Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Minimum Workers

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am entertaining the idea that this is a necessary extension of minimum wage laws.

Libertarians are always whining about how the minimum wage causes unemployment. Whether this is true or not, a minimum workers law would reduce any unemployment there is. It would require all employers to hire a certain amount of workers for their business who would then be paid minimum wage. The minimum wage is not perfect on it's own because it does not guarantee that people will be able to work for and receive it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:38:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

*Peee pants*

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

*coughs* *sputters*

He he, oh boy. That's a good one.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Or you could pass a law that would require that the top 10% wealthiest people must all hire one more butler.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse. Who determines how many workers a business needs to have? How do they determine this? Unless you have an efficient, non-arbitrary way of doing this (hint: price mechanism ^_^), instead of putting workers out of a job, now you'll be putting employers out of business.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeah, you know the phrase "too many chefs in the kitchen." Too many workers can actually decrease productivity significantly.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse.
Who determines how many workers a business needs to have?
The People.
How do they determine this?
Voting.
Unless you have an efficient, non-arbitrary way of doing this (hint: price mechanism ^_^), instead of putting workers out of a job, now you'll be putting employers out of business.

Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:55:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse.
Who determines how many workers a business needs to have?
The People.
How do they determine this?
Voting.
Unless you have an efficient, non-arbitrary way of doing this (hint: price mechanism ^_^), instead of putting workers out of a job, now you'll be putting employers out of business.

Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".
Freedo, you seem open minded. This thread didn't get a lot of good reception, but it is relevant. http://www.debate.org... I don't know if I mentioned it in the thread, but another argument against democracy is that it is a Maoist leap forward - you forgo division of labor in policy, because each individual has to cultivate their own political opinions.

Also, capitalism doesn't commodify human beings. Its just a system of negative rights. Consider that there is a free market in sex, but the vast majority of transactions occur socially, rather than for money.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What will your growing ideological state do to those employers who opt not to waste funds on unnecessary labor to meet an arbitrary standard set by the mob?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse.
Who determines how many workers a business needs to have?
The People.
How do they determine this?
Voting.

Sounds efficient. /sarcasm

Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".

What is that supposed to mean?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:13:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:55:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse.
Who determines how many workers a business needs to have?
The People.
How do they determine this?
Voting.
Unless you have an efficient, non-arbitrary way of doing this (hint: price mechanism ^_^), instead of putting workers out of a job, now you'll be putting employers out of business.

Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".
Freedo, you seem open minded. This thread didn't get a lot of good reception, but it is relevant. http://www.debate.org... I don't know if I mentioned it in the thread, but another argument against democracy is that it is a Maoist leap forward - you forgo division of labor in policy, because each individual has to cultivate their own political opinions.

Also, capitalism doesn't commodify human beings. Its just a system of negative rights. Consider that there is a free market in sex, but the vast majority of transactions occur socially, rather than for money.

I thought I had commented in that thread, I guess it was a different one. But what I would have said, or remember saying, is that democracy isn't so much about the majority opinion ruling, it's about preventing certain powerful groups from abusing others.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What will your growing ideological state do to those employers who opt not to waste funds on unnecessary labor to meet an arbitrary standard set by the mob?

This is what most erks me about Capitalists. They think they stand for the position of freedom.

Reverse the roles, under laissez fair what happens to the worker if he opts for taking more than the employer says he can?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:17:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:43:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously ridicule doesn't constitute an actual response.

You've just regressed the problem and made it a lot worse.
Who determines how many workers a business needs to have?
The People.
How do they determine this?
Voting.

Sounds efficient. /sarcasm

Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".

What is that supposed to mean?

An amount of people found by the market to be unnecessary for the amount of production is desires.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:21:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What will your growing ideological state do to those employers who opt not to waste funds on unnecessary labor to meet an arbitrary standard set by the mob?
This is what most erks me about Capitalists. They think they stand for the position of freedom.
As do all, ergo you. And this irks me as well.
Reverse the roles, under laissez fair what happens to the worker if he opts for taking more than the employer says he can?
The worker is taking that which he didn't earn. He should receive what he agreed to voluntarily work for at the beginning of the day.

And you certainly didn't answer my question.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:26:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:17:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:49:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Capitalism, a system which commidifies human beings, will always has a "surplus population".
What is that supposed to mean?
An amount of people found by the market to be unnecessary for the amount of production is desires.

Capitalism desires to produce the most value it can with whatever resources it can find, value being what others are willing to give for something. At no point does market decide it has produced too much of everything (perhaps one thing or another, but not everything) and to refuse human labor is to limit the value that can be produced.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:30:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:21:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/23/2010 9:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What will your growing ideological state do to those employers who opt not to waste funds on unnecessary labor to meet an arbitrary standard set by the mob?
This is what most erks me about Capitalists. They think they stand for the position of freedom.
As do all, ergo you. And this irks me as well.
Reverse the roles, under laissez fair what happens to the worker if he opts for taking more than the employer says he can?
The worker is taking that which he didn't earn.
Oh really? So when a worker produces something that is sold for a certain amount...their labor was worth less somehow. Ok.
He should receive what he agreed to voluntarily work for at the beginning of the day.
Voluntary you call it? I put a gun to your head a knife to your stomach and tell you to pick one. Does the fact that you make a choice justify what the choices were? The worker is given a choice between a wage lower than what they are worth and unemployment.

