances was designed because the Founders knew that there was potential for abuse and wanted to implement safeguards. But it wasn’t enough.
And frankly, things were pretty messed up quite a bit in the 19th century. Government was limited to some extent (except in its expansionist tendencies), although most issues affecting the common people were handled at the local level, which was inconsistent and could even be described as somewhat “lawless.” As a country, we did manage to survive and stay united, but we went through an awful lot of hell in the process.

quote:

DR. ARNN: Many in Washington today have grown so accustomed to centralized bureaucracy that they think of Federalism as old-fashioned, kind of like fife and drum music. Those who wrote the Constitution saw Federalism as a vital principle of free government in a large republic. The division of power between the Federal government, state governments, and local governments, which serves an important protection against tyranny. The Founders also understood that while the Federal Government is essential for national matters like foreign policy and defense, the governments closer to the people were far better suited to oversee local matters. As we see in the problems that resolve from centralized bureaucracy today, there’s nothing out-of-date about the Founders argument for Federalism.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

That the only reason?

Well, as we’ve discussed, the business owner is the one with the right to raise prices, so the business is making the choice. No one else is making that choice.

quote:



Yep. But, would it be whimsy, or would there be other reasons? Might it have to do with the costs incurred by the business?

quote:

quote:

Yet, that guy did build that business. The other guy didn't, even though they went to the same school, lived in the same community, with the same infrastructure, yada yada yada. Sure, he relied on social services and stuff like that, but he paid for them, too. Hell, he probably paid more than others. His business likely paid taxes, too. All the people that provided any services that went into building that business were compensated for their labors/input. That's as far as their "claim" on that business goes. Any other claims is liberal talking point bullshit.

That’s your opinion, although when you look at it from the other side, what does it look like? You have “that guy” claiming he built a business all by himself, even though he undoubtedly had a lot of others working towards the same goal (including some he may have only been paying minimum wage…or perhaps even outsourced labor for a hell of a lot less).
So, the claim that this “one guy” built the business all by himself is self-serving narcissism which has very little basis in actual fact. It’s more propaganda – an idealized image of reality but not actual reality. It depends a lot on propaganda about the “American Dream” and so forth. It’s not a realistic perception.

Yet, one guy built a business where another did not. Why? Why is that guy's risk not to be rewarded? If he didn't pay those who worked for him, then, there is an issue, but if all those people got paid what they agreed to work for, then, where's the problem?

quote:

quote:

quote:

The hard work that went into it might be done, but it can all be for naught pretty damn quick, too. How many chain stores have been successful and then died?

Quite a few. I suppose each story is unique as to the cause of each company’s demise.

So, it might still take some work, no?

I suppose, although it might depend on the circumstances. I think there are some companies where the heir might remain in the top role as mostly a figurehead, while the actual running of the company might be left to someone else. Or they might just sell out to some corporation which drives it into the ground.

But, someone is still working and putting in the time and effort. That an heir is reaping the benefit of his/her predecessor's work is awesome, imo. The predecessor's work and efforts have been passed on to the heirs. That's, apparently, how the predecessor wanted to pass on his/her possessions, apparently. Some people aren't willing to do the work, and their offspring won't be able to reap the benefits of that work, either. Ever heard anyone say to their scions, "I worked this job so you wouldn't have to?"

quote:

quote:

I don't know how many would want to do that? How many people are looking for a job? At some point, there is going to have to be a time when working for a wage is going to trump holding out for a job with a higher wage. If the skills of the job seeker aren't good enough to merit the wage sought, the job seeker will likely continue to be a seeker. There is only so low someone can go, though. If their skill set is dearth enough to not merit minimum wage, then what?

