So basically you support eugenics? Which do you think is more likely?
1) I'm a rich millionaire who somehow desires the United States to be freed of minimum wage hikes in spite of not living there and not having any intentions to do so because I have some sinister plan to help rich people out.
2) I actually care about the poor people this has affected. You cannot interpret BLS data to fit your ideology ("religion") and make any sound argument that these policies actually helped the poor, especially minority groups.
I'm also not a conservative. If you might have noticed, I'm also against the republican war on drugs spurred on by Reagan. Part of it is for the same reason when it comes to minorities. First we price them out of the market, destroying their neighborhoods and escalating poverty, unemployment, and crime among them. Then we declare a war on drugs and lock hundreds of thousands of them away, breaking up homes and families.
Then you end up with bigots thinking these minorities are prone to crime and deviant behavior, all reinforced by these government policies. Finally we end up with the social justice types who end up advocating for more policies of the kind that got these minorities where they're at in the first place.
I choose 3) you don't have a decent college education and have been deluded by a few idiots on the internet into thinking that the rich will actually help the poor if they have a surplus of money. Your comment about how blacks were "thriving in the 30's" proves that. Rich people only help the poor when they are forced to because the average person cannot be trusted to make a selfless decision with their money. The rich will only do what will allow them maximum profit.
This is coming from someone who claimed that Sowell never even studied economics while simultaneously trying to relate economic arguments to flat earthers. Geez. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the ultimate flat earther of economics. I found a whole new level of idiocy in this regard. Learn some humility, try to fix some of your own brainwashing, and get a clue. :-P
Do ya disagree with the BLS data about black unemployment, poverty, and crime escalating under these policies, disagree that minimum wage was a contributing factor, disagree that price controls make people express their preferences more lacking economic incentive to choose otherwise, or something else?
Yes. I think the fear people have of abolishing minimum wage laws is that everyone will end up paying people table scraps. Such wasn't the case with Henry Ford, for example, who paid his workers an exceedingly high wage of $5/day (around $120/day today).
His policy came about when there were no minimum wage laws. The reason he adopted paying his workers such high wages is that previously, his factories were producing such a high turnover rate. People were leaving their jobs to seek better ones with higher wages and better working conditions, and he had plenty of competition.
So he ended up paying them an unprecedented high wage which gave them the incentive to stay at his company. No minimum wage law was necessary to cause that to happen.
The problem with the free market when customers see prices skyrocket or employees see their wages at an all time low is usually the result of anti-competitive measures.
That's one of the problem as I see it. Aside from that is a basic ethical standpoint from my perspective. What right does the government have to tell you how much to pay your workers? Aside from that, the government is telling the people who want to work for you: "No, you can't offer to work for $6/hour. You can't bargain and negotiate lower wages than this minimum wage." It deprives both parties of their freedom to negotiate as I see it.
I think a fear people have is that greedy capitalists will just pay people as little as possible. I don't think that's true of all employers: I've known some good ones who genuinely value their employees, especially in smaller, more personal types of businesses. Yet even if they are greedy scumbags, they won't be able to get away mistreating their employees for long provided there's competition.
Another way I look at this is that we all place trust in our employers when we provide them continued service, as we improve our skills, as the business thrives. We tend to expect bonuses when the business does exceedingly well and profit margins are high, we tend to expect promotions and higher wages for continued service and as we improve in skills.
We never needed the government and laws to force employers to do this through a threat of punishment if they fail to do this. Employers do this voluntarily on their own when they recognize and appreciate the value of their loyal employees.
If we never needed government mandates in place to guarantee things like promotions and bonuses, why did we ever need a government mandate to determine our starting wage? The system was working just fine as I see it before minimum wage came into place, and arguably became a lot more broken after it came into place, especially with respect to how minorities were priced out of the market.
@John_Doesnt Relatively yes. Poverty, crime, and unemployment were low among black people. Harlem was a safe neighborhood. Relatively speaking, many were better off than the ones living in the ghettos today. You have to always ask the question, "compared to what?" in economics. That type of thinking might be alien to you. I'm comparing it to this:
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
21Opinion
I agree.
If we want to help poor workers we have to do it via taxes and transfers. Minimum wage is a terrible way to attempt it.
Another conservative rant about how saving the rich money will somehow help the poor. Come up with something new already.
So basically you support eugenics? Which do you think is more likely?
1) I'm a rich millionaire who somehow desires the United States to be freed of minimum wage hikes in spite of not living there and not having any intentions to do so because I have some sinister plan to help rich people out.
