This is why we need a living wage

[Zombie_Pundit]

Before I respond, Androw, we are getting way off topic.
My point to you was simple: You're doing it wrong.

I'm actually going to try to help you out. I don't expect you to accept my views on the minimum wage as correct. I don't expect you appreciate the effort I put into this. But maybe you'll pause and read this.

...the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.

Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?
If your intention is to convince anyone to trust you that rational discourse with you is possible, I highly recommend you lay off the conspiracy stuff.

My company itself, is proof of this concept. During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today. It was making tons of product. In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller. All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut. All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.

Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with. Yet the company did.... why? Because they had the money to do so.

You keep saying that wages are a function of profit. You specifically say, over and over, that employers increase wages because profit is good. Wages are a function of the supply of labor, or rather, the supply of labor is a function of the money wage. I think you have confused correlation for causation. When profits are high, employers have the freedom to reduce turnover by increasing wages and denying skilled labor to their competitors, and by increasing the money wage the supply of labor will increase so the growing enterprise can meets its growing demand for labor.
I think you have confused correlation in time with causation.
Also, I'm not sure who you are working for... but an employer cannot just start slashing salaries willie nillie because the mood struck him, so no the company could not have "obviously" cut their pay years ago. You, Androw, have seen a reduction in wages and assume the employer can, at any time, without any repercussions whatsoever, reduce wages and the employee must sit and beg and take it?

Read this quote from RKMBrown before you bow and scrape for some employer who you claim has the right to slash your pay whenever he darn feels like it:

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

You should listen to RKMBrown... he's on to something here.

First, it doesn't matter if there is foriegn competition or not. People are not going to pay $20 for a fast food burger. A fast food burger is not worth $20. Thus they won't go. Thus the store closes.

First, it does matter if there is foreign competition, as it matters if there is any type competition.

You have expressed a belief that you, Androw, can set for all other people the value of all things as opposed to a value based on the price that the free market will bear.

And just to prove you are wrong:
Is This The 'Most Expensive Fast Food Burger'?
It hurts me to share that. It hurts me because that $38.23 fast food burger, plainly demonstrating that you are wrong and not the head of some Politburo who sets all prices, is just plain disgusting to the eyes of this consumer.

If you make a machine to flip burgers, and a machine to pour drinks, and the burger flipper machine breaks, can you just swap the drink machine to take over flipping burgers? Of course not.

Why? On what basis are you saying that some future burger-flipper-bot cannot also have a drink-pourer mode? There is a difference between how you think the world is supposed to work and then what free people actually choose to do and build.

If there is a system glitch, does a robot respond and adept to the problem? If someone pukes in the lobby, does a robot stop pouring drinks, and go clean up the mess?

Maybe and maybe, or maybe partial automation will require a skeleton human crew, but more importantly no one cannot speak with any accuracy about the future in such absolutes. Please note, I make no claim that this hypothetical burger-flipper-bot will ever exist, hence the humorously hyphenated name.

McDonald's would much rather have people over robots. By far. But if customers are not willing to pay $20 for a burger, then robot it is. They'll go robots over bankruptcy any day. And by the way *YOU* would too.

Appeal to fear... If we anger the mighty employer, Ronald McDonald will stomp on us but good!

My uncle is an engineer,

Appeal to authority... but it least it wasn't your own authority. It was your uncle's.

If you want to start making a new product, you just tell your employees "New product today", and show them how to make it. Machines costs big time, to reconfigure for a new product. You can make a new product every day with people. A machine takes time.

That completely depends on the machine and the product. Have you ever fabricated a PCB or an ASIC? What you are saying as some absolute is simply not absolute and would be damaging to many businesses.

McDonald's New High-Tech Burger Flipper | Techdirt

"You walk up to the counter and punch in your own order. The people who used to take your order are just standing there like zombies waiting to take your money."​

Thank you for sharing that link. As a advocate of zombie rights, I found this quote to be alarming, because zombies find what work they can get and there's no need to mock them for it.

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin
Why? Why did they hire more people in the US, and fewer people in France, that has to this day, a 10.5% unemployment rate?

Did you bother to read the article?

Besides monetary incentive, and not to mention that the kiosks will also be getting rid of cash transactions since they only accept credit or debit cards, the kiosks are also a way to gather statistical information about people's eating habits, said Easterbrook. The company could potentially track every last thing you order (or perhaps offer you a free Big Mac with every ten that you purchase?).​

You enact higher minimum wage, up to $15/hr? That will change very quickly, and McDonald's is testing out robot replacements as we speak, in case it becomes necessary.

Are you suggesting McDonald's has a warehouse of menu kiosks just waiting to be put to use if the cashiers get too uppity?
Appeal to fear...

Again, McDonald, can and has already made, a completely automated store. They could completely replace all workers at stores right now. They don't, because it's not yet worth while yet to do so. The moment you drive up wages with Federal Law, you'll see people being replaced by robots, real fast.

Again, you're doing it wrong. All that needs to happen is for the automation to exceed the human employee in profitability. The human worker can bow and scrape before his employer but that will make no difference because when the automation becomes more profitable than his employment his employment will end.

And that's just what I can remember (and find links to). Nearly all of those, were either bought up by other companies, or closed down.

There was one, and I can't find the link to it, (either Stutz or Excalibur), where they were interviewing the owner, and asked why they didn't ramp up production, and the answer was that if they produced over a certain amount, they would be forced to follow all the Auto Regulation, and they couldn't afford it. In other words, they voluntarily choose to stay a niche company, because regulations cost too much.

Which regulations? The regulations on what is produced or the regulations on how it will be produced? Since this is a thread on minimum wage, which I will grant as a regulation on how things are produced, are you suggesting the owner kept his volume of sales down to be exempt from the minimum wage? Because I'm not sure such an exemption existed back then.