If their skill set was really that low, then they’d likely be wards of the state and unable to manage their own affairs. These are the people who would have a real, genuine need for public assistance. But even they might be able to find work in sheltered workshops operating in conjunction with social service agencies.
Overall, I don’t condone laziness or anyone getting a free ride, but my contention is, if someone is willing to put in a full day’s work (regardless of what it is or whatever anyone “thinks” it’s worth), they should at least not have to be hungry at the end of the day or wonder where they’re going to sleep.
When bums, panhandlers, and welfare cheats can make more money than honest people who are trying to work and contribute to society, then something is seriously wrong with this picture. “Skill sets”? People who try to live by the rules and conduct themselves as honorable citizens get shafted, whether by business or by government.
The only “skill set” that seems of any value anymore is the ability to not get shafted while finding new and inventive ways of shafting others. It’s a requisite skill to succeed in both politics and business, so there’s something else they have in common.

People who choose welfare rather than work shouldn't be rewarded. IMO, that's a horrible, horrible thing that should be prosecuted harshly. People who have no choice, but to take welfare shouldn't be punished and have less because of those who have the choice and choose welfare.

quote:

As a general comment about this conversation overall, I think there are many things we might just have to agree to disagree upon. I’ve had this same debate with others over the years, going all the way back to the days of Reagan.
We have over 30 years of hindsight to see what has happened to America since the “Reagan Revolution.” We can see the results in what we’re experiencing today, as a result of applying various conservative economic theories and making them into public policy. I think it was a lot of empty speeches and flowery feel-good propaganda that was used to cover up the organized looting of America.
I think what bothers me most is this claustrophobic idea that this is what America is “supposed to do,” that we’re just supposed to accept what is happening purely because it’s part of our ideology (which has turned into a religion for many). If people need money and higher wages to live, then that’s what needs to be done. I see no reason for society to refrain from doing so just because it might offend someone’s religion.

There comes a point in time when you have to look at the choices one makes that causes them to "need money and higher wages to live." Therein lies a lot of differences. A gal friend of mine gets pissed off when one of her co-workers whines about not having enough money for this or that, but is also the first person to go home early when things are slow. There is a disconnect there that really annoys my friend.

What is "an honest day's work" anyway?

And, yes, we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature.

_____________________________

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)
  

(in reply to Zonie63)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I should have phrased it as, is that your ONLY issue? That is, if raising the minimum wage by government edict actually improved things for workers and the business community was doing well, too (“win-win”), would it really be that big a deal if it was done by government edict? Just as long as society is doing well, the people are fed and happy, and life is good?
Or is it just the principle of a “government edict” that bothers you so much, just for that reason alone?

That it's a "Government edict" is the biggest stumbling block, imo. Government doesn't tend to account for how the Market reacts to it's edicts. Ohio uses it's cigarette tax to fund smoking cessation programs and anti-smoking campaigns. When fewer people bought smokes, the tax revenues naturally fell. So, they had to either raise taxes on smokes to continue to pay for the anti-smoking policies, or they had to take the money from other programs. Winding down the policies to levels that are commensurate with the reduced revenue levels wasn't an option, and, it seemed, no one even considered what would happen if revenues dropped.
Like I said, I don't really care where the Market determines the effective minimum wage, as long as it's the Market doing it.

quote:

Then, perhaps - and I know this might be anathema to some - those people need to improve their skills to the point where their input merits higher wages.

quote:


The riots weren't about outsourcing. They were about government reducing the entitlements.

quote:

quote:

quote:

You stated that the rulers could rule as they did because there was no middle class to stop them. When did the US middle class start, to prevent the rules of the US from abusing the general citizenry, like the situation in Haiti?

Well, it started from the very beginning in the U.S., although it probably wasn’t until the labor movement reached its critical mass that things started to turn around and become more stabilized in this country. That’s when the middle class grew by leaps and bounds, reaching its peak in the decades immediately following World War II. This also had the effect of propelling the Civil Rights movement into a new era, where they were much stronger and better organized than before.

