Printable View
Do some of these dickheads actually THINK before they even suggest things like this?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...age/?mobile=wt
What part of "more pay means more purchases which means more money for the company to pay more so that their employees will buy more so that the company makes more money yada yada yada" don't these fools understand?
Discuss.
Just have to keep the serfs & peons in their place while we work on getting rid of that pesky 13th Amendment.
Hey Ben, it's just socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben in LA
That's the Republican economic model, right?
Or as we called it here in Europe in the Middle Ages, the Feudal System....
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
Well, good ol' Charlie believes in pure capitalism, unfettered markets. I mean, in absolute capitalism (which we've never had) you can't have anything held in common. Ya know, no public health care etc., etc. And you cannot, if you want a pure capitalist system, have minimum wage laws or even child labor laws. Those two things restrict the free flow of the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben in LA
But patents, copyright protection, a public police force etc., etc. also impinge on this utopian theory.
And the theory will never be put into practice. Because the super-rich like good ol' Charlie depend on a powerful state to serve their interests.
Gore Vidal pointed out: it's socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else.
Noam Chomsky described them as a: lethal force.
But they're simply serving their own interests. I mean, it's rational. And, too, it's their value system.
The rich are better than you. They got rich by being better. They're life's winners. You're the loser. They've earned the right to rub it in.
>>>What part of "more pay means more purchases which means more money for the company to pay more so that their employees will buy more so that the company makes more money yada yada yada" don't these fools understand?
"more pay means more purchases"
More purchases *for the particular employee RECEIVING that additional pay* and fewer purchases *for the consumer ultimately PAYING for the employee's higher wage." The consumer will have less money because mandated higher wages must ultimately be paid for by higher prices passed along to him. The higher prices the consumer will pay for his purchases to the "X" company will result in his making fewer purchases to the "Y" company and the "Z" company.
So the *total* number of purchases in the economy remain the same; but the mix, or composition, of the purchases will have shifted from one kind of item to another, or from one company to some other company. That might be politically expedient — to help one group of people at the expense of another group of people — but it's completely false to claim that it helps the economy overall.
Several years ago, when same-sex marriage was first being debated in the news, The New York Times ran an article about lesbian couples in Massachusetts claiming that recognizing same-sex marriage would be "good for the economy" because lesbian couples wanting to marry would "buy 2 wedding gowns, as opposed to one in the case of a hetero couple." In that writer's opinion, buying 2 wedding gowns apparently helps the economy. It didn't occur to the writer that the purchase of the 2nd wedding gown occurs at the expense of the purchase of some other item (fewer purchases of home computers, for example). Lesbian couples don't increase their purchasing power just because they're allowed to marry; they *redirect* their purchases toward items they would not have otherwise bought. That doesn't hurt the economy, of course, but it doesn't improve it either; it merely sends a signal to companies: "make more wedding gowns and fewer home computers."
"which means more money for the company"
Which company? An employee's wage is a company's COST, just as equipment is a cost, rent is a cost, interest payments on borrowed money are a cost, etc. Would you mind explaining how a company makes more money if one or more of its costs go up?
More to the point: if a mandated hike to $9.00/hour is beneficial to the employee, his employer, other companies and their employees, etc., in spreading "waves of prosperity", then why stop at only $9.00/hour? You want instant prosperity? Mandate that companies pay no less than $900.00/hour to all employees! That'll improve the economy! Just imagine the amount of spending a dish washer at a diner could do if his employer were forced to pay him no less than $900.00 for an hour of his labor!
No serious economist (I'm one) doubts for a second the basics he learned in his training: Mandating that the price of "Y" must go never fall below "$" will always cause a glut of "Y" ("glut" means "lots of 'Y' that no one wants to buy at that price"). The price of labor is called a "wage" — it's an unfortunate term, but it's the one we're stuck with for historical reasons. And we have a very special name for the glut of labor — the labor that no one wants to buy — that always follows a mandated increase in its price: it's called "unemployment."
For more on minimum wage, and basic economics in general, see the works of one of the great TS economists, Deirdre McCloskey (formerly, Donald McCloskey). Her website is here:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com
An employee is an asset to her employer, providing the labor required to reduce the company's product. Her wage is merely the cost of maintenance of that asset. Skimp on the maintenance and the product suffers, and thereby eventually the company's reputation, sells and profits.
I love it Trish.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But I groan inwardly that this thread is an open invitation to the zealot who posted endless screeds here a few months ago in praise of the theories of Ayn Rand.
The Kochs have worked some fine magic in America these past few years. Their pernicious impact is still being seen in the deadlock in Washington.
Edit ->The edited portion is italicized. (Damn I wish there wasn't a ten minute limit on editing one's posts).Quote:
Originally Posted by trish