Now these are only domestic makers, because you claimed that outside makers were not required to follow domestic regulations. I don't understand that claim. Or perhaps you didn't mean that? Because as far as I know, imported cars have to follow the same regulation that all domestically sold cars do. Thus they were equally effected.

Again, you're doing it wrong. You never specified which regulations were destroying the auto industry like a comet destroyed the dinosaurs... Where hundreds of companies died out in a mass extinction event called "Regulation".
Factories in Japan need not follow US regulations on Factories. Employment in Japan need not abide by US minimum wage laws. Or perhaps you didn't mean that? Perhaps you meant to disambiguate the term "regulations" and specify regulations on automobiles sold in these United States over which, during the time period you lament the death of an industry, certain regulations were instantiated to mandate basic safety features like seat belts!

Nah. During the 1970s before deregulation of the airline industry, ticket prices were massively higher than what a free-market would pay for, because of government regulations.

Interesting... And people bought these "twenty dollar hamburgers"? Funny how that works, when there is no sufficient competition. I bet demand started slipping.
Are you sure regulation was the only culprit, because those regulations began way before the 70s. The 70s were a bad economic time in the US.

After deregulation, the ticket prices fell to market rates, and wages to employees, especially airline pilots fell too.

Did all the pilots quit? No, they are still working today, as they were during the 1990s.

Are you suggesting the supply of labor is inelastic?
How about a much more recent analysis demonstrating that the supply of labor is a function of the money wage?
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek

So obviously, the companies could have paid them less during the 1970s. But.... they choose to pay them more. Why? Because they had more money to pay them with.

Are you suggesting that employers pay their employees more just because they are all a bunch of nice guys? Well, some actually are... others have to answer to shareholders who would lynch the employer for violating fiduciary duty so badly.

I didn't compare bartenders with burger flippers. Read the post. I compared them with other bartenders, that also put on shows.
You made up a strawman, and attacked it. That shows you don't have an argument.

You compared bartenders to performers, this was your quote:
"How the heck can he [the performer] earn that much when the average Bartender earns $20K?"
That's where you were assuming fungibility. But I should point out I have no argument unless "you're doing it wrong" is an argument.

I based it on how much my neighbor pays to have their lawn cut.

That sample is insufficient, but I digress.

No one is going to run a restaurant to earn $50,000 a year.

Again with the absolutes. What about restaurants that actually lose money the first few years?

Norway has no minimum wage,

"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark don’t don’t have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. “The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down,” says Chater."
The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes
Again, you're doing it wrong.

The problem with the minimum wage is, it drives up labor costs, when there are tons of people who need employment. Thus jobs dry up, at the same time we have tons of people in need of jobs.

Evidently, not in Norway, where it would drive wages down. Yeah, that's a strange idea to me too. Again you are appealing to fear.

History does not disagree with me. You simply don't know history very well.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.

The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.

No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions. It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's. Those people are not likely to vote anyway.

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.

Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.

The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.

Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base. They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor. They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.

In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.

So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

If this is true, then how did Obama get elected ? After the get out the vote campaign that was directed at the young folks of America, and then all the speeches at colleges and such, and then Obama being elected out of all of that? It just leads me to believe that your stats are skewed badly.

Well those numbers came from the US census. They could be wrong. Good luck proving it.

Obama most certainly collected more of the lower income vote, and more of the younger vote, than did McCain.

That doesn't change the fact that there were fewer lower income, and younger age votes.

Now if you are asking me why Obama won, there are three clear reasons in my mind.

First, many people didn't know what Obama stood for. They liked his "Hope and Change", and "Yes we can!" and "Believe!".

The public can be duped into supporting anyone, if you have a slick enough advert.

Second and Third, are more important though. Namely... McCain was a bad candidate, just like Romney was a bad candidate.

1. McCain was too honest to succeed. Going to Michigan and saying "Those jobs are gone. Move on". Was incredibly honest, and truthful. But the American public is no longer interested in the truth. They would rather hear lies.

Like Obama saying he was going to close gitmo. I knew the very moment I heard Obama say he was going to close gitmo, that it wasn't going to happen, and Obama knew it would never happen. Closing Gitmo was an absolute impossibility, and everyone wise enough to know anything about the legal problems involved, knew that it would never close, and wasn't even a consideration by anyone in government. Shockingly, Obama's legal team issued a report "can't close gitmo".

It was a lie from the start, and everyone with any amount of intelligence knew it. But people loved those lies, and hated McCain's truth.

2. McCain wasn't really an alternative. Although McCain was honest, he really wasn't all that much different policy wise. He voted for democrats far more than he ever voted for Republicans, or Conservatives. After all this was the guy that the Keating Five brought in to help defend Charles H. Keating. Obviously, the four Democrats who were involved in the scandal, felt so comfortable, that bringing in McCain to their little group was natural for them.

I certainly wasn't going to vote for McCain when he didn't support any of the conservative issues I believe in. I'm sure I'm not alone.

That's why Obama won. Remember, Obama collected a massive 10% of the self-described Republican vote. 10% is huge! Now granted most, nearly all in fact, had voter remorse, and regret voting for Obama.

Why did they vote for him? Because of these issues above. They didn't realize what he would do. They were sold on "hope and change" and "yes we can". And because McCain wasn't really an alternative. He was like Obama Jr.

That's why Obama won.

The Unions eh ? Seems that I remember not to long ago (some years back), where as they were on the fast track/bandwagon of having the same ideas of agreeing with the corporate and big companiy ideas and/or trends to replace their American laborers over time with Mexican labor, and this just as fast as they could get there the way it was all going down it seemed, but then all of a sudden the huge backlash started coming against the illegals, and against the over flowing of immigrants taking American manufacturing jobs in the nation, where as it all quickly grinded to a halt after that.