The Industrial Revolution lifted the standard of living for the masses greatly. Interestingly enough, that started about 1800. The spawning of Unions happened more in the first half of the 1900's than not. The standard of living had already been going up before Unions.

quote:


It can certainly be close to that simple, though. As I said, there is some need for regulation, so it can't be left alone. But, the Market will work, if you let it. It's tends to be a slower process than government, but in letting the Market get there on it's own, there will be fewer Market failures.

quote:


I agree the "American Dream" isn't as alive today as it used to be (part of it is because government has made it more difficult for people to achieve it).

quote:


People are still coming here because of the opportunities to be had, though.

quote:


It's difficult enough to legally immigrate that those who actually do legally immigrate here have very good reasons for it. That there is so much illegal immigration means that people want to get in here bad enough that they don't want to have to wait to get in through legal channels (which should be all the proof needed to show our legal immigration policies need revamped and improved).

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

Abuse. Willful misinterpretation. Lawyers. That's not a complete list, either.

Yes, I’m sure we both could come up with some rather long lists.
Some things are just inherent to any human organization, such as abuse and willful misinterpretation. The Constitution and our system of Checks and Balances was designed because the Founders knew that there was potential for abuse and wanted to implement safeguards. But it wasn’t enough.
And frankly, things were pretty messed up quite a bit in the 19th century. Government was limited to some extent (except in its expansionist tendencies), although most issues affecting the common people were handled at the local level, which was inconsistent and could even be described as somewhat “lawless.” As a country, we did manage to survive and stay united, but we went through an awful lot of hell in the process.

http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/constitution-minute-episode-8

quote:

DR. ARNN: Many in Washington today have grown so accustomed to centralized bureaucracy that they think of Federalism as old-fashioned, kind of like fife and drum music. Those who wrote the Constitution saw Federalism as a vital principle of free government in a large republic. The division of power between the Federal government, state governments, and local governments, which serves an important protection against tyranny. The Founders also understood that while the Federal Government is essential for national matters like foreign policy and defense, the governments closer to the people were far better suited to oversee local matters. As we see in the problems that resolve from centralized bureaucracy today, there’s nothing out-of-date about the Founders argument for Federalism.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

That the only reason?

Well, as we’ve discussed, the business owner is the one with the right to raise prices, so the business is making the choice. No one else is making that choice.

Yep. But, would it be whimsy, or would there be other reasons? Might it have to do with the costs incurred by the business?

quote:

quote:


That’s your opinion, although when you look at it from the other side, what does it look like? You have “that guy” claiming he built a business all by himself, even though he undoubtedly had a lot of others working towards the same goal (including some he may have only been paying minimum wage…or perhaps even outsourced labor for a hell of a lot less).
So, the claim that this “one guy” built the business all by himself is self-serving narcissism which has very little basis in actual fact. It’s more propaganda – an idealized image of reality but not actual reality. It depends a lot on propaganda about the “American Dream” and so forth. It’s not a realistic perception.

Yet, one guy built a business where another did not. Why? Why is that guy's risk not to be rewarded?

quote:


If he didn't pay those who worked for him, then, there is an issue, but if all those people got paid what they agreed to work for, then, where's the problem?

quote:


But, someone is still working and putting in the time and effort. That an heir is reaping the benefit of his/her predecessor's work is awesome, imo. The predecessor's work and efforts have been passed on to the heirs. That's, apparently, how the predecessor wanted to pass on his/her possessions, apparently. Some people aren't willing to do the work, and their offspring won't be able to reap the benefits of that work, either. Ever heard anyone say to their scions, "I worked this job so you wouldn't have to?"

quote:


People who choose welfare rather than work shouldn't be rewarded. IMO, that's a horrible, horrible thing that should be prosecuted harshly. People who have no choice, but to take welfare shouldn't be punished and have less because of those who have the choice and choose welfare.

quote:


There comes a point in time when you have to look at the choices one makes that causes them to "need money and higher wages to live." Therein lies a lot of differences. A gal friend of mine gets pissed off when one of her co-workers whines about not having enough money for this or that, but is also the first person to go home early when things are slow. There is a disconnect there that really annoys my friend.