2) I actually care about the poor people this has affected. You cannot interpret BLS data to fit your ideology ("religion") and make any sound argument that these policies actually helped the poor, especially minority groups.
I'm also not a conservative. If you might have noticed, I'm also against the republican war on drugs spurred on by Reagan. Part of it is for the same reason when it comes to minorities. First we price them out of the market, destroying their neighborhoods and escalating poverty, unemployment, and crime among them. Then we declare a war on drugs and lock hundreds of thousands of them away, breaking up homes and families.
Then you end up with bigots thinking these minorities are prone to crime and deviant behavior, all reinforced by these government policies. Finally we end up with the social justice types who end up advocating for more policies of the kind that got these minorities where they're at in the first place.
I choose 3) you don't have a decent college education and have been deluded by a few idiots on the internet into thinking that the rich will actually help the poor if they have a surplus of money.
Your comment about how blacks were "thriving in the 30's" proves that. Rich people only help the poor when they are forced to because the average person cannot be trusted to make a selfless decision with their money. The rich will only do what will allow them maximum profit.
This is coming from someone who claimed that Sowell never even studied economics while simultaneously trying to relate economic arguments to flat earthers. Geez. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the ultimate flat earther of economics. I found a whole new level of idiocy in this regard. Learn some humility, try to fix some of your own brainwashing, and get a clue. :-P
I disagree with ya on this one
Do ya disagree with the BLS data about black unemployment, poverty, and crime escalating under these policies, disagree that minimum wage was a contributing factor, disagree that price controls make people express their preferences more lacking economic incentive to choose otherwise, or something else?
Tell me what you think the minimum wage should be?
I think it should be $0 as it was in the early 30s when black people were starting to thrive, e. g.
Really...
Yes. I think the fear people have of abolishing minimum wage laws is that everyone will end up paying people table scraps. Such wasn't the case with Henry Ford, for example, who paid his workers an exceedingly high wage of $5/day (around $120/day today).
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...b69c01fc5a.jpg
His policy came about when there were no minimum wage laws. The reason he adopted paying his workers such high wages is that previously, his factories were producing such a high turnover rate. People were leaving their jobs to seek better ones with higher wages and better working conditions, and he had plenty of competition.
So he ended up paying them an unprecedented high wage which gave them the incentive to stay at his company. No minimum wage law was necessary to cause that to happen.
The problem with the free market when customers see prices skyrocket or employees see their wages at an all time low is usually the result of anti-competitive measures.
I know we start our employees about $2 above the minimum wage.
Apparently most employers are actually doing that. Only ~2.7% of workers in the US make min wage or below.
www.bls.gov/.../home.htm
Also what do you think will happen to your firm if, say, minimum wage was raised to $15/hour?
If it did... our company would shut down. I know it would... I do payroll and I see the company's numbers. I think a lot of company's would shut down.
That's one of the problem as I see it. Aside from that is a basic ethical standpoint from my perspective. What right does the government have to tell you how much to pay your workers? Aside from that, the government is telling the people who want to work for you: "No, you can't offer to work for $6/hour. You can't bargain and negotiate lower wages than this minimum wage." It deprives both parties of their freedom to negotiate as I see it.
I think a fear people have is that greedy capitalists will just pay people as little as possible. I don't think that's true of all employers: I've known some good ones who genuinely value their employees, especially in smaller, more personal types of businesses. Yet even if they are greedy scumbags, they won't be able to get away mistreating their employees for long provided there's competition.
Another way I look at this is that we all place trust in our employers when we provide them continued service, as we improve our skills, as the business thrives. We tend to expect bonuses when the business does exceedingly well and profit margins are high, we tend to expect promotions and higher wages for continued service and as we improve in skills.
We never needed the government and laws to force employers to do this through a threat of punishment if they fail to do this. Employers do this voluntarily on their own when they recognize and appreciate the value of their loyal employees.
If we never needed government mandates in place to guarantee things like promotions and bonuses, why did we ever need a government mandate to determine our starting wage? The system was working just fine as I see it before minimum wage came into place, and arguably became a lot more broken after it came into place, especially with respect to how minorities were priced out of the market.
You make an excellent point.
black people were thriving in the 30's? Lol. that's the most ignorant statement from you so far.
@John_Doesnt Relatively yes. Poverty, crime, and unemployment were low among black people. Harlem was a safe neighborhood. Relatively speaking, many were better off than the ones living in the ghettos today. You have to always ask the question, "compared to what?" in economics. That type of thinking might be alien to you. I'm comparing it to this:
allotherpersons.files.wordpress.com/.../...ace.gif
Now buzz off.
@ak666 there are idiots everywhere. Dont pay any attention to them.