C
cynic
Guest
so this is speculation on the circumstances of workers a lot further down the pay scale, but using yourself, - someone with a degree and presumably some skills/knowledge to bargain with - as the applicable example.
- Status
C
cynic
Guest
why bother removing a low minimum wage then.
C
cynic
Guest
Right, if only the government would stop interfering, the job market would work perfectly and everyone could survive on their wages. Perhaps people understand the theory, but don’t put much trust in it.
T
Thais
Guest
This observation appears to be totally valid, but it is actually a distraction from the main point.
What my example illustrates is how the pursuit of profit, free markets, capitalism and competition do bring true justice, at least in the long term, while most government regulation is more like a band-aid on deep bruises. It might stop the bleeding, but perpetuates the problem.
In the quote above, you are talking about a reality that proceeds directly from the rule of Economics that you seem to be familiar with, but yet reject.
My degree and skills do give me the ability to bargain, but let’s not skip a link in the chain. Why do they give me this ability?
Because a manager respects a person that put the effort to study hard, so therefore they want to be nice to them?
Because that’s the law?
No. Because my degree and skills simply make my labor a scarce good, so more expensive. If everybody had the same, I’d be paid less. So they themselves don’t grant me a higher pay.
This same principle can be applied to the minimum wage vicious cycle. When the government raises the minimum wage to where it’s not profitable anymore for companies that hire lower rate labor, they have 2 options: fire people or raise their prices.
If the latter, we get inflation. If the former, we get unemployment, which, by the principle above, makes labor cheaper.
And then there are the lovely union scenarios, where their threshold is determined in function of the minimum wage, e.g.: 10x the minimum wage, which creates a collateral effect on that pay grade as well.
T
Thais
Guest
Well I am pretty sure I never said governments are dismissible. But they are definitely way overrated. There are very specific few cases when government intervention helps. I don’t doubt Mr. Smith himself believed that.
I also never said the free market guarantees thriving. I said it brings justice. People that blatantly refuse to move a finger and prefer getting their living from others surely don’t get very far.
There’s also that. In these cases, I think they have been exposed to the theory, but haven’t thought it through, specially with all the noise of the liberal agenda (which is easy to understand, because it’s a lie), overflowing the media and schools.
I love this quote from President Ronald Reagan:
“The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I have to second your experience: my ex wife was in a similar situation, but with the added handicap that she had no self confidence (part of her problems of why she’s my ex, not my wife, but I digress). She went in about 6 years to almost six times the salary she started at her first job here in the US. She also took some classes at the local university to have a paper trail here, which helped.Yes, and besides, what ends up happening in these situations? Employers are forced to hire less people. And then you get an increase in unemployment, which in turn causes average salaries to go down. Great domino effect. The result is exactly the opposite of what our “very well intentioned” politicians had envisioned.
Yes, and I add that, save very rare occasions, in the long term, the mere pursuit of profit and its “invisible hand” will tend toward justice for all. This is Economics 101, Adam Smith.
A personal example: I am a permanent resident from Brazil. When I went to get my first job here in the US, let’s just say that my Brazilian resume wasn’t necessarily attracting hundreds of opportunities.
Was this discrimination? No. My university is excellent, but it’s just plain not famous here. I had some good previous jobs to list, but with companies nobody here is familiar with, etc (and in case you were wondering, no, I didn’t move here to find a job, but because of my marriage, hubby is American).
So it’s just natural to prefer to hire somebody that you can check more easily, it’s more likely to be profitable. That’s what I would do.
Well, so what did I do? I went back 1 step so that I could go 2 forward. I took an entry level position even though I had a couple years of experience after graduating. And I took a salary that is even too low for entry-level positions with a bachelor’s degree.
My interviewer asked me why I was accepting that rate, I answered “so that I can show somebody my worth, I’ll be asking for a raise soon”.
Sure enough, I got my first raise after 3 months.
And why did I get my raises? Because they were mean before and then they decided to become good people? No, because of the pursuit of profit, just as before. They saw my skills and realized they would need to fix my rate if they wanted to keep me from finding another job.
Now, had these “miraculous” government regulations or unions be setting my pay rate at a minimum higher than my initial rate, I might be still looking for a job now, because they probably wouldn’t have thought I was worth taking a chance at this hypothetical minimum pay rate.
a propósito , boa tarde!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And what if it includes abortions?
Some excerpts from your link:
In the industrialized world, these problems rarely lead to death. Children’s deaths are most likely the result of injury suffered in traffic accidents, intentional harm, drowning, falling, fire and poisoning
In the United States and Portugal, the rates of child injury death are twice as high
Which seems more a problem of being klutzs than the health care.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
It makes the demogogues feel good about themselves.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You weren’t supposed to see that.Sorry about that…I will look for something not biased!