What is "an honest day's work" anyway?

And, yes, we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I should have phrased it as, is that your ONLY issue? That is, if raising the minimum wage by government edict actually improved things for workers and the business community was doing well, too (“win-win”), would it really be that big a deal if it was done by government edict? Just as long as society is doing well, the people are fed and happy, and life is good?
Or is it just the principle of a “government edict” that bothers you so much, just for that reason alone?

That it's a "Government edict" is the biggest stumbling block, imo. Government doesn't tend to account for how the Market reacts to it's edicts. Ohio uses it's cigarette tax to fund smoking cessation programs and anti-smoking campaigns. When fewer people bought smokes, the tax revenues naturally fell. So, they had to either raise taxes on smokes to continue to pay for the anti-smoking policies, or they had to take the money from other programs. Winding down the policies to levels that are commensurate with the reduced revenue levels wasn't an option, and, it seemed, no one even considered what would happen if revenues dropped.
Like I said, I don't really care where the Market determines the effective minimum wage, as long as it's the Market doing it.

Not sure if tobacco taxes are a good example, since they were enacted primarily to discourage people from smoking, not strictly as a measure to raise revenue. Another justification was that smokers’ illnesses were causing a financial drain in the healthcare system, so it was felt that higher tobacco taxes would compensate for that loss.
In theory, the idea was that smokers would eventually quit and it would prevent new smokers from starting, so the need for the tax itself would slowly become irrelevant. It was more of a populist move than anything else, since there have been influential private sector forces actively working against tobacco. So, at least in this case, it wasn’t “government edict,” since they were ostensibly responding to popular demand.

quote:

quote:

Then, perhaps - and I know this might be anathema to some - those people need to improve their skills to the point where their input merits higher wages.

It’s not an anathema. It’s just a statement which sounds vaguely similar to “let them eat cakes.”

quote:

quote:

The riots weren't about outsourcing. They were about government reducing the entitlements.

And why were the entitlements being reduced? Because of a lack of money. And why is there a lack of money? Because more money is leaving the country than is coming back.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

You stated that the rulers could rule as they did because there was no middle class to stop them. When did the US middle class start, to prevent the rules of the US from abusing the general citizenry, like the situation in Haiti?

Well, it started from the very beginning in the U.S., although it probably wasn’t until the labor movement reached its critical mass that things started to turn around and become more stabilized in this country. That’s when the middle class grew by leaps and bounds, reaching its peak in the decades immediately following World War II. This also had the effect of propelling the Civil Rights movement into a new era, where they were much stronger and better organized than before.

The Industrial Revolution lifted the standard of living for the masses greatly. Interestingly enough, that started about 1800. The spawning of Unions happened more in the first half of the 1900's than not. The standard of living had already been going up before Unions.

It didn’t start all at the same time everywhere. It started in Britain first, in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, but it came a bit later and slower for the United States.
It didn’t lift the standard of living for the masses until much later, and it was certainly not an automatic thing. At first, conditions were pretty dreadful and horrid for the masses. What your short Princeton link didn’t mention was the level of upheaval and dissension which came about as a result of the conditions in the factories and the increasingly crowded and unhealthy conditions in the cities (which were getting larger than anyone had ever seen before).
U.S. industry grew immensely after the Civil War, and there were quite a number of labor-related incidents during that period as well. But it would take a while before the labor movement could really become organized into a potent force. But the standard of living was still pretty dismal overall by 1900. The cities were really nasty places to live – crowded tenements with raw sewage running through the streets.
My grandparents were born around this time, although they were born on farms. They were dirt poor, but at least they could grow their own food. Schooling was still somewhat limited, and (from what they told me) they had to walk to school barefoot in the snow.
Things did slowly improve for Americans, but a lot of it came about either directly or indirectly through government intervention. I know a lot of conservatives and libertarians hate FDR, but he helped bring us out of the Great Depression (caused by business) and got us through WW2 (which would have been a disaster without government intervention in the private sector). After WW2, the quality of life for America’s middle class increased greatly; more people owned homes than ever before; the Civil Rights movement took off and accelerated. Opportunities for education and advancement were increasing for all. Americans were enjoying a quality of life which was much higher than experienced by previous generations.