I do not remember any of that, nor have I read anything even close to what you are claiming. I haven't read it in any history books on the subject, or in any academic journals. Perhaps I just missed all of them. Do you have any citation for this?

Do you all remember all of these things or issues not so long ago (maybe in the late 90's or early to mid 2000's ?

No.... I remember Unions screaming about immigrants, and opposing NAFTA, and yelling about how if all this was allowed to continue, it would be the end of civilization.

Instead, the 90s were pretty good economically. Which is what I would expect given that free trade, and low labor costs, usually is a stable consistent receipt for economic growth throughout the world.

Cheap and low maintenance labor forces is exactly what companies wanted, and they had it growing like crazy at one point, and they also had the unions going along with it at some point. Suddenly it all came to a head, and the nation realized it had lost it's lower middle class American workforce in it all (the American workers in many labor fields), who needed always a job just like anybody else in this nation does, but the no vacancy sign was turned on him and her, while the Mexican labor forces began taking over the job labor markets by leaps and bounds.

Sounds like the 1600s.... or the 1700s... or the 1800s... or the 1900s... Sounds like present day... and last I checked, the standard of living is higher today than at any time in human history, let alone American history.

We have always.... meaning... always.... had immigration into the US. And the immigrants have always taken whatever jobs they can get. And American citizens have always claimed they were ruining civilization. And the result has always been that civilization has gone on, and things have gotten better.

The only difference today is that we have illegal immigrants, which creates legal problems, and social problems. But legal immigration is not a problem, and we shouldn't be against it. And the doomsayers are chicken littles, that have screamed the sky is falling for over 200 years. The sky is not falling.... not because of immigration at least. You can calm down now, and drink some long island ice tea.

The nations companies were looking for a cheap labor force in many things, and also a flat labor rate to pay them. The want is still there I think, and it's hard to break a dog from sucking eggs you see.

Yeah... but it's not the companies. *WE* want flat labor rates. We the customers hate prices going up. We're the ones that want cheap labor.

The companies are merely responding to what we want. Why do you go to a cheaper store, over the expensive store? Well you don't want to pay as much. Hello........ ? *YOU* don't want to pay so much. *YOU* want the same products at a lower price. *YOU* want cheap labor.

The company is merely trying to get *YOU* what *YOU* want.

And that's ok. We all want cheaper goods and services. If you would mow my lawn, for only $10.... I'd love it! I want cheap labor, just like everyone else.

 

[Andylusion]

Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions. What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses. The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are. Thats really just human nature.

My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem. While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc. I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long. These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them

The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.

Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.

That doesn't matter. The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.

Doesn't matter what the intentions were.

There's a reason we have old phrases like:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.

This is an example of that. Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities. Yippy skip.

Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board. The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities. That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.

 

[Asclepias]

Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions. What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses. The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are. Thats really just human nature.

My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem. While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc. I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long. These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them

The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.

Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.

That doesn't matter. The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.

Doesn't matter what the intentions were.

There's a reason we have old phrases like:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.

This is an example of that. Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities. Yippy skip.

Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board. The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities. That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.

Actually its a phenomenon called a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Some market crashes are worse than others but they are cyclical and pretty predictable. If it was not the subprime loans it would have been something else.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm going to delete the sections where you had nothing of value to say, or you made empty claims that I already countered, and you didn't have an answer to.

...the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.

Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?

Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?

Or have you read where in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter requested the Geological Survey to find out how much coal there was in the US mainland, and they concluded there was only 1,000 years of coal left (or some other really long time span) at current rates of increased usage. That wasn't very useful to Jimmy Carter who was pushing for green-energy now, and had those researchers fired, and replaced by new researchers, who came to more politically acceptable conclusions.

To the point.... if you believe everything government says, without question.... then you are acting foolishly. I would take nearly any source as being a higher level of credibility than government.

Now, that doesn't mean I would take any other source at face value without question, but I most certainly would automatically question anything from government. If you can prove the government's claims true... great. But until you do, no... not good enough. Smart people don't blindly have faith in government. Only idiots do that.

In this specific case... there have been numerous studies on the long term effects of the minimum wage, and thus far, not a single one has shown anything but a negative effect.

My company itself, is proof of this concept. During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today. It was making tons of product. In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller. All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut. All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.

Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with. Yet the company did.... why? Because they had the money to do so.

Also, I'm not sure who you are working for... but an employer cannot just start slashing salaries willie nillie because the mood struck him, so no the company could not have "obviously" cut their pay years ago. You, Androw, have seen a reduction in wages and assume the employer can, at any time, without any repercussions whatsoever, reduce wages and the employee must sit and beg and take it?

Well, if you hired me to mow your lawn for a given wage, and the next month, you tell me you are no longer willing to pay me to mow your lawn, unless I accept less..... are you saying you don't have the right as the buyer of my services to make that choice?

I actually know of several that have done this. In the late 90s, a company called DEX, operating out of Groveport, OH, cut the entire staff $1 an hour, to every employee. Which was a drop from $11/hr to $10/hr. I was hired as a replacement for those who quit from the wage cut.

My current company also gave the same ultimatum. Again, I was not there for this, but I am 1 of only 4 people who were not there when this happened. Everyone was given the option. Either a 20% pay cut, or they can leave. Some left. Most stayed.

As far as I am aware, Ohio, like most states, is an "at-will" employment. Meaning, yes... they can in fact cut your wage, and you can choose to either stay or leave.

