[Rounteetepe]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Kuci:

But if we put it into the hands of the government to support these people, rather than the businesses, then we'll all have to pay more because we'll have to support more people with more money as the economy increases but the minimum doesn't. They have to be supported anyway. No matter what, unless we let them starve, they're going to consumer a certain amount of resources that we decide is the minimum. Making those businesses support them means that less of them will have jobs at all - which is incredibly wasteful because then they produce nothing - and get on the taxpayer dollar anyway.

Meanwhile, all that extra money that is spent by the consumers won't trickle down, they'll go to the same few at the top who don't have to pay their workers any more than they used to, while making more money off their work.

The only reason they wouldn't have to spend more money is if the value produced by the workers was still less than minimum wage. If it is, I don't see a problem with letting the other people (e.g. managers, executives, owners) who do produce a lot of value get that value they produced.

What's the limit that the government should give in welfare? And why not just get rid of a wage altogether and have the government pay for everything? Because once you get into people that are actually net contributors to the economy, there's no reason to support them with government funds. They can support themselves. Wages exist because the market isn't as efficient when prices are artificially distorted.

[InsManKV]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why? Would that be more efficient or effective? Well, from your point of view, given you espouse the notion that there are individuals who are net sinks of value, wouldn't it?

[GarryPaterson]

The only reason we have the minimum wage is because we believe society is obligated to give people a certain minimum standard of living, since we can. The minimum wage is an idiotic, ineffective and inefficient means to that end.

[Seerseraxlils]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, from your point of view, given you espouse the notion that there are individuals who are net sinks of value, wouldn't it? 1) There are obviously net sinks of value. If there weren't, where's the extra go? Mars?

2) I don't see how you could possibly interpret my position as supportive of state-run enterprises.

[romalama]

Originally posted by GePap
No, the minimum wage exists to make sure we don;t have too many poor, who might get revolutionary ideas and sweep aside and burn the houses of people who are rich in order to redistribute the wealth in a far more direct way, Same thing. We want to ensure a minimum standard of living. The minimum wage is a stupid way of going about it.

because were are trapped by the notion that the only redeaming way towards life is work. Go look at societies where the amount consumed had/has no relation to the amount produced... someone has to produce value for these people to consume it.

[nancywind]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


1) There are obviously net sinks of value. If there weren't, where's the extra go? Mars? This depends on your definition of value.

2) I don't see how you could possibly interpret my position as supportive of state-run enterprises. More direct than giving them aid from the public tax receipts.

[toponlinecasinoer]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I note that the Congress already gave themselves a huge, fat raise this year.

Congress isn't paid enough even so.

[IodinkBoilk]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I note that the Congress already gave themselves a huge, fat raise this year.

I think the best thing for workers is to take away all of Congress' pay raises and institute universal health care... though it may not be enough to cover it. I'm sure we can find a war we can dial down to cover the rest .

[MrsGoo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Actually, it seems to not have been enough of a drag to bring the system down. That speaks towards the resilience and power of other aspects of our economy, not any efficiency in the minimum wage itself. Efficiency is a false idol. Too sad the economist have decided that that value supersedes any other values in the modern world.


Er... so?

So since when do you start basing your world view on theories that exist only in paper? I thought that was the great Evil of Liberals, who willingly follow theories built upon nothing bu Reason.

No. Tough, cause they will only conitnue to spread and grow.

[Candykiss]

Originally posted by GePap
No, the minimum wage exists to make sure we don;t have too many poor, who might get revolutionary ideas and sweep aside and burn the houses of people who are rich in order to redistribute the wealth in a far more direct way, because were are trapped by the notion that the only redeaming way towards life is work. Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea.

[Blelidupgerie]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea. I'm arguing for welfare and you're lumping we with laissez-faire capitalists. Jesus Christ.

[BqTyG9eS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Raise it to high and companies will move operations but most won't make massive changes for modest increases. Infact more often then not we see unemployment actually go down after modest increases. Context.. most min wage increases happen in the middle of boom times when people are saying "why not?".


Gepap hits the nail on the head with this one. Most of our laws designed to take the rough edges off of capitalism are enacted by the wealthy as concessions to the masses to placate them. Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Well if the masses can't even be bothered to vote Democrat, then what sort of placating do they actually need?

[AriaDesser]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


This is all you come up with?

What should we design our economy for, then? Waste? Efficiency has no bearing on the goal. Any goal can be done efficiently, or inefficiently. Efficiency itself is not a value. You can commit mass murder efficiently, or wastefully. You can end hunger efficiently, or wastefully.

The question then, is not whether we want "efficiency", the question is, what should be the goal of the eocnomy. Currently, its "Wealth creation". I question that goal, if the most efficient means to it means more income inequality.


What the hell are you talking about?



The free market is a theory. It assumes rational human beings making informed purchases. I question whether either are even remotely plausible.

You seem to be trying to arrange society based on this theoretical free market. That is supposedly what "liberals" do, arrange the world according to theories.

[CGH1KZzy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think the best thing for workers is to take away all of Congress' pay raises and institute universal health care... though it may not be enough to cover it. I'm sure we can find a war we can dial down to cover the rest . From a capitalist standpoint universal healthcare could be the single best thing we could do to improve our nation's economic competitiveness. The thing which is killing most old line companies like GM is the rising cost of healthcare so if the government acted like an insurance company does by spreading the risks and costs around uniformly to insure each person pays the lowest amount possible then we'd eliminate that problem. It also would help if we eliminated absolutely insane subsidies for big pharma which the Republicans forced into the Medicare drug benifet.

It is insane that Medicare should have to pay 100% more for most drugs then Walmart does. Medicare is the single largest purchaser of drugs in the country so they should be able to use their economies of scale to leverage price concessions just like Walmart does. Why is it good for businesses to do this but bad for government to do this? I for one want my government to get the greatest efficiency out of my tax dollars and I am incensed that Republicans are subsidizing big pharma with my tax dollars to buy loyality. These bastards should hang.

[wallyfindme]

Originally posted by Odin
in 1968 the minimum wage was over $8 in today's dollars. The Neo-Liberal morons rant on how government intervention is bad for the economy yet government intervention in the economy is responsible for the boom of the 50's and 60's. Let's be honest. The boom of the 50's was because 3/4 of the world's other industrial economies was FUBAR after WW2 and the other one's which weren't FUBAR were to small to deal with the rest of the world's demand. Thus the US became the world's prime supplier of... just about every manufactured good.

[LoisCampon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Congress isn't paid enough even so. Congress is radically over paid given the low quality **** bags who are there and the fact that they produce almost nothing of value. Those lazy self serving pieces of **** won't tackle any of the real issues facing the country and so spend their time "debating" amendments to ban the burning of the flag and to prevent gay people from having equal legal rights as straight people. Let's not forget how they spent weeks, I say agian WEEKS, attempting to grandstand on preventing a brain dead woman's final wish from being carried out.

They should get paid minimum wage because the stuff they pretend is work just isn't worth anything. Not to mention they spend the majority of their time on vacation.