Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[Gestopft]

Evidence please. Friedman and Thomas Sowell have statistical evidence for their case; you don't. Perhaps you should watch more of Thomas Sowell cause this guy never make statements that are unsupported by statistics.

Look up William Lazonick's research on how stock buybacks drive up inequality and hamper growth. Or the multitude of research on corporate concentration. Or how short-termism in business is hurting long-term growth. Friedman's idea that a company should seek to maximize shareholder value has been taken to heart by corporate America for decades- and the results for the working and middle class have been awful.


And these loons arguing against the concept of the minimum wage seem to have this weird notion that some people value their own labor at less than the cost of what it takes to live. I mean, how else could one explain the insanity of such a position?

[Elegiac]

Evidence please. Friedman and Thomas Sowell have statistical evidence for their case; you don't. Perhaps you should watch more of Thomas Sowell cause this guy never make statements that are unsupported by statistics.

My evidence for Friedman and Sowell being full of shit is the Republic of Chile.

[Elegiac]

Lol, if you actually read and watch for Sowell and Friedman you would have known that free market isn't just "capitalism". "Capitalism" is always there, free market is free and fair competition protected from corruption, crime, blackmailing and biased regulations.

If you'd actually read the article I posted you'd know I'm not talking about "capitalism", but that Friedman has had a direct influence on the Republic of Chile's current level of economic shitfuckery vis a vis the Chicago Boys.

Free market economics is and has always been a crock of shit based on the pseudoscience that is social darwinism.

[Elegiac]

Still not evidence that proper free market is evil. Sorry ... Sowell has statistics and you have a bullshit article about a not-so-free market failing.

I'm not saying it's evil.

I'm saying it's a unicorn and that attempts to bring it into existence invariably backslide into cannibal capitalism. Free market capitalism is the diametric opposite of utopian marxism - it requires people to act and think in ways that no actual human behaves in.

And Sowell does not have "statistics", he has terrible interpretations of those statistics, lol.

[Calfredd]

Still not evidence that proper free market is evil. Sorry ... Sowell has statistics and you have a bullshit article about a not-so-free market failing.

Brilliant, another Anarcho-capitalist.

[Elegiac]

Brilliant, another Anarcho-capitalist.

People really be going and calling utopian marxism a pipe dream and then go around and say the market will regulate itself despite there having been no evidence of such a market ever having existed in human history, lol.

And then they complain when we bring up quotes from Adam Smith of all people.

[Elegiac]

I'm not an anarchist and "capitalism" is not an ideology .. it simply exists. You always own a capital whether it's your good looks or smart wits or family ties or political ties or whatever. Failure to recognize that disqualifies you from economic debates.

Lol, are we really going for a "everything is capitalism" argument?

Because you're fuckin' wrong; if the means of production aren't privately owned, it isn't capitalist. The notions that the means of production should be privately owned and that it is better that they are so are inherently ideological stances.

Problem is people don't seem to have a memory that extends past the previous electoral cycle and forget that humans existed without capitalism for most of their history and in many cases lived less labor intensive lives doing so.

[Calfredd]

I'm not an anarchist and "capitalism" is not an ideology .. it simply exists. You always own a capital whether it's your good looks or smart wits or family ties or political ties or whatever. Failure to recognize that disqualifies you from economic debates. Here is some education on basic economics:

Because you don't know what you are talking about

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free market which they describe as a voluntary society.

[Gestopft]

His philosophy is very counter to that: companies that build reputations and better long term plans survive and those who try to go for quick box will fail. That's the whole idea of not needing rigid government regularization: greedy companies offering shitty services for quick gains will fail and those building trust in them will survive.

The problem is when companies get very large and industries get highly concentrated- which firms seek to do in the pursuit of maximizing shareholder value and their own profits- consumers' ability to fight back is severely hampered. "Consumer preference" is doing nothing to fix shitty airlines. Or cable companies. Or (multiple other industries here). Taking on a competitor of such size- even a shitty one- is extremely difficult for small firms. Big firms have the ability to tilt the playing field in their direction in a multitude of ways, which is one of the reasons stronger antitrust is needed to help competitiveness within the market. The failing of US antitrust, however, I don't blame Friedman for- that's more of a Robert Bork thing.

I don't know what stock buy-back is but I'm pretty sure there is a lot of anti-free market shit going in there.

It is definitively NOT anti-free market. It is when companies purchase their own outstanding stock- which does consolidate control a bit- but also results in a bump in their stock value. It used to be illegal until the Reagan administration because it was considered stock manipulation, and since the deregulation of stock buybacks, firms have put trillions into buying back stock and rewarding their shareholders. When the G.O.trumP cut corporate taxes in 2017, wages and growth didn't shoot upwards (apart from some one-time bonuses), but stock buybacks did. When Bush Jr. did his corporate tax holiday, the biggest companies affected actually LOST jobs, but there was a massive surge in stock buybacks. The ability of companies to repurchase their own stocks has increased inequality, made companies more focused on short-term gains, and has tied executive compensation to stock market performance. There has been a massive shift toward stock compensation for corporate executives since the 80's- their ability to juice the company's stock prices