Read this quote from RKMBrown before you bow and scrape for some employer who you claim has the right to slash your pay whenever he darn feels like it:

No one at my current company had a problem with it, but I do know that some at DEX tried to sue or something, and they were shot down in court.

Moreover, I personally accept a concept seemingly lost on the left in our society, called "private property". How that applies in this case, is that their money.... is theirs. Not mine.

I feel no need whatsoever, to try and force someone else to do with their money, what I want. Nor would I want others to dictate to me what I do with my money.

So if I have a problem with my employer, or if I feel I am not being compensated fairly (which there have been times), I have never felt like causing a problem to my employers. Instead, I simply fire my employers, by leaving... and finding another job.

I have no fear of finding another job. I can do so whenever I wish. This is not China. This is America. I own my labor. If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.

Appeal to fear... If we anger the mighty employer, Ronald McDonald will stomp on us but good!

No, it's just economic reality. In places where the cost of labor, goes up beyond the value to the customer, employees are replaced with robots.

Now, if your ok with unskilled employees losing their much needed jobs, ok fine. But at least be honest that pushing for higher minimum wage, isn't about helping people.... because you are not helping people.

That completely depends on the machine and the product. Have you ever fabricated a PCB or an ASIC? What you are saying as some absolute is simply not absolute and would be damaging to many businesses.

True. I was talking based on the experience mentioned. Setting up an automated glassware system with a new design or cup for production, will easily take days, if not weeks, depending on the complexity of the design. But human employees, operating hand templates, takes minutes. Full production can start by the end of the day.

Similarly, when Obama asked Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring Iphone manufacturing back to the US, Jobs said plainly that it would never come back, because of the flexibility of Asian manufacturing.

Now Steve could easily be wrong about that. The whole reason there is so much flexibility in manufacturing, is because all their manufacturing is with people, not machines and bots. The reason for that, is exactly what I said... the cost savings of machines, isn't high enough to justify replacing people.

But labor costs are on the rise in China, as one would expect in a capitalist system. At some point, the wages will go up enough, that it is justifiable to replace people with machines, and when that happens, the flexibility will diminish.

Are you suggesting McDonald's has a warehouse of menu kiosks just waiting to be put to use if the cashiers get too uppity?
Appeal to fear...

I never told you what my company does, did I?

My company makes printers for Kiosks. This very month actually.... we are starting our own kiosk production.

If I seem to think I know which companies, and why those companies.... are buying kiosks..... It's because I do.
Take it or leave it... I don't care. People who choose to be ignorant, are doomed to remain so.

Nevertheless, this is actually the great Irony of this thread, is that I'm warning people against the minimum wage, even though the minimum wage right now is directly paying my salary. Driving up the labor cost, is driving companies to sign contracts with my company right now.

If I was a truly selfish person, I should be the biggest supporter of the minimum wage on this forum.

Which regulations? The regulations on what is produced or the regulations on how it will be produced? Since this is a thread on minimum wage, which I will grant as a regulation on how things are produced, are you suggesting the owner kept his volume of sales down to be exempt from the minimum wage? Because I'm not sure such an exemption existed back then.

What I read, didn't specifically state which regulation he was exempted from. So, the honest answer to your question is, I don't know. Nevertheless, that is the reason given that he kept the volume of production low. Perhaps he was lying, without reason to lie?

Factories in Japan need not follow US regulations on Factories. Employment in Japan need not abide by US minimum wage laws.

Yes, they do need to follow regulations on the product being delivered into US markets. Same regulations, same effects.

Are you sure regulation was the only culprit, because those regulations began way before the 70s. The 70s were a bad economic time in the US.

Many current production cars, were exempted from regulations. But newer models, were required to comply.

Are you suggesting the supply of labor is inelastic?
How about a much more recent analysis demonstrating that the supply of labor is a function of the money wage?
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek

The following is from your link you just posted.

"A pilot shortage has forced smaller airlines to cancel flights and ground jets, a side effect of federal regulations that have dramatically increased the minimum number of flight hours required for new pilots."​

So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.

Are you suggesting that employers pay their employees more just because they are all a bunch of nice guys? Well, some actually are... others have to answer to shareholders who would lynch the employer for violating fiduciary duty so badly.

No of course not. I never once suggested their motives were altruistic. I simply stated a well known, and demonstrable fact, that labor that has a higher value, universally tends to be paid more.

This idea that if I earn the company billions, that shareholders will demand it all, and I'll end up earning minimum wage, is just bogus. I have yet to find a single example, where an employee in a major corporation, drastically increased their revenue into a public company, and was not compensated.

Ironically, I have found that in privately owned companies.

Again with the absolutes. What about restaurants that actually lose money the first few years?

There's a huge difference between "I'm going to earn less today, and sacrifice today, in order to make big money in the future"... and "Oh crud. Government passed a minimum wage law, so I'll just have to earn $50,000 from here on out from this restaurant I run".

I have not only seen business owners earn less than $50,000 in the short run, but actually lose money during the business startup phase.

But in the long run if you say "oh well he'll just have to made do with lower profits", no sorry. You are just wrong. You obviously have never talked with CEOs and business owners like I have. They are *NOT* going to work for $50,000 a year, just because a bunch of mindless leftist nit wits, think flipping burgers over is a skill that deserves $15/hr.

Sorry. You are just flat out wrong on this one.

"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark don’t don’t have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. “The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down,” says Chater."
The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes

According to the OCED. Only 19% of all Switzerland employees were unionized.

Trade Unions - Switzerland - Information

According to the Swiss government, 25% of Switzerland employees are Unionized.

I wager the Swiss government is only including Swiss citizens, and the OECD is including all employees. Or it could be that the percentage of Union employees has been dropping, since the 25% number is from 2004, and the 19% number is 2006.