quote:

quote:

It can certainly be close to that simple, though. As I said, there is some need for regulation, so it can't be left alone. But, the Market will work, if you let it. It's tends to be a slower process than government, but in letting the Market get there on it's own, there will be fewer Market failures.

The market doesn’t actually “fail,” though. It might transform or go underground, but it will still exist in one form or another, even under the most extreme of circumstances.
The overall goal should be a better quality of life and a more equitable society, not just have a free market for the sake of having a free market.

quote:

quote:

I agree the "American Dream" isn't as alive today as it used to be (part of it is because government has made it more difficult for people to achieve it).

If you’re referring to the Reagan Administration and his successors in both parties, then you’re correct to a large extent. However, I would still say that business has been the primary culprit in destroying the American Dream for people, since they were the primary influences which led to deregulation, outsourcing, and free trade.

quote:

quote:

People are still coming here because of the opportunities to be had, though.

Well, at least more opportunities than exist in such capitalist paradises as Guatemala and El Salvador.

quote:

quote:

It's difficult enough to legally immigrate that those who actually do legally immigrate here have very good reasons for it. That there is so much illegal immigration means that people want to get in here bad enough that they don't want to have to wait to get in through legal channels (which should be all the proof needed to show our legal immigration policies need revamped and improved).

But in addition to immigration reform, there needs to be measures put in place to make sure that the influx of foreign workers doesn’t lower the cost of labor overall. With a larger supply of labor, business might feel that the cost of labor is lower and might try to lower wages and benefit packages (which is what they’ve been doing all along). This is why governmental intervention would be needed, in order to prevent them from doing that.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

Abuse. Willful misinterpretation. Lawyers. That's not a complete list, either.

Yes, I’m sure we both could come up with some rather long lists.
Some things are just inherent to any human organization, such as abuse and willful misinterpretation. The Constitution and our system of Checks and Balances was designed because the Founders knew that there was potential for abuse and wanted to implement safeguards. But it wasn’t enough.
And frankly, things were pretty messed up quite a bit in the 19th century. Government was limited to some extent (except in its expansionist tendencies), although most issues affecting the common people were handled at the local level, which was inconsistent and could even be described as somewhat “lawless.” As a country, we did manage to survive and stay united, but we went through an awful lot of hell in the process.

http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/constitution-minute-episode-8

quote:

DR. ARNN: Many in Washington today have grown so accustomed to centralized bureaucracy that they think of Federalism as old-fashioned, kind of like fife and drum music. Those who wrote the Constitution saw Federalism as a vital principle of free government in a large republic. The division of power between the Federal government, state governments, and local governments, which serves an important protection against tyranny. The Founders also understood that while the Federal Government is essential for national matters like foreign policy and defense, the governments closer to the people were far better suited to oversee local matters. As we see in the problems that resolve from centralized bureaucracy today, there’s nothing out-of-date about the Founders argument for Federalism.

I’m not sure how this excerpt is relevant here.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

That the only reason?

Well, as we’ve discussed, the business owner is the one with the right to raise prices, so the business is making the choice. No one else is making that choice.

Yep. But, would it be whimsy, or would there be other reasons? Might it have to do with the costs incurred by the business?

