Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minimum Wage

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:23:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Let me start off by stating that the minimum wage was ordained in 1938 at 25 cents per hour, which adjusted for inflation would equal to over $4 today.

Minimum wage jobs are by no means meant as a career. A minimum wage job, for the most part, demands a low skilled worker, which usually equates to the younger population. The very first topic that can be brought up is the fact that people with families should not be subjected to low pay. These people know willingly that they are making little money, and that they have no skill or education to make more money. They still decide to have a family, and then demand higher wages to fit their inadequate decision making.

Firstly, raising the minimum wage on a federal level would result in the loss of over 500,000 jobs. In an economy that is getting more dependent on the skills of a worker, which almost always equates to their level of education, minimum wage jobs are in decline.

We have technology that can very well replace minimum wage workers, and these machines have already sprung up in cities that have increased their wages tremendously.

Raising minimum wage inadvertently forces small business to cut jobs as well as hours for those that remain. It also drives up prices tremendously, as employers have to pay more money to their workers, which cuts back on overall profit.

The main argument that can be made is that people who work these jobs cannot afford necessities. Most "necessities" are created by people who work minimum wage jobs. These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit. This not only hurts the company, as it creates unnecessary and unwarranted competition that is legislated by a supreme ruling body, but it also hurts the employees.

Private businesses and industry are already raising wages. Many businesses pay more money then the required minimum, such as IKEA, which is a multi-billion dollar company that employs dozens of thousands of people.

It's not clear that it's constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children"s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment"s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: "To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole."

Many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners " an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal.

There is only one argument to make for minimum wage increases, and that is people living in poverty. By increasing wages, which then increases overall income, it would make eligibility for certain programs almost nonexistent.

There is a program here in Chicago, called After School Matters, and it is a charity based program created to compensate poor youths for work that they do.

The most you can make (household) to get accepted is 60,000.

Granted that both parents are working, a minimum wage increase would take away all possibilities into these programs. Not only that, but it would bypass the federal income tax level. People would then make more money, which would force them into paying more in taxes. They would always have to pay more in products, as I mentioned previously.

Social programs such as Medicare and Welfare would become useless, as many would pass the threshold and would not receive any more federal or local benefits.

When minimum wage is increased by any percentage, that not only kills job growth in the working class sector, but it also makes it awfully hard for an American company to compete with, let's say, a Chinese company. China has very little regulation on business, which is why they are now becoming the world's best economy. Our GDP growth has actually halted, and it is now going down. Jobs have already been leaving as China devalues their currency and we don't.

It is very difficult to set a fair national minimum wage. "For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate."

A study that came out a couple of years ago showed that over 60% of the people in poverty do not work at all. The ones that do work, however, do not work full-time. If you increased minimum wage, it would be exceptionally difficult for any man or woman living in poverty to find a job under any circumstances.

Higher wages will kill wage competition, which is a big part of business. Ideally, if one business pays more then the other, those will flock to that one business.

Like I have stated previously, a raise in minimum wage would destroy jobs throughout. Minimum wage was created for teenagers and college students that were looking to make some money on the side. It was no means meant for adults with families.

The higher prices that come with a minimum wage increase hurt the lower classes tremendously. Prices have doubled in cities across the nation, including Chicago, as their minimum wage increased.

Minimum wage is regional. If there is a lot of poverty in one city and many minimum wage jobs, then maybe it would be smart to raise it. But on a federal level, you would effectively be legislating dozens of millions of jobs that do not need unnecessary legislative action.

A federal minimum wage of $10.10 would destroy over 500,000 jobs; a federal minimum wage of $10.10 would effectively force most local businesses out of business and would force almost every single industrial sector job into a different nation, such as China.

Also, I just do not see that 10 or even 15 dollars is a deserving compensation for someone loading groceries or flipping burgers and taking orders. If everything is guaranteed by the government and then given to you, there will be no need to improve.

Additionally, let me add that some college jobs make $13 an hour as starting salary. If minimum wage is increased, you would have to bump every single job in total to compensate as a form of competition as well as price increases. I would certainly not go to college to make $13 an hour when I could be making 15 without any education. It would make college almost useless, because if you can live with a certain wage, you will be content with that wage.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 6:32:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
It's also an argument about moral values, which then trancedes into philosophy.