Regardless of which number you wish to go with, they are not "so highly unionized". They might have been in the past, which is why only now are they pushing for minimum wage laws, because they are slowly dying.

You're doing it wrong.

If I'm doing it wrong, then we need more people doing it wrong. You have proven yourself uninformed about nearly every topic on here. You have also, in many cases, create strawmen to attack, thus proving you can't even come up with any point, let alone a valid point.

Just saying "you are doing it wrong", without any evidence, without any counter claim, without even addressing the information given, while mindlessly repeating "appeal to fear" which doesn't apply to anything I said... just makes your posts a waste of time, which is why I deleted most of your post.

Try just debating what is said. If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.

 

[beagle9]

So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?

Moved him up instantly to give him a sense of victory and ensure that he stuck around to do the grunt work to kill off his own job.

At the time a gallon of Roundup Concentrate was about $75 and I already had a pump sprayer. Once the grass was gone and the rock was in it took about 1/2 gallon of concentrate to do the whole job so the annual cost was $75 plus about one hour of my labor. Also eliminated were the costs for fertilizer, weed control, lime and the huge portion of the city water/sewer bill that was occasioned by the irrigation usage. I was ahead in the first year alone.

Hmmm, sounds like an ugly spot you may have there now, instead of an area/yard that has beautiful grass with a lush green look to it come every spring, so I guess you get what you pay for as they say, where as it's all in the eyes of the beholder for whom has minimal or limited resources for the up keep of a place now right ? I could break down some expenses I have round here also, but I like the way my place looks, so I'll just keep things the way they are for now or at least until I can't afford it anymore, then who cares after that because I'll be in my grave at that point. I have given people raises based on the economy and their quality of services when dealing with my help round here, but I'll agree that if they asked me for to much, then I would have to consider a change by going into the market place in order to seek out another option for services. They will have to do the same once they over price themselves at my place. Now I haven't had to do that because I am fair and they don't have to challenge me on my fairness, otherwise upon me paying them what they are worth to begin with, so everyone is usually happy round here including me.

 

[Politico]

...........I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.

What a quaint, old-fashioned concept, "responsibility".

You funny!!!

And logical, How dare he!

 

[beagle9]

I'm going to delete the sections where you had nothing of value to say, or you made empty claims that I already countered, and you didn't have an answer to.

...the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.

Did you just accuse the United States Government of being some crazy corrupt conspiracy?

Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?

Or have you read where in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter requested the Geological Survey to find out how much coal there was in the US mainland, and they concluded there was only 1,000 years of coal left (or some other really long time span) at current rates of increased usage. That wasn't very useful to Jimmy Carter who was pushing for green-energy now, and had those researchers fired, and replaced by new researchers, who came to more politically acceptable conclusions.

To the point.... if you believe everything government says, without question.... then you are acting foolishly. I would take nearly any source as being a higher level of credibility than government.

Now, that doesn't mean I would take any other source at face value without question, but I most certainly would automatically question anything from government. If you can prove the government's claims true... great. But until you do, no... not good enough. Smart people don't blindly have faith in government. Only idiots do that.

In this specific case... there have been numerous studies on the long term effects of the minimum wage, and thus far, not a single one has shown anything but a negative effect.



Well, if you hired me to mow your lawn for a given wage, and the next month, you tell me you are no longer willing to pay me to mow your lawn, unless I accept less..... are you saying you don't have the right as the buyer of my services to make that choice?

I actually know of several that have done this. In the late 90s, a company called DEX, operating out of Groveport, OH, cut the entire staff $1 an hour, to every employee. Which was a drop from $11/hr to $10/hr. I was hired as a replacement for those who quit from the wage cut.

My current company also gave the same ultimatum. Again, I was not there for this, but I am 1 of only 4 people who were not there when this happened. Everyone was given the option. Either a 20% pay cut, or they can leave. Some left. Most stayed.

As far as I am aware, Ohio, like most states, is an "at-will" employment. Meaning, yes... they can in fact cut your wage, and you can choose to either stay or leave.



No one at my current company had a problem with it, but I do know that some at DEX tried to sue or something, and they were shot down in court.

Moreover, I personally accept a concept seemingly lost on the left in our society, called "private property". How that applies in this case, is that their money.... is theirs. Not mine.

I feel no need whatsoever, to try and force someone else to do with their money, what I want. Nor would I want others to dictate to me what I do with my money.

So if I have a problem with my employer, or if I feel I am not being compensated fairly (which there have been times), I have never felt like causing a problem to my employers. Instead, I simply fire my employers, by leaving... and finding another job.

I have no fear of finding another job. I can do so whenever I wish. This is not China. This is America. I own my labor. If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.



No, it's just economic reality. In places where the cost of labor, goes up beyond the value to the customer, employees are replaced with robots.

Now, if your ok with unskilled employees losing their much needed jobs, ok fine. But at least be honest that pushing for higher minimum wage, isn't about helping people.... because you are not helping people.



True. I was talking based on the experience mentioned. Setting up an automated glassware system with a new design or cup for production, will easily take days, if not weeks, depending on the complexity of the design. But human employees, operating hand templates, takes minutes. Full production can start by the end of the day.

Similarly, when Obama asked Steve Jobs, what it would take to bring Iphone manufacturing back to the US, Jobs said plainly that it would never come back, because of the flexibility of Asian manufacturing.

Now Steve could easily be wrong about that. The whole reason there is so much flexibility in manufacturing, is because all their manufacturing is with people, not machines and bots. The reason for that, is exactly what I said... the cost savings of machines, isn't high enough to justify replacing people.

But labor costs are on the rise in China, as one would expect in a capitalist system. At some point, the wages will go up enough, that it is justifiable to replace people with machines, and when that happens, the flexibility will diminish.