That’s only for the “in” crowd. You know, those who graze with the herd of independent minds.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Already has: the loans with nothing down was a subsidy.
Since it was a subsidy, it wasn’t regulated.
And because it wasn’t regulated, there nothing and nobody to tax.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Only the US is having kids. The rest of the developed world is contracepting and aborting itself into oblivion. If the kids are conceived, or killed in the womb, they can’t die under 5. It does lead to a concentration of resources per child, but not without a price.
C
cynic
Guest
If the scarcity of relevant skills is all that determines pay, then that’s something quite different from the idea that employees are paid by their specific contribution to turnover. For example, you may have been trained as a engineer and can run diagnostics/repair machinary on an assembly line. Those skills are relatively rare and the role essential, therefore you get a high salary. But are you contributing five times more than the person operating the machinery? I understand you, but I don’t accept that supply and demand is neccessarily linked to justice, so the concept of government interfering to raise incomes doesn’t seem all that offensive.
This assumes that employers pay the maximum they can afford while maintaining acceptable profit, ie the invisible hand of the market has already worked perfectly to raise the wages of those nearest the minimum as much as they can be.
If the minimum wage is going to cause unemployment then how can the labour of those same people become cheaper? They will remain unemployed. I assume you mean that high unemployment tends to flatten the salaries of those already employed, ie other workers pay for a higher minimum wage.
L
Litcrit
Guest
Wow. I had no idea anyone would ever respond to this. It was an overgeneralization on a late night.
I didn’t mean either thinking yourself a part of a huge, extended family that is your society (my, probably erroneous, concept of much of Europe), or individualism (my, probably errouneous, concept of the US) were inherently positive or negative - they can both be selfish or selfless, and are in themselves morally neutral. Thay are just different modes of thought.
E.g. where I live, it is perfectly normal for grandparents, aunts, and uncles, to babysit frequently, to help out a lot, etc. On the other hand, adult ‘children’ still owe their parents and extended family lots of respect, help in many situations, take care of old parents instead of put them in a home, etc. This is both selfish and selfless - you give more and get more in return. It sort of can spread wider than a family, if many feel the entire society is connected by blood. Again, morally neutral, both selfish and selfless.
What I tried to imply was that many of those rooting for universal healthcare etc. in the US seem to push the EU model, but that many US people seem to feel this would be almost immoral, and perhaps rightly so, as it is at odds with US culture and the values of responsibility, independence, and, most importantly, freedom of choice - not being forced to give. Another, US-specific model, would have to be found, e.g. something based on voluntary charity encouraged by tax breaks - what the US already have, but more developed and universal.
In all my life, I’ve had great experiences with doctors. After giving birth (free), both mother and child remain for three days in hospital (free), ‘just in case’. All those I’ve seen were very thorough and conscientious, and were just doing their jobs - no need to push unnecessary drugs or surgeries, but also no need to withhold the necessary ones either - as in either case, no money came in or out of their pockets.
I didn’t mean either thinking yourself a part of a huge, extended family that is your society (my, probably erroneous, concept of much of Europe), or individualism (my, probably errouneous, concept of the US) were inherently positive or negative - they can both be selfish or selfless, and are in themselves morally neutral. Thay are just different modes of thought.
E.g. where I live, it is perfectly normal for grandparents, aunts, and uncles, to babysit frequently, to help out a lot, etc. On the other hand, adult ‘children’ still owe their parents and extended family lots of respect, help in many situations, take care of old parents instead of put them in a home, etc. This is both selfish and selfless - you give more and get more in return. It sort of can spread wider than a family, if many feel the entire society is connected by blood. Again, morally neutral, both selfish and selfless.
What I tried to imply was that many of those rooting for universal healthcare etc. in the US seem to push the EU model, but that many US people seem to feel this would be almost immoral, and perhaps rightly so, as it is at odds with US culture and the values of responsibility, independence, and, most importantly, freedom of choice - not being forced to give. Another, US-specific model, would have to be found, e.g. something based on voluntary charity encouraged by tax breaks - what the US already have, but more developed and universal.
You go straight to the doctor of your choice - in your area, though - and wait up to 2-3 hours in the waiting room. You pay nothing for either the call or antibiotics. There isn’t much out of the ‘network’, really - the vast majority of doctors are government-paid, and they’re really good - what the private ones offer is more in terms of atmosphere, not having to wait at all, and for some, the sheer prestige of going to a private doctor. And most private doctors ALSO work within the government system, and their private practice is something they do on the side. Their government-paid hours are about 40 hours a week, so they can easily work more, if they want to, although they really don’t have to, as their salaries are already the highest in the country, 10 times the minimum wages.