Morally, it is to the detriment of an individuals basic right to property, if the pay they give is to be regulated by the government. It's quite simple, if you are distasteful of your current occupation, you are free to leave, as no one is forcing you to stay. Same for the opposite, if you like your job, you can stay, as no one is forcing you to leave. However, that does not mean that when you find that you are being paid less than you are worth, that you should petition to the government. This issue is best solved by private means, in which there can be some debate between the manager and the employee.

Consequently, if your employer feels that your labor and the skills, experience, and attitude you present are not worth a certain amount of money, they won't pay you this amount. Regardless of the market value, as in a computer science degree being worth at least $50,000 per year (bachelors, starting pay), the employer can pay you anything they want. That's the beauty of competition; if Samsung pays its most important employees terrible wages, then they will switch to some other company, such as Apple. When this occurs, Samsung's productivity, and thus, income, will plummet. It is in the best interest of each company to pay their workers what they are worth, and more if needed.

However, if you are worth $5, and the state forces your employer to pay you $10, the amount of people that will be hired, granted they all have the same amount of skill and experience, will be halved. This only plays into numbers though, as that means more people will be unemployed, and there will be less chance for benefits and a raise.

Prices

Prices are set by the cost of production, and the cost of production is set by, what are very self explanatory, deeds that cost the producer some amount of money. In all cases, the cost of production happens to be the salary and benefits of the worker, the machinery used, electricity, spacing, distribution, tax, etc. Quite a lot of factors determine the cost of production, but wages are one of the most prevalent of them all. To raise wages to an absurdly high level is ludicrous.

Feel free to discuss if you'd like. I more or less posted this thread to inform people about the economic and moral impact of raising minimum wage, or of keeping it altogether.

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com...
https://www.aei.org...
http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 7:03:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Yeah, the people like Warren who say "if we use the 1968 MW, it would be $22 today" are cherrypicking. They choose the date at which the MW was highest in order to get the desired results. As you noted, it began at about $4 in the 1930s. It depends on when you start.

But I am about to rek and destroy your entire post. You ready to be destroyed?

FEEL THE BERN! BERNIE 2016! #FIGHTFOR15

GET REKT CAPITALIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!!
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
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:54:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:03:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah, the people like Warren who say "if we use the 1968 MW, it would be $22 today" are cherrypicking. They choose the date at which the MW was highest in order to get the desired results. As you noted, it began at about $4 in the 1930s. It depends on when you start.

But I am about to rek and destroy your entire post. You ready to be destroyed?

FEEL THE BERN! BERNIE 2016! #FIGHTFOR15

GET REKT CAPITALIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHH.

I was at the bookstore yesterday, buying a novel about Microeconomics, and there was a table that had nothing on it. Immediately I thought "This table must be all the books about econ that Bernie Sanders and his followers must have read"
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 9:55:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 7:03:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Yeah, the people like Warren who say "if we use the 1968 MW, it would be $22 today" are cherrypicking. They choose the date at which the MW was highest in order to get the desired results. As you noted, it began at about $4 in the 1930s. It depends on when you start.

But I am about to rek and destroy your entire post. You ready to be destroyed?

FEEL THE BERN! BERNIE 2016! #FIGHTFOR15

GET REKT CAPITALIST PIG!!!!!!!!!!!

Ouch, gonna need some water for that Bern.
"Change your sig."
~YYW
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:06:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 6:32:14 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
It's also an argument about moral values, which then trancedes into philosophy.

Morally, it is to the detriment of an individuals basic right to property, if the pay they give is to be regulated by the government. It's quite simple, if you are distasteful of your current occupation, you are free to leave, as no one is forcing you to stay. Same for the opposite, if you like your job, you can stay, as no one is forcing you to leave. However, that does not mean that when you find that you are being paid less than you are worth, that you should petition to the government. This issue is best solved by private means, in which there can be some debate between the manager and the employee.

Consequently, if your employer feels that your labor and the skills, experience, and attitude you present are not worth a certain amount of money, they won't pay you this amount. Regardless of the market value, as in a computer science degree being worth at least $50,000 per year (bachelors, starting pay), the employer can pay you anything they want. That's the beauty of competition; if Samsung pays its most important employees terrible wages, then they will switch to some other company, such as Apple. When this occurs, Samsung's productivity, and thus, income, will plummet. It is in the best interest of each company to pay their workers what they are worth, and more if needed.