And you certainly didn't answer my question.

That's because the question was ridiculous. I answered it with the same question from the opposite perspective.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 9:38:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:30:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 9:21:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/23/2010 9:16:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/23/2010 8:59:21 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What will your growing ideological state do to those employers who opt not to waste funds on unnecessary labor to meet an arbitrary standard set by the mob?
This is what most erks me about Capitalists. They think they stand for the position of freedom.
As do all, ergo you. And this irks me as well.
Reverse the roles, under laissez fair what happens to the worker if he opts for taking more than the employer says he can?
The worker is taking that which he didn't earn.
Oh really? So when a worker produces something that is sold for a certain amount...their labor was worth less somehow. Ok.
Correct. Because labor isn't the only factor of production.
He should receive what he agreed to voluntarily work for at the beginning of the day.
Voluntary you call it? I put a gun to your head a knife to your stomach and tell you to pick one. Does the fact that you make a choice justify what the choices were? The worker is given a choice between a wage lower than what they are worth and unemployment.
Or a job elsewhere. Labor monopsonies only occur under socialism.
And you certainly didn't answer my question.
That's because the question was ridiculous. I answered it with the same question from the opposite perspective.
If you do not intend to enforce your law, then no one will follow it. So, it is not ridiculous for me to ask you how you plan to enforce it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 10:44:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 8:33:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I am entertaining the idea that this is a necessary extension of minimum wage laws.

Libertarians are always whining about how the minimum wage causes unemployment. Whether this is true or not, a minimum workers law would reduce any unemployment there is. It would require all employers to hire a certain amount of workers for their business who would then be paid minimum wage. The minimum wage is not perfect on it's own because it does not guarantee that people will be able to work for and receive it.

As much as a new idea is good; I don't think forcing employers to hire people they don't need is going to help anyone.

Not saying the minimum wage is perfect either, it's horribly inadequate as it stands (would have to be raised to $12.50 - $40.00 an hour to actually cover the cost of living, range depending what is considered necessary to live/function), but it's still the best model we have.
Noblesse Oblige
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 5:27:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 9:13:37 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I thought I had commented in that thread, I guess it was a different one. But what I would have said, or remember saying, is that democracy isn't so much about the majority opinion ruling, it's about preventing certain powerful groups from abusing others.

How does it do that? If the majority doesn't pay attention to its votes, it will be very easy for special interests to get in.

Jonathan Wild explains:

"In politics, power is rewarded to those who give a return on investment. A corporation can make money for itself in two basic ways.

* It can invest resources in the free market: by creating a better product, a more efficient manufacturing process, smarter advertising, etc. If it invests wisely, it will achieve a positive return on investment.
* It can invest resources in the government. It can give campaign donations to political parties to get politicians elected who then pass legislation that benefit the corporation. Politicians can get away with this because the laws cost the average person very little individually but yield a large benefit to the corporation as an aggregate.

As an example, suppose ACME, Inc has $1 million to invest. What should it do?

It can invest $1 million in the free market and its management believes that will yield a 20% return on investment, i.e., it will end up with $1.2 million.

As an alternative, management perceives that it can invest $1 million in the government which will then pass tariffs against foreign competition. For the average american buyer of the ACME's widgets, this will mean $1 in higher prices in widgets. If there are 2 million buyers, this means $2 million in revenues for the corporation. Its return on investment in the government will be 100%.

Note the difference between the amount of cost to each consumer vs the profit for the corporation.

Whether the ACME invests in the free market or in the government will usually depend on where management believes the return on investment is higher.

It is in a politician's interests to cater to corporations because the money invested by corporations in government is needed to run campaigns, advertise, and win elections. Politicians can afford to do this because voters won't get angry at such a small rise in prices. They'll barely notice it. But the corporation will notice the benefit of the large return. Why play fair in the free market when it can bend the rules via the government and achieve a higher return?

This strategy is not just open to corporations, but also to any group. A union can bribe politicians to pass laws that ward off competition from other workers. The costs that the average American incurs are very small individually, but the unions benefit greatly through increased job security from the captured monopoly on labor. The same tactic can be used by any special interests group - trade organizations, environmentalists, moral authoritarians, etc. It is often in these groups' interests to invest in government for a focal benefit whose costs are dispersed enough that it doesn't hurt the popularity of the government in power."

To paraphrase patri friedman, if you spend one hour fighting this policy, you will be working for $1/hr. There are much better uses of your time. Democracy is structured so that it is too costly to overturn special interests via mass political action.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 7:32:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Another question:
What determines what wage is "living"? How many hours a week does this wage assume? What must one be able to purchase with this wage?

I could probably live off of $500 a month. Assuming a 50-hour work week and 4 weeks in a month, my living wage would be $2.50/hour.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light