Michele Bachmann

A person certainly isn't going to get rich with no job, and I don't see history saying any such thing.

rushfan4 wrote: The sad part is that whether or not it is good or not, a person certainly isn't going to get rich working a minimum wage job, and without the minimum wage and various other labor laws, history shows that businesses have no qualms about working people 100 hours a week at $1 an hour or some such paltry thing.  Why anybody would work for that is beyond me, but I guess if you need a job and that is the best that you can get...

In business, there is no room for morality. Morality is economic suicide. This will never change. It is trivial to convince oneself that morally-reprehensible actions are not so when there is gain to be had, and it is often trivial to convince others to act against their own interests. Were they allowed to do so, people would doubtlessly sell themselves into slavery for the good of their children, and others would have no qualms about accepting that servitude, even claiming that they do the world a service along the way. As long as we expect people to exploit every hole, we can have a very reliable and prosperous economic system. We just have to be cognizant of the realities.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, this is what you get without either a union or some sort of federal oversight.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop   Obviously, these still exist in developing countries and where possible still here in the US as undocumented immigrants either working off their travel to the US costs or finding whatever job they can. Take it to the libertarian thread. I try to limit my craziness to it. You can oversight it all you want, you'll just have a bunch of unhappy people who would rather be working in a sweatshop than starving. You can bring the government into it all you want, but that won't create the capital accumulation that phases out the sweatshops.

And didn't the US already accumulated enough capital to phase out the sweatshops and no minimum wage approach?

harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, this is what you get without either a union or some sort of federal oversight.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop   Obviously, these still exist in developing countries and where possible still here in the US as undocumented immigrants either working off their travel to the US costs or finding whatever job they can. Take it to the libertarian thread. I try to limit my craziness to it. You can oversight it all you want, you'll just have a bunch of unhappy people who would rather be working in a sweatshop than starving. You can bring the government into it all you want, but that won't create the capital accumulation that phases out the sweatshops. And didn't the US already accumulated enough capital to phase out the sweatshops and no minimum wage approach?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. That is eventually how sweatshops were phased out.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Unfortunately, this is what you get without either a union or some sort of federal oversight.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop   Obviously, these still exist in developing countries and where possible still here in the US as undocumented immigrants either working off their travel to the US costs or finding whatever job they can. Take it to the libertarian thread. I try to limit my craziness to it. You can oversight it all you want, you'll just have a bunch of unhappy people who would rather be working in a sweatshop than starving. You can bring the government into it all you want, but that won't create the capital accumulation that phases out the sweatshops. And didn't the US already accumulated enough capital to phase out the sweatshops and no minimum wage approach? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. That is eventually how sweatshops were phased out.

Then why are you advocating them and no minimum wage? Did the capital vanish suddenly?

Basically the argument is we can hire one person and pay them $8 an hour, or we can hire some other person who is willing to work for $4 an hour, or someone like TheLlama who apparently is independently wealthy and can afford to work for free.  The theory goes that with the $4 or $8 that we save we will be able to hire 1 or 2 more people at $4 an hour and thus decrease the unemployment rate.  The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant.  The reality is, the business owner will probably add the $4 or $8 saved to his pocket and use it to spend on a new stereo system in his Beamer or some such thing, which I suppose will lead to an increase in Beamer stereo systems and therefore provide some other lucky fellow a $4 an hour job at the Beamer factory making stereos. 

Minimum wage just sounds fair, specially to those who have no idea or training in economics. But once you learn more about the mechanics of it and the market, you know it's just a political measure that sounds good and works well for politicians because people think they are getting a safe cushion from Nanny government. Oh, it might even be good for those already working, but for the unemployed, the people that need help the most, is terrible, because it eliminates jobs that they could take.

The T wrote: Minimum wage just sounds fair, specially to those who have no idea or training in economics. But once you learn more about the mechanics of it and the market, you know it's just a political measure that sounds good and works well for politicians because people think they are getting a safe cushion from Nanny government. Oh, it might even be good for those already working, but for the unemployed, the people that need help the most, is terrible, because it eliminates jobs that they could take.

It was a pseudo Jim Crow and ageist law on the state level that attempted to marginalize the unskilled blackworker to the gain of the skilled white worker and to throw the young out of employment since they were undercutting the wages of older workers with more political pull due to their voting demographic.

rushfan4 wrote: The fact that a person can't live on $8 an hour, and is half as likely to be able to live on $4 an hour is irrelevant.

Then why stop at $8?  Why not make it $16?  or $64?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm advocating no minimum wage because of the unemployment it causes for poor and unskilled workers.

But it's just not supported by research on real minimum wage increases. Either the demand curve is grossly inelastic at these levels or it just costs a boatload more to pick up your $250MM plant and move it across state lines than you gain from lowering your operating cost by 0.004%.