Who knows? We don’t have the right to ask them questions like this, remember? So, since we’re not allowed to ask and business refuses to tell us the truth, what else can we deduce? I’ve been asking you several times during this discussion as to whether or not business uses some kind of scientific or mathematical formula to determine what they think a job is worth (or what their prices should be), yet you’ve avoided that point each time.

quote:

quote:

quote:

That’s your opinion, although when you look at it from the other side, what does it look like? You have “that guy” claiming he built a business all by himself, even though he undoubtedly had a lot of others working towards the same goal (including some he may have only been paying minimum wage…or perhaps even outsourced labor for a hell of a lot less).
So, the claim that this “one guy” built the business all by himself is self-serving narcissism which has very little basis in actual fact. It’s more propaganda – an idealized image of reality but not actual reality. It depends a lot on propaganda about the “American Dream” and so forth. It’s not a realistic perception.

Yet, one guy built a business where another did not. Why? Why is that guy's risk not to be rewarded?

Work should be rewarded, not risk. If both guys work, then their work should be rewarded, even if one doesn’t own a business while the other does.

quote:

quote:

If he didn't pay those who worked for him, then, there is an issue, but if all those people got paid what they agreed to work for, then, where's the problem?

Paying people for their work is one thing, but taking credit for it is quite another thing.
As far as people getting paid “what they agreed to work for,” it might also depend on what kind of “agreement” it was and whether all parties were happy with the results. As we’ve seen so many times with labor disputes, strikes, and other such arguments, it would appear that these sacrosanct “agreements” may not be all that they’re cracked up to be.

quote:

quote:

But, someone is still working and putting in the time and effort. That an heir is reaping the benefit of his/her predecessor's work is awesome, imo. The predecessor's work and efforts have been passed on to the heirs. That's, apparently, how the predecessor wanted to pass on his/her possessions, apparently. Some people aren't willing to do the work, and their offspring won't be able to reap the benefits of that work, either. Ever heard anyone say to their scions, "I worked this job so you wouldn't have to?"

Yes, inheritance and the desire to pass on one’s possessions and wealth to offspring are very old.

quote:

People who choose welfare rather than work shouldn't be rewarded. IMO, that's a horrible, horrible thing that should be prosecuted harshly. People who have no choice, but to take welfare shouldn't be punished and have less because of those who have the choice and choose welfare.

I’m a bit confused by your position here.
On the one hand, you’ve stated many times that a worker’s value to a business is based on their skills and willingness to work at a given wage. The person who does no work, whether it’s due to their own choice or not, still has zero value to any business or to society overall. In the cold, harsh, business terms of dollars and cents, those who do not work are a drain on society, no matter if it’s due to their own choice or not. That would be the logical position to take from a business/capitalist/economics point of view. It may seem cold, harsh, unfeeling, dispassionate – yet honest and consistent with their overall worldview. It’s the idea that “there is no free lunch” in this world and anyone who can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps deserves to be left behind to starve. That’s free-market conservatism, in a nutshell.
Yet, here, you’re making a value judgment which diverges from that view somewhat. You’re saying that it’s okay to reward someone who doesn’t work, just as long as it’s not their choice and that they truly genuinely need public assistance. (Many free market libertarians favor private sector charities to help those who truly need it, rejecting the idea of any kind of public assistance altogether.) But I think most people, liberal or otherwise, would go along with the idea that welfare is okay as long as it’s only given to those who need it.
This is where the problem comes in, since there is an inconsistency in principles and standards here. By what standard are human beings judged as far as their worth to business or to society? And how does this conflict with the reality of what people actually need to live in this society?
Are we a compassionate, generous society which cares about human beings and their basic needs? Or are we a cold, heartless, business-oriented society which is only interested in the bottom line of what a given commodity (or human being) is actually worth based solely on the mechanisms of the “free” market?

quote:

quote:

There comes a point in time when you have to look at the choices one makes that causes them to "need money and higher wages to live." Therein lies a lot of differences. A gal friend of mine gets pissed off when one of her co-workers whines about not having enough money for this or that, but is also the first person to go home early when things are slow. There is a disconnect there that really annoys my friend.
What is "an honest day's work" anyway?
And, yes, we will agree to disagree on many things of this nature.

