Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Republican/conservative ecomomics

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:27:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I might get a lot of crap from guys for explaining this, especially with my strong opinions, but here it goes.

1. lower taxes

This all across the board needs to be accepted. It is simple economics, lower taxes on employer business, corporations ect, then they will hire more workers because they have more money.

2. ABOLISH UNIONS!

They are good for the individual worker, but are bad for the overall economy:

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. What explains these apparently contradictory findings? The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.

Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

This, along with the fact that unions function as labor cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, causes unionized companies to lose jobs. Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns. [1]

3. Less regulation.

Regulation is bad for the economy, not all regulations hurt it, but some do.
Also it hurts it in a similar way to unions, it restricts business and raises cost.
http://www.dailymotion.com...

4. This is more libertarian, but abolish the minimum wage

This raises costs on business.

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [2]

It has been well documented that the minimum wage destroys jobs, particularly the jobs of low-skilled, young workers. However, there are other equally pernicious side effects of higher minimum wages. Higher minimum wages make it more difficult for people to leave welfare and induce high-school students to drop out.

Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised. [2]

There are many more, but these are the basics, other than adding on free market economics.

http://www.heritage.org... [1]
http://www.house.gov... [2]
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:49:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unions don't bankrupt businesses. Labor accounts for only 20% of businesses total expenses in modern times, if not less. A wage increase of 5% would only mean a total expense increase to the business of... yes just 1%.

Regulations protect workers and are usually minimal affects on businesses. Especially in the U.S.A., regulations usually do not hurt business more than it helps.

Taxes, if dropped, is a poor idea for the deficit, ESPECIALLY for the ultra rich.

The minimum wage maintains a floor for social dignity and having a basic quality of life. Sure, it may prevent other jobs from being created, but thing of this. If you earn $2 an hour, you can never go to college, get a home, or get a college loan from a bank. With $7.25, you can still not have a really good quality of live, but can afford to survive.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 1:25:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:49:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Unions don't bankrupt businesses. Labor accounts for only 20% of businesses total expenses in modern times, if not less.


First: source?
Second: You do realize that the goods and services that a company bought comes from labor right? If a company buys for example, a computer, it came from labor. If you increase the cost of labor, goods and services increase in prices as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 6:51:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I looked around for data on labor costs as a percentage of total business costs. I couldn't find an overall number, but I did find some specific industries:

apple growers 49% of costs in labor
food industry (costs to process, pack, distribute and sell food products) 38.5%
fast food industry 29%
airlines 21% (in 2001, at the height of union power, United Airlines was 46% labor)
corn growers 7%

In 2009, the median industrial sector profit was 3.3%. The most profitable sector was network and communications equipment (20.4%) and the least profitable airlines (13.5% loss).

Over half of union members work in government. "In 2009, federal worker compensation averaged $123,049, or double the private-sector average of $61,051." http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... Years ago, government employees were relatively low-paid in return for very high job security and low stress. Now government unions provide money and labor to Democrats, who then vote for higher government pay and benefits.

If a union forces higher wages in a particular industry, one alternative in the private sector is to ship jobs overseas. For jobs that cannot be exported, the main alternative is automation. The very high automation of corn farming is good example. The fast food industry is highly subject to automation. There are fast food restaurants in Tokyo that run with a total of one employee. A decade ago, McDonald's built a completely automated restaurant as an experiment.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 4:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.beckersasc.com...

Labor costs vary, but average labor costs is about 20-25% of total revenue generated by a company.

You also say that government employees get $125,000 a year. I highly reject this unless they are in the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches of government. Most make about the same or somewhat above their private sector counterparts.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 7:59:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:27:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I might get a lot of crap from guys for explaining this, especially with my strong opinions, but here it goes.

1. lower taxes

This all across the board needs to be accepted. It is simple economics, lower taxes on employer business, corporations ect, then they will hire more workers because they have more money.

2. ABOLISH UNIONS!

They are good for the individual worker, but are bad for the overall economy:

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. What explains these apparently contradictory findings? The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.

Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

This, along with the fact that unions function as labor cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, causes unionized companies to lose jobs. Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns. [1]

3. Less regulation.

Regulation is bad for the economy, not all regulations hurt it, but some do.
Also it hurts it in a similar way to unions, it restricts business and raises cost.
http://www.dailymotion.com...

4. This is more libertarian, but abolish the minimum wage

This raises costs on business.

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [2]

It has been well documented that the minimum wage destroys jobs, particularly the jobs of low-skilled, young workers. However, there are other equally pernicious side effects of higher minimum wages. Higher minimum wages make it more difficult for people to leave welfare and induce high-school students to drop out.

Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised. [2]


There are many more, but these are the basics, other than adding on free market economics.






http://www.heritage.org... [1]
http://www.house.gov... [2]

How do workers survive without any form of protection? I refuse to work for cans of soup.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:37:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 7:59:57 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 10:27:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I might get a lot of crap from guys for explaining this, especially with my strong opinions, but here it goes.

1. lower taxes

This all across the board needs to be accepted. It is simple economics, lower taxes on employer business, corporations ect, then they will hire more workers because they have more money.

2. ABOLISH UNIONS!

They are good for the individual worker, but are bad for the overall economy:

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. What explains these apparently contradictory findings? The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.

Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

This, along with the fact that unions function as labor cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, causes unionized companies to lose jobs. Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns. [1]

3. Less regulation.

Regulation is bad for the economy, not all regulations hurt it, but some do.
Also it hurts it in a similar way to unions, it restricts business and raises cost.
http://www.dailymotion.com...

4. This is more libertarian, but abolish the minimum wage

This raises costs on business.

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [2]

It has been well documented that the minimum wage destroys jobs, particularly the jobs of low-skilled, young workers. However, there are other equally pernicious side effects of higher minimum wages. Higher minimum wages make it more difficult for people to leave welfare and induce high-school students to drop out.

Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised. [2]


There are many more, but these are the basics, other than adding on free market economics.






http://www.heritage.org... [1]
http://www.house.gov... [2]

How do workers survive without any form of protection? I refuse to work for cans of soup.

Employers pay people based on how much a skill set is worth based on supply and demand. Very few people make minimum wage and many make decent salaries and even 6 figure salaries, so the idea that employers will just pay people nothing without any forms of protection is just wrong.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:37:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 7:59:57 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/7/2011 10:27:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I might get a lot of crap from guys for explaining this, especially with my strong opinions, but here it goes.

1. lower taxes

This all across the board needs to be accepted. It is simple economics, lower taxes on employer business, corporations ect, then they will hire more workers because they have more money.

2. ABOLISH UNIONS!

They are good for the individual worker, but are bad for the overall economy:

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.

The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. What explains these apparently contradictory findings? The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.

Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.

This, along with the fact that unions function as labor cartels that seek to reduce job opportunities, causes unionized companies to lose jobs. Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns. [1]

3. Less regulation.

Regulation is bad for the economy, not all regulations hurt it, but some do.
Also it hurts it in a similar way to unions, it restricts business and raises cost.
http://www.dailymotion.com...

4. This is more libertarian, but abolish the minimum wage

This raises costs on business.

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [2]

It has been well documented that the minimum wage destroys jobs, particularly the jobs of low-skilled, young workers. However, there are other equally pernicious side effects of higher minimum wages. Higher minimum wages make it more difficult for people to leave welfare and induce high-school students to drop out.

Dr. Peter Brandon of the Institute for Research on Poverty studied how raising the minimum wage affect the transition from welfare to work. He found that raising it keeps welfare mothers on welfare longer. Mothers on welfare in states that raised their minimum wage remained on welfare 44 percent longer than mothers on welfare in states where it was not raised. [2]


There are many more, but these are the basics, other than adding on free market economics.






http://www.heritage.org... [1]
http://www.house.gov... [2]

How do workers survive without any form of protection? I refuse to work for cans of soup.