However, if you are worth $5, and the state forces your employer to pay you $10, the amount of people that will be hired, granted they all have the same amount of skill and experience, will be halved. This only plays into numbers though, as that means more people will be unemployed, and there will be less chance for benefits and a raise.

Prices

Prices are set by the cost of production, and the cost of production is set by, what are very self explanatory, deeds that cost the producer some amount of money. In all cases, the cost of production happens to be the salary and benefits of the worker, the machinery used, electricity, spacing, distribution, tax, etc. Quite a lot of factors determine the cost of production, but wages are one of the most prevalent of them all. To raise wages to an absurdly high level is ludicrous.

Feel free to discuss if you'd like. I more or less posted this thread to inform people about the economic and moral impact of raising minimum wage, or of keeping it altogether.

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com...
https://www.aei.org...
http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com...
http://www.forbes.com...

Unfortunately, bballcrook, people will also steal what they cannot afford. This too is a natural mechanism of markets forces.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:09:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm actually now a lukewarm supporter of the minimum wage. I might prepare a lengthy response to this at some point.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:15:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.

You are a moron.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:18:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:15:46 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.

You are a moron.

Laws are made to provide order and increase human tranquility. But you can't have order without the other.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:19:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:18:21 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:15:46 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.

You are a moron.

Laws are made to provide order and increase human tranquility. But you can't have order without the other.

Laws are made to protect people from morons such as yourself that believe stealing is right.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:21:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I agree with the contention that all working people in society deserve an income and the proper dignity of being a social contributor. But the working class needs a means to live and to elevate itself up the social ladder. That requires money, not just encouragement.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:24:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:19:34 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:18:21 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:15:46 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.

You are a moron.

Laws are made to provide order and increase human tranquility. But you can't have order without the other.

Laws are made to protect people from morons such as yourself that believe stealing is right.

Stealing from American Indians (and killing them) certainly helped America during the time of manifest destiny.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:28:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm a supporter of good laws that provide people with an avenue of lawfully increasing their financial means. But that requires that we adopt good economic principles, that genuinely spread mutual human satisfaction and tranquility.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 10:50:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Anyway, bballcrook, I do want to say that I agree with you that it's better to have laws than to not have them, and that there are some poor that simply cannot elevate themselves through self-inflicted problems all their own, like drug abuse and outright disobedience to all kinds of rules, even those that are put in place to benefit them.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:18:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:50:22 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Anyway, bballcrook, I do want to say that I agree with you that it's better to have laws than to not have them, and that there are some poor that simply cannot elevate themselves through self-inflicted problems all their own, like drug abuse and outright disobedience to all kinds of rules, even those that are put in place to benefit them.

Debate me on it if you want.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:28:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:19:33 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, I guess I should. I can't start the debate today. How about Thursday?

You know what: let's make it Saturday, bballcrook.

I have to complete a chapter of a story I'm posting in another thread.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:30:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:19:33 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, I guess I should. I can't start the debate today. How about Thursday?

What should the topic of the debate be?

As in, free-market capitalism helps the poor, or that property rights should be respected.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:40:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:30:26 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:19:33 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, I guess I should. I can't start the debate today. How about Thursday?

What should the topic of the debate be?

As in, free-market capitalism helps the poor, or that property rights should be respected.

I was thinking it was going to be about raising the minimum wage. I have to go. We'll discuss it when I get back later tonight.

I'll respond to your post then.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2015 11:42:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 11:40:36 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:30:26 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 12/29/2015 11:19:33 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, I guess I should. I can't start the debate today. How about Thursday?

What should the topic of the debate be?

As in, free-market capitalism helps the poor, or that property rights should be respected.

I was thinking it was going to be about raising the minimum wage. I have to go. We'll discuss it when I get back later tonight.

I'll respond to your post then.

I've already one a minimum wage debate, and I just wrote my entire argument. Well, most of it at least.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:35:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:08:30 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
And, yeah, I support stealing when a society actively promotes the ruin of the lower classes! A rotten society should be made to feel lots of pain.