Human beings are very complicated organisms. I agree that people making choices and accepting the consequences for those choices makes practical and moral sense, but I don’t see it as a purely black-and-white, clear cut issue as you seem to see it. When we talk about choice, we’re talking “whimsy,” as humans tend to make decisions based more on emotional considerations than anything logical or rational.
I’ve known everyone to “whine” about not having money for this or that – at least at one point or another. We live in a society where consumerism and materialism run rampant, and “keeping up with the Joneses” has become a cultural obsession. It’s the money and possessions which have become all-important, but nobody really cares if one actually worked or accomplished something to get it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Not sure if tobacco taxes are a good example, since they were enacted primarily to discourage people from smoking, not strictly as a measure to raise revenue. Another justification was that smokers’ illnesses were causing a financial drain in the healthcare system, so it was felt that higher tobacco taxes would compensate for that loss.
In theory, the idea was that smokers would eventually quit and it would prevent new smokers from starting, so the need for the tax itself would slowly become irrelevant. It was more of a populist move than anything else, since there have been influential private sector forces actively working against tobacco. So, at least in this case, it wasn’t “government edict,” since they were ostensibly responding to popular demand.

Actually, it is a good example. We do not live in a Democracy, so just because the majority want something doesn't mean the government has the authority to do it (refer to the "framework" part of this conversation). The point you seemed to miss, however, was that the need for the tax hasn't gone down. Quite the opposite, actually. There are fewer smokers, yet taxes keep going up.

quote:


As an aside, I think it was in NY, there was a bust of a cigarette smuggling operation. I got my 5 minutes of Hannity to refresh my decision why I don't listen to him, but he mentioned each pack has $7 in taxes (I didn't verify the accuracy, so that's why I'm mentioning it came from Hannity) in NYC. IMO, that's excessive, and that's why you are going to see things like a black market for those items.

A legal item (as long as you are of age) is being taxed out of existence. That doesn't sound like freedom and liberty, does it?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Then, perhaps - and I know this might be anathema to some - those people need to improve their skills to the point where their input merits higher wages.

It’s not an anathema. It’s just a statement which sounds vaguely similar to “let them eat cakes.”

It is anathema to some. It's akin to giving every kid a trophy for showing up. That's not how life works, but what are we teaching those kids? If someone isn't going to take the time and exert the effort to make him/herself stand out from the crowd, why should he/she be rewarded with a higher wage?

quote:


There are a lot of economists that would disagree with your assessment of FDR's policies, with regards to the Great Depression.

quote:


Some will maintain that WWII was what really brought us out of the Great Depression. So much for the Roaring 20's, eh?

quote:


I do believe the Free Market system will result in a better quality of life for all, and a more equitable society.

quote:


A Market failure isn't like a business failing. It's not that the Market disappears, but that the approximate levels of supply and demand aren't equal; that scarce resources aren't being used efficiently.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I agree the "American Dream" isn't as alive today as it used to be (part of it is because government has made it more difficult for people to achieve it).

If you’re referring to the Reagan Administration and his successors in both parties, then you’re correct to a large extent. However, I would still say that business has been the primary culprit in destroying the American Dream for people, since they were the primary influences which led to deregulation, outsourcing, and free trade.

Right, because adding regulations increases ease of entry into a sector for business.

quote:

quote:

quote:

People are still coming here because of the opportunities to be had, though.

Well, at least more opportunities than exist in such capitalist paradises as Guatemala and El Salvador.

And China, and Mexico, and the list goes on.

quote:

quote:

quote:

It's difficult enough to legally immigrate that those who actually do legally immigrate here have very good reasons for it. That there is so much illegal immigration means that people want to get in here bad enough that they don't want to have to wait to get in through legal channels (which should be all the proof needed to show our legal immigration policies need revamped and improved).