Employers pay people based on how much a skill set is worth based on supply and demand. Very few people make minimum wage and many make decent salaries and even 6 figure salaries, so the idea that employers will just pay people nothing without any forms of protection is just wrong.

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 4:39:43 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.beckersasc.com...

Labor costs vary, but average labor costs is about 20-25% of total revenue generated by a company.

You also say that government employees get $125,000 a year. I highly reject this unless they are in the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches of government. Most make about the same or somewhat above their private sector counterparts.

The concept is the same as the min wage, higher wages = higher unemployment. Aldo unions can tax capital investments, raising costs.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How do workers survive without any form of protection? I refuse to work for cans of soup.

It is like milton freidman where based on quality of work and competition it will keep he business in check.

quality of work determines pay.

competition acts as regulation to delay and or lower the chances of monopoly.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:57:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

They do.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.

you make fun of me for name confusions, like conservative = republican. Unions where once different and necessary, now they do more harm then good.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:57:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

They do.

6 figure salaries are too low?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:06:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.

you make fun of me for name confusions, like conservative = republican. Unions where once different and necessary, now they do more harm then good.

How were the different? Removing them returns us to the age in which they did not exist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:07:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:57:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

They do.

6 figure salaries are too low?

I speak of the wages of the individuals with little or no skill. Obviously the higher-end jobs have been netting massive profits for the entire history of capitalism.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:17:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:07:24 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:06:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.

you make fun of me for name confusions, like conservative = republican. Unions where once different and necessary, now they do more harm then good.

How were the different? Removing them returns us to the age in which they did not exist.

http://eh.net...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 5:33:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:17:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:07:24 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:06:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.

you make fun of me for name confusions, like conservative = republican. Unions where once different and necessary, now they do more harm then good.

How were the different? Removing them returns us to the age in which they did not exist.

http://eh.net...

I assume that you wanted me to read the first part. Read any book about labor conditions in that time period to see that this was not true.
shift4101
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:41:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm a little late, but how can a business have only 20% labor costs? All business stems for labor. What else would they be paying for, another businesses labor? Or perhaps resources? But resources also stem from labor. What about think tanks? Thought is labor. Or perhaps other companies? Well, from my understandings the only thing companies pay for is labor, so what they would be getting from other companies is, you guessed it, labor.

Indeed, 90% of what companies pay for could only be labor, with a 10% flat tax.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:51:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:41:54 PM, shift4101 wrote:
I'm a little late, but how can a business have only 20% labor costs? All business stems for labor. What else would they be paying for, another businesses labor? Or perhaps resources? But resources also stem from labor. What about think tanks? Thought is labor. Or perhaps other companies? Well, from my understandings the only thing companies pay for is labor, so what they would be getting from other companies is, you guessed it, labor.

Indeed, 90% of what companies pay for could only be labor, with a 10% flat tax.

Output at any one time is a function of both labor and capital. You can technically state that it "came from labor" but the labor costs are from the past, not the present.

Also, labor theory of value is false. Expenditures come from other stuff besides labor (resources, and investing). Even If the resources wouldn't exist without labor mining it, the resources still have value. Just like labor still has value, even though everything comes from resources.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Teafood
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:51:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:41:54 PM, shift4101 wrote:
I'm a little late, but how can a business have only 20% labor costs? All business stems for labor. What else would they be paying for, another businesses labor? Or perhaps resources? But resources also stem from labor. What about think tanks? Thought is labor. Or perhaps other companies? Well, from my understandings the only thing companies pay for is labor, so what they would be getting from other companies is, you guessed it, labor.

Indeed, 90% of what companies pay for could only be labor, with a 10% flat tax.

Output at any one time is a function of both labor and capital. You can technically state that it "came from labor" but the labor costs are from the past, not the present.

Also, labor theory of value is false. Expenditures come from other stuff besides labor (resources, and investing). Even If the resources wouldn't exist without labor mining it, the resources still have value. Just like labor still has value, even though everything comes from resources.