I never told you what my company does, did I?

My company makes printers for Kiosks. This very month actually.... we are starting our own kiosk production.

If I seem to think I know which companies, and why those companies.... are buying kiosks..... It's because I do.
Take it or leave it... I don't care. People who choose to be ignorant, are doomed to remain so.

Nevertheless, this is actually the great Irony of this thread, is that I'm warning people against the minimum wage, even though the minimum wage right now is directly paying my salary. Driving up the labor cost, is driving companies to sign contracts with my company right now.

If I was a truly selfish person, I should be the biggest supporter of the minimum wage on this forum.



What I read, didn't specifically state which regulation he was exempted from. So, the honest answer to your question is, I don't know. Nevertheless, that is the reason given that he kept the volume of production low. Perhaps he was lying, without reason to lie?



Yes, they do need to follow regulations on the product being delivered into US markets. Same regulations, same effects.



Many current production cars, were exempted from regulations. But newer models, were required to comply.


The following is from your link you just posted.

"A pilot shortage has forced smaller airlines to cancel flights and ground jets, a side effect of federal regulations that have dramatically increased the minimum number of flight hours required for new pilots."​

So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.



No of course not. I never once suggested their motives were altruistic. I simply stated a well known, and demonstrable fact, that labor that has a higher value, universally tends to be paid more.

This idea that if I earn the company billions, that shareholders will demand it all, and I'll end up earning minimum wage, is just bogus. I have yet to find a single example, where an employee in a major corporation, drastically increased their revenue into a public company, and was not compensated.

Ironically, I have found that in privately owned companies.



There's a huge difference between "I'm going to earn less today, and sacrifice today, in order to make big money in the future"... and "Oh crud. Government passed a minimum wage law, so I'll just have to earn $50,000 from here on out from this restaurant I run".

I have not only seen business owners earn less than $50,000 in the short run, but actually lose money during the business startup phase.

But in the long run if you say "oh well he'll just have to made do with lower profits", no sorry. You are just wrong. You obviously have never talked with CEOs and business owners like I have. They are *NOT* going to work for $50,000 a year, just because a bunch of mindless leftist nit wits, think flipping burgers over is a skill that deserves $15/hr.

Sorry. You are just flat out wrong on this one.

"The Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark don’t don’t have a minimum wage at all because they are so highly unionized. “The unions there felt that a national minimum wage would interfere with collective bargaining, and it might even bring the price of labor down,” says Chater."
The Best Minimum Wages In Europe - Forbes

According to the OCED. Only 19% of all Switzerland employees were unionized.

Trade Unions - Switzerland - Information

According to the Swiss government, 25% of Switzerland employees are Unionized.

I wager the Swiss government is only including Swiss citizens, and the OECD is including all employees. Or it could be that the percentage of Union employees has been dropping, since the 25% number is from 2004, and the 19% number is 2006.

Regardless of which number you wish to go with, they are not "so highly unionized". They might have been in the past, which is why only now are they pushing for minimum wage laws, because they are slowly dying.

You're doing it wrong.

If I'm doing it wrong, then we need more people doing it wrong. You have proven yourself uninformed about nearly every topic on here. You have also, in many cases, create strawmen to attack, thus proving you can't even come up with any point, let alone a valid point.

Just saying "you are doing it wrong", without any evidence, without any counter claim, without even addressing the information given, while mindlessly repeating "appeal to fear" which doesn't apply to anything I said... just makes your posts a waste of time, which is why I deleted most of your post.

Try just debating what is said. If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.

All of this stuff you speak of is highly fluid in one direction or the other, and what is being lost in it all is that we have to have a healthy society through in and through out to a certain degree. Now if we have trends of greediness that run for to long in society, it begins to diminish our nation in many ways, and it makes us vulnerable in many ways. You have to think that if we were to have to go to war, then what kind of nation do we have intact to do so ? If we destroy our nations human resources in ways that weaken the entire nation, then we have exposed ourselves in ways that will be regrettable, and may even prove fatal in the situation, thus making us to have to learn to speak another language once we lose our nation to another in some way or another.

It is that we should recognize our errors before it is to late, but greed has a way of blinding us.

 

[Andylusion]

All of this stuff you speak of is highly fluid in one direction or the other, and what is being lost in it all is that we have to have a healthy society through in and through out to a certain degree. Now if we have trends of greediness that run for to long in society, it begins to diminish our nation in many ways, and it makes us vulnerable in many ways. You have to think that if we were to have to go to war, then what kind of nation do we have intact to do so ? If we destroy our nations human resources in ways that weaken the entire nation, then we have exposed ourselves in ways that will be regrettable, and may even prove fatal in the situation, thus making us to have to learn to speak another language once we lose our nation to another in some way or another.

It is that we should recognize our errors before it is to late, but greed has a way of blinding us.

There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed. In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.

Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man. It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.

"Greed" is not the problem. Greed is the universal constant human condition.

Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has.

As for wars, war is not about greed. At least not for the US. The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage,

It is the very definition of the supply of labor.
The supply of labour is the total hours (adjusted for intensity of effort) that workers wish to work at a given real wage rate.
Labour supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Principles of Macroeconomics | Economics | MIT OpenCourseWare
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1429240024]Amazon.com: Macroeconomics (9781429240024): N. Gregory Mankiw: Books[/ame]

So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.

That is not what the article says if you bothered to read the article titled:
Yes, There’s a Pilot Shortage: Salaries Start at $21,000
You cannot take one sentence out of an article and declare that's what the whole article said. That is called a "strawman"
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek

I have no fear of finding another job. I can do so whenever I wish. This is not China. This is America. I own my labor. If I don't like the terms given for selling my labor, then I refuse to sell, and go somewhere else.

Which is why supply of labor is a function of wage.
Thank you for demonstrating that.

Try just debating what is said. If that's too hard, maybe you need to find something better to do with your time.

It is difficult to debate what is said when you say "Norway" then I find links on labor in Norway disproving your assertion (you spoke and offered no proof) and you then say Switzerland as if Switzerland is Norway in disguise. If you have any interest in an honest debate, go back and check your post on that. You switched from Norway to Switzerland as if those two were the same entity.

If you are unwilling to recognize your glaring error concerning replacing Norway with Switzerland, the you're right that debating what you choose to say at any moment is too much work and I have better things to do.

Have you read Thomas Sowell's book "A personal odyssey" where he was working at the BLS, and they doctored his research, to fit with what the politicians wanted?

I see. You read one book one time that talked about malfeasance of some sort and now we are to believe what you said earlier which was...

...the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.

No, that guilt by association is illogical.

As for the absolutes in which you speak, such as where a restaurateur would never accept a profit from his business of 50,000 because you dictate terms to that entrepreneur, I don't know how to dissuade you from making up rules you expect other people to live by.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed. In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.

Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man. It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.

"Greed" is not the problem. Greed is the universal constant human condition.

Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has.

As for wars, war is not about greed. At least not for the US. The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.

Adam Smith never said "Greed is Good".
Book4 chapter 8
our spinners are poor people, women commonly scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection. It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the complete work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits.
Try actually reading Adam Smith!

"Greed" is a vice. The "Greed is Good" Gordon Gekko speech is overused, and it ignores that the movie ended badly for that character. Wanting to make a profit is not necessarily "Greed".

greed
/grēd/
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms: avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity

Would you accept "rapacity" as a word for a vice?

"Greed has never caused damage to civilization but Government Regulation has caused damage to civilization?" Really? So "Greed is Good" but "Seatbelts are Bad"?

In any case, what does this have to do with minimum wage, which is the topic of this thread, unless you are suggesting that the FLSA is doing damage to civilization?

If that is your assertion, then please come out and say it and just stop quoting characters from movies.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

I agree, we should encourage people to better their situation. As they better their situation our nation, as an aggregate, is made better. As for inflation, there is a conventional wisdom that GDP growth must be accompanied by inflation, though there is some debate as to whether or not inflation is necessary for growth. Just so you know, most economists will lecture you on the necessity of inflation. The CATO institute published an article arguing, as you do, that the inflation is not necessary for growth.

Does Growth Cause Inflation?

Because we do have inflation, increasing the minimum wage is a foregone conclusion. If we do nothing, people entering the workforce at the minimum wage will qualify for SNAP. Does it need to increase as high as some argue? Probably not.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

General Observation:

People who don't read Adam Smith attribute to Adam Smith opinions he never held.

Here is a real quote from the Wealth of Nations

By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers as the earnings of the poor spinners, and it is by no means for the benefit of the workman that they endeavour either to raise the price of the complete work or to lower that of the rude materials. It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent is too often either neglected or oppressed.

 

[Andylusion]

My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem. While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc. I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long. These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them

The problem is, you are assuming that because a government program was created based on 'intention x', that problem y, can't be related to it.

Yes, the government programs were designed to help poor minorities.

That doesn't matter. The fact is, those programs changed the fundamental functions of the mortgage market, which filtered into the entire market.... not just poor minorities.

Doesn't matter what the intentions were.

There's a reason we have old phrases like:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

The whole point of that aphorism written a thousand years ago, is that intentions can have negative results, no matter how noble, how pure, how altruistic they may have been conceived.

This is an example of that. Yes, the push for sub-prime loans, was 'intended' to help poor minorities. Yippy skip.

Reality is, the push for sub-prime loans, lowered lending standards across the board. The result was a price bubble in real estate as millions of previously unqualified borrowers were drawn into the market, not just poor minorities. That bubble increased continuously until it popped, which effected all real estate, not just those of the 'intended' poor minorities.

Actually its a phenomenon called a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Some market crashes are worse than others but they are cyclical and pretty predictable. If it was not the subprime loans it would have been something else.

Which I would generally grant you..... except that I can specifically point to exact policies and regulations, that encouraged sub-prime lending, and directly penalized those who didn't engage in sub-prime lending.

When you can find direct evidence showing the connection between action A and reaction B... it's no longer a random 'cycle'.

 

[Andylusion]

General Observation:

People who don't read Adam Smith attribute to Adam Smith opinions he never held.

Here is a real quote from the Wealth of Nations

By encouraging the importation of foreign linen yarn, and thereby bringing it into competition with that which is made by our own people, they endeavour to buy the work of the poor spinners as cheap as possible. They are as intent to keep down the wages of their own weavers as the earnings of the poor spinners, and it is by no means for the benefit of the workman that they endeavour either to raise the price of the complete work or to lower that of the rude materials. It is the industry which is carried on for the benefit of the rich and the powerful that is principally encouraged by our mercantile system. That which is carried on for the benefit of the poor and the indigent is too often either neglected or oppressed.

My experience is that people assume others have never read Adam Smith, when in reality they have no idea what books others have or have not read.

Additionally, my experience is that people are first to claim others have never read Adam Smith, have in fact never read it themselves.

Lastly, my experience is that many who claim to have read Adam Smith, often pick out one passage, take it out of context, and apply their own personal views unto the passage, that Adam Smith never intended.

Adam Smith did say what you quoted, but he was talking about a mercantile system, that he opposed. Not capitalism which he promoted. If you had actually read the book, you would know that.

 

[Andylusion]

There has never been a time in American society, where greed has not existed. In fact, there has never been a time in any society, current or historical, where greed has not existed.

Adam Smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man. It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.

"Greed" is not the problem. Greed is the universal constant human condition.

Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has.

As for wars, war is not about greed. At least not for the US. The reason we go to war, is because there is a threat.

Adam Smith never said "Greed is Good".
Book4 chapter 8
our spinners are poor people, women commonly scattered about in all different parts of the country, without support or protection. It is not by the sale of their work, but by that of the complete work of the weavers, that our great master manufacturers make their profits.
Try actually reading Adam Smith!

"Greed" is a vice. The "Greed is Good" Gordon Gekko speech is overused, and it ignores that the movie ended badly for that character. Wanting to make a profit is not necessarily "Greed".

greed
/grēd/
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms: avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity

Would you accept "rapacity" as a word for a vice?

"Greed has never caused damage to civilization but Government Regulation has caused damage to civilization?" Really? So "Greed is Good" but "Seatbelts are Bad"?

In any case, what does this have to do with minimum wage, which is the topic of this thread, unless you are suggesting that the FLSA is doing damage to civilization?

If that is your assertion, then please come out and say it and just stop quoting characters from movies.

Did I ever say that Adam Smith said 'greed is good'?

No I did not. What you just engaged in, was creating a strawman argument, and attacking it.

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Book 1 Chapter 2

Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty

This is what he said. Take it or leave it, but it is true regardless.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Adam Smith did say what you quoted, but he was talking about a mercantile system, that he opposed. Not capitalism which he promoted. If you had actually read the book, you would know that.

Are you really going to argue that we live under the capitalist system Adam Smith promoted? Because, if not, then you cannot argue for the goodness of our current system by arguing for the goodness of Adam Smith's vision of capitalism.

Further, do you really think Adam Smith left no room for the government to take on the cause of the poor?

Try reading Book 5.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

adam smith, wrote about this in the wealth of nations, that the reason the butcher or baker, provides their goods to society, is not, and never has been, for the intention of helping his fellow man. It is always, and still is to this day, for their own self interest.

"greed" is not the problem. Greed is the universal constant human condition.

Greed has never caused damage to civilization. Government regulations, most certainly has.

did i ever say that adam smith said 'greed is good'?

No i did not. What you just engaged in, was creating a strawman argument, and attacking it.

whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which i want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

book 1 chapter 2

smith: Wealth of nations, book i, chapters 1-4 | library of economics and liberty

this is what he said. Take it or leave it, but it is true regardless.

"Greed is the universal constant human condition." - androw

Greed and Greedy are pejorative terms. You can't change the pejorative nature of a word because you think everyone should change our common language.

Further, Smith was no champion of greed. He spends a good deal of his work lamenting greed and deriding greed.


Note: "Greed" and "Self-Interest" are not synonymous.

 

[Andylusion]

So you claim that labor supply is a function of wage, by posting a link saying that the shortage of labor is due to government regulations, requiring more flight hours before a pilot can fly commercial jets.

That is not what the article says if you bothered to read the article titled:
Yes, There’s a Pilot Shortage: Salaries Start at $21,000
You cannot take one sentence out of an article and declare that's what the whole article said. That is called a "strawman"
Pilot Shortage: Regional Airlines Are Cutting Flights - Businessweek

So clearly prior to the new federal regulations, salaries were exactly the same, and yet there was no pilot shortage. Yet now, after the rule change, there is a pilot shortage.

Yet in your world, the problem is the wage rate, which was the same in both situations.

You are quickly proving to be a waste of time.

...the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers.

No, that guilt by association is illogical.

Blind trust in politicians that never lie, is of course completely logical...

Your opinion of my opinion matters so much to me. Really.

BTW, normally I would mock you and laugh when you engaged in strawman arguments, deflection, fabrication, and topic changes.

Since this is the clean section, I'm simply deleting all parts of your post where you engage in such behaviors. Notice how little of your post is left? You've lost this argument. People who are making good points, don't have to make up lies about confusing Norway with Switzerland (which I went back 4 pages of posts, and found no evidence of), in order to avoid looking dumb.

Thanks for stopping by, but you really don't have much to say anymore. If you do, by all means feel free, but given how little of value you've had to say in the last three posts you've made... it's clear your argument is done.

As for the absolutes in which you speak, such as where a restaurateur would never accept a profit from his business of 50,000 because you dictate terms to that entrepreneur, I don't know how to dissuade you from making up rules you expect other people to live by.

Perfect example of what I was just eluding to. It's not a 'rule others must live by'. It's a fact. An observation of the real world, which apparently you have no concept of, not a expectation of how the world should work.

The fact you are even questioning this, proves just how little, and how out of touch you are with business owners.

But if you want to remain ignorant, and in your own little world, where owners will work for $50K a year, just so a whopper flopper can make $15 an hour.... just stay in your own little world. It's 'safer' there.

 

[Andylusion]

"Greed is the universal constant human condition." - androw

Greed and Greedy are pejorative terms. You can't change the pejorative nature of a word because you think everyone should change our common language.

Further, Smith was no champion of greed. He spends a good deal of his work lamenting greed and deriding greed.


Note: "Greed" and "Self-Interest" are not synonymous.

Now tell me how the statement:
"Greed is the universal constant human condition." Which I attributed to .... ME.....

Means that I implied Adam Smith said greed is good?

Look.... this is yet another example of you creating strawman arguments.

If you really can't debate more maturely than this, then I'll just find someone else to talk to. I will put you on my ignore list, and talk to other more intelligent and mature people.... people that don't just make up crap that I didn't say, and attack me the crap they made up.

That's how this works. You either prove yourself worth talking to, or prove conclusively that you are not. I'll be fine either way. Make your choice.