But in addition to immigration reform, there needs to be measures put in place to make sure that the influx of foreign workers doesn’t lower the cost of labor overall. With a larger supply of labor, business might feel that the cost of labor is lower and might try to lower wages and benefit packages (which is what they’ve been doing all along). This is why governmental intervention would be needed, in order to prevent them from doing that.

Why is it that you think supply and demand curves for labor markets don't follow the same courses as other products/commodities?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

But wasn’t that already done? And if so, why isn’t it working?

Abuse. Willful misinterpretation. Lawyers. That's not a complete list, either.

Yes, I’m sure we both could come up with some rather long lists.
Some things are just inherent to any human organization, such as abuse and willful misinterpretation. The Constitution and our system of Checks and Balances was designed because the Founders knew that there was potential for abuse and wanted to implement safeguards. But it wasn’t enough.
And frankly, things were pretty messed up quite a bit in the 19th century. Government was limited to some extent (except in its expansionist tendencies), although most issues affecting the common people were handled at the local level, which was inconsistent and could even be described as somewhat “lawless.” As a country, we did manage to survive and stay united, but we went through an awful lot of hell in the process.

http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/constitution-minute-episode-8

quote:

DR. ARNN: Many in Washington today have grown so accustomed to centralized bureaucracy that they think of Federalism as old-fashioned, kind of like fife and drum music. Those who wrote the Constitution saw Federalism as a vital principle of free government in a large republic. The division of power between the Federal government, state governments, and local governments, which serves an important protection against tyranny. The Founders also understood that while the Federal Government is essential for national matters like foreign policy and defense, the governments closer to the people were far better suited to oversee local matters. As we see in the problems that resolve from centralized bureaucracy today, there’s nothing out-of-date about the Founders argument for Federalism.

I’m not sure how this excerpt is relevant here.

No? You don't see that increased centralization of government isn't a good thing?

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Why would prices rise?

On the whimsy of business.

That the only reason?

Well, as we’ve discussed, the business owner is the one with the right to raise prices, so the business is making the choice. No one else is making that choice.

Yep. But, would it be whimsy, or would there be other reasons? Might it have to do with the costs incurred by the business?

Who knows? We don’t have the right to ask them questions like this, remember? So, since we’re not allowed to ask and business refuses to tell us the truth, what else can we deduce? I’ve been asking you several times during this discussion as to whether or not business uses some kind of scientific or mathematical formula to determine what they think a job is worth (or what their prices should be), yet you’ve avoided that point each time.

Business uses forecasts of future business conditions, and predictions as to where sales are going to be. Increase costs, and you'll increase either the amount of product that will have to be sold, or increase price to compensate. Business is price conscious because it has competitors. I guess I was wrong in my assumption that you knew all that stuff already.

quote:

Work should be rewarded. Of course. And, it is.

quote:


But, if not for those who take risks, there would be significantly less work to be done.

quote:

quote:

If he didn't pay those who worked for him, then, there is an issue, but if all those people got paid what they agreed to work for, then, where's the problem?

Paying people for their work is one thing, but taking credit for it is quite another thing.
As far as people getting paid “what they agreed to work for,” it might also depend on what kind of “agreement” it was and whether all parties were happy with the results. As we’ve seen so many times with labor disputes, strikes, and other such arguments, it would appear that these sacrosanct “agreements” may not be all that they’re cracked up to be.

quote:


Work should be rewarded, and rewarded according to the value it adds.

As a society, we should not let those who can not work and make their own way, fall through the cracks. Those who do not have the choice to work or not (that is, people who do not have the ability to work, so they can't choose to work, regardless of their desire) should be taken care of. I'm not against a social safety net. I'm opposed to allowing people to abuse that net.

quote:


"consumerism and materialism run rampant"

No disagreement there. Yet, it seems that you're okay with it running rampant, and supporting it with mandatory minimum wages.