In all my life, I’ve had great experiences with doctors. After giving birth (free), both mother and child remain for three days in hospital (free), ‘just in case’. All those I’ve seen were very thorough and conscientious, and were just doing their jobs - no need to push unnecessary drugs or surgeries, but also no need to withhold the necessary ones either - as in either case, no money came in or out of their pockets.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Wow. I had no idea anyone would ever respond to this. It was an overgeneralization on a late night.
I didn’t mean either thinking yourself a part of a huge, extended family that is your society (my, probably erroneous, concept of much of Europe), or individualism (my, probably errouneous, concept of the US) were inherently positive or negative - they can both be selfish or selfless, and are in themselves morally neutral. Thay are just different modes of thought.
E.g. where I live, it is perfectly normal for grandparents, aunts, and uncles, to babysit frequently, to help out a lot, etc. On the other hand, adult ‘children’ still owe their parents and extended family lots of respect, help in many situations, take care of old parents instead of put them in a home, etc. This is both selfish and selfless - you give more and get more in return. It sort of can spread wider than a family, if many feel the entire society is connected by blood. Again, morally neutral, both selfish and selfless.
What I tried to imply was that many of those rooting for universal healthcare etc. in the US seem to push the EU model, but that many US people seem to feel this would be almost immoral, and perhaps rightly so, as it is at odds with US culture and the values of responsibility, independence, and, most importantly, freedom of choice - not being forced to give. Another, US-specific model, would have to be found, e.g. something based on voluntary charity encouraged by tax breaks - what the US already have, but more developed and universal.
You go straight to the doctor of your choice - in your area, though - and wait up to 2-3 hours in the waiting room. You pay nothing for either the call or antibiotics. There isn’t much out of the ‘network’, really - the vast majority of doctors are government-paid, and they’re really good - what the private ones offer is more in terms of atmosphere, not having to wait at all, and for some, the sheer prestige of going to a private doctor. And most private doctors ALSO work within the government system, and their private practice is something they do on the side. Their government-paid hours are about 40 hours a week, so they can easily work more, if they want to, although they really don’t have to, as their salaries are already the highest in the country, 10 times the minimum wages.
In all my life, I’ve had great experiences with doctors. After giving birth (free), both mother and child remain for three days in hospital (free), ‘just in case’. All those I’ve seen were very thorough and conscientious, and were just doing their jobs - no need to push unnecessary drugs or surgeries, but also no need to withhold the necessary ones either - as in either case, no money came in or out of their pockets.
Code:
T
Thais
Guest
You know what, good point.
I actually did hear a few examples of taxation and regulation that contributed to this disaster leading to this bailout (subsidize), but I hadn’t put it together with this quote from President Ronald Reagan.
- Capital gains taxes. If the market was allowed to keep its capital gains, it would have more money to sustain itself without having to use our income tax money now. Plus it would attract more investors.
- There’s some kind of regulation (month-to-month) that artificially forces some types of mortgages to be recalculated every time a house in the neighborhood sells for less than the mortgage value. So banks could lose a lot of money overnight because of 1 sale.
- The worst problem of all: these almost-no-money-down mortgages for people with bad credit.
3.1.: There’s a regulation that allows community organizers to prohibit expansions of banks that do not offer sub-prime loans in the area they operate.
T
Thais
Guest
Is she from Brazil? Is that how you learned Portuguese? My husband is learning it too.
It’s nighttime for me now, so boa noite!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, Romanian, a Latin on the opposite side of Europe. Funny thing though, is that Romanian shares a number of features with Portuguese and Spanish that none of the Romance languages have, the “personal a” for instance. Btw, my ex’s Romanian friends (they sided with me after the divorce, as did her mother) were amazed that I learned Romanian. I just took it as a given in a mixed marriage.
Boa noite!
T
Thais
Guest
It is quite different indeed, isn’t it amazing? This just shows how sound capitalism is, how self-confirming it is in practice, how God is really in control of things when we don’t try to centralize control in the hands of a very limited number of people.
The scarce skills are also usually the ones that contribute the most to the success of a company and progress of a generation. Now this is genius how God set this up.
Assuming you mean “you” as in general, because I’m not a Mechanical Engineer.
Answering the question: maybe. So where are you going with this?
Well, I think many people have already explained this pretty well in this thread. I haven’t seen one good argument against it.
I’m thinking of starting a thread about the Catholic Social Justice and capitalism vs. socialism. It might be helpful even to people that don’t necessarily obey the Church.
Or as much as it should be to where it is still advantageous for the owner, fair and competitive.
Unemployment = abundance of labor => everybody’s labor becomes cheaper (as far as chances of getting a raise, for the employed, or getting a good job, for the unemployed).
I don’t know what you’re saying with this last sentence.
- Status