You cannot use or have resources without the labor to harvest those resources.
For example if resource A costs $20 per pound more than resource B the only reason resource A cost more is because it requires more labor to harvest the resource
Teafood
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 12:54:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:06:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/5/2012 9:00:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:50:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/5/2012 8:40:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

You are examining a regulated market when you make this bold claim. In the 1800s, this was functionally true. Please read The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck and The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to confirm this.

You are essentially giving me emotionally based story that isn't based on analysis at all. Your talking about an era in which the capital stock was low, and a high rate of population growth. However, in the gilded age which you refer to, life was much better for people then it was for people in previous generations. There is data that shows that real wages increased and American workers were paid higher then the more unionized European workers.

In any event, even with the regulations, businesses choose the wages of employees. So, why don't employees offer wages as low as possible?

There were also unions during this era in the United States.

you make fun of me for name confusions, like conservative = republican. Unions where once different and necessary, now they do more harm then good.

Unions only do more harm than good if you think that safer working standards and better standards of living for workers is a bad thing
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 7:10:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 4:39:43 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.beckersasc.com...

Labor costs vary, but average labor costs is about 20-25% of total revenue generated by a company.

Yes, so if you want to work with the averages, labor costs are 23% and profits are 3.3%. So a small increase in labor costs puts a company under.

Note that the items purchase by a company include labor cost in their price. So if a company has no increase in its labor costs, but it's suppliers all raise their labor costs, the price of the supplies will rise.

You also say that government employees get $125,000 a year. I highly reject this unless they are in the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches of government. Most make about the same or somewhat above their private sector counterparts.

The source got the data from the government itself. So why do you suppose the government is lying? I can see why the government might try to understate its costs, but not why they would exaggerate them. Note that without the cost of benefits it about $50K for the private sector and $80K for government. Government benefits are huge, and that's a big factor in the totals.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 7:19:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:27:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:

2. ABOLISH UNIONS!

They are good for the individual worker, but are bad for the overall economy:

Abolishing unions is not a Republican position and never has been. Jack Welsh, the famed super-CEO of General Electric, put it (paraphrasing), "A union is just punishment for bad management." Republicans are opposed to giving unions special powers to force workers to join or to force management to meet union demands. Government unions should not have collective bargaining rights; even FDR -- a notable non-Republican -- pronounced that as ridiculous.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:53:07 PM, Teafood wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:51:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:41:54 PM, shift4101 wrote:
I'm a little late, but how can a business have only 20% labor costs? All business stems for labor. What else would they be paying for, another businesses labor? Or perhaps resources? But resources also stem from labor. What about think tanks? Thought is labor. Or perhaps other companies? Well, from my understandings the only thing companies pay for is labor, so what they would be getting from other companies is, you guessed it, labor.

Indeed, 90% of what companies pay for could only be labor, with a 10% flat tax.

Output at any one time is a function of both labor and capital. You can technically state that it "came from labor" but the labor costs are from the past, not the present.

Also, labor theory of value is false. Expenditures come from other stuff besides labor (resources, and investing). Even If the resources wouldn't exist without labor mining it, the resources still have value. Just like labor still has value, even though everything comes from resources.

You cannot use or have resources without the labor to harvest those resources.
For example if resource A costs $20 per pound more than resource B the only reason resource A cost more is because it requires more labor to harvest the resource

No, this is false. The costs are not determined solely based on how much labor it took. If there is a sudden change in demand for a good or service, then prices increase or decrease, despite the labor costs. Take for example, the price of good. The price of gold hasn't risen because it takes more labor to mine gold. The price of gold has risen since demand for gold has risen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 4:08:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 12:53:07 PM, Teafood wrote:
You cannot use or have resources without the labor to harvest those resources.
For example if resource A costs $20 per pound more than resource B the only reason resource A cost more is because it requires more labor to harvest the resource

In addition to labor costs there are capital costs. If a farmer buys a tractor, he can farm a lot more land. Money put up front is worth more than more earned later. the farmer's later productivity is purchased by the capital investment in the tractor. It isn't just the tractor costs money, it is that the tractor must be bought ahead of farming, and money up front has an extra cost.