Lol that helps ruin the lower class. This is due to the fact they can face jail time and fines. So they lose money plus they have to return what they stole. If it is from a store then they would be banned from the store and depending on the state face jail and fines, but shoplifiting is the lowerest version of stealing and wiht the lowerest punishment basically. Plus if you get caught you have a criminal background and can not get into must jobs due to having that.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:36:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:21:42 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I agree with the contention that all working people in society deserve an income and the proper dignity of being a social contributor. But the working class needs a means to live and to elevate itself up the social ladder. That requires money, not just encouragement.

Sure it does, but making the minimum wage higher does not fix that. This is due to the stores having people on minimum wage will fire people to make up for higher costs, this means less jobs and hurts the lower class even more. If you want money then get out of minimum wage.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:38:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:26:00 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
America became much wealthier and larger in property through stealing.

no it will not
1. Hurts those who you steal from, stores, people ex.
2. It takes moneu from them making it so they lose more money witch hurts the economy. Plus it creats crime.
stargate
Posts: 506
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 1:39:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/29/2015 10:28:46 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I'm a supporter of good laws that provide people with an avenue of lawfully increasing their financial means. But that requires that we adopt good economic principles, that genuinely spread mutual human satisfaction and tranquility.

Yeah, but this would not be the way to do that, it simply does not work.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:22:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Bballcrook, I want to clarify that I do support the free market economy. I'm not going to debate a topic like this, because I'm a firm supporter. Where I do have differences with you is the libertarian view that the free-market doesn't need correctional and socialistic mechanisms. I believe it does, as the free-market isn't governed by an invisible intelligence that aims to promote general and mutual satisfaction. The free-market is pretty-much aimless and directed by human impulses, wants, and needs, and though this can deliver wealth and necessary resources to people dependent on market, it's not always effective and doing that, and that is why we see the kind of sickly results that are plainly visible in our communities, which includes increasing wealth inequality, increasing costs of living and poverty, the weakening of middle class power, a culture of increasing debt, and an inability by lower class members to elevate themselves into higher economic capacities.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:26:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Anyway, I agree with Adam Smith's view that the market forces of supply and demand can benefit societies . . . but only to a point. These are mindless forces after all, and they have a will that doesn't always align itself with society-stabilizing human concerns.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:18:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:22:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Bballcrook, I want to clarify that I do support the free market economy. I'm not going to debate a topic like this, because I'm a firm supporter. Where I do have differences with you is the libertarian view that the free-market doesn't need correctional and socialistic mechanisms. I believe it does, as the free-market isn't governed by an invisible intelligence that aims to promote general and mutual satisfaction. The free-market is pretty-much aimless and directed by human impulses, wants, and needs, and though this can deliver wealth and necessary resources to people dependent on market, it's not always effective and doing that, and that is why we see the kind of sickly results that are plainly visible in our communities, which includes increasing wealth inequality, increasing costs of living and poverty, the weakening of middle class power, a culture of increasing debt, and an inability by lower class members to elevate themselves into higher economic capacities.

I agree with this and I am a conservative. I am less leftist than you, however.
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
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:23:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:18:08 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:22:18 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Bballcrook, I want to clarify that I do support the free market economy. I'm not going to debate a topic like this, because I'm a firm supporter. Where I do have differences with you is the libertarian view that the free-market doesn't need correctional and socialistic mechanisms. I believe it does, as the free-market isn't governed by an invisible intelligence that aims to promote general and mutual satisfaction. The free-market is pretty-much aimless and directed by human impulses, wants, and needs, and though this can deliver wealth and necessary resources to people dependent on market, it's not always effective and doing that, and that is why we see the kind of sickly results that are plainly visible in our communities, which includes increasing wealth inequality, increasing costs of living and poverty, the weakening of middle class power, a culture of increasing debt, and an inability by lower class members to elevate themselves into higher economic capacities.

I agree with this and I am a conservative. I am less leftist than you, however.

And that's okay, 16kadams. It's my belief that our society should democratically adopt positions that will mostly benefit our people. There will always be differences no matter what. But a world beneficial to everyone that wants to contribute is a philosophy that motivates me. I think this central principle is at work in the hearts of most people, too.

The truth is there's probably lots that to criticize about me, as there is others. I can't escape that no more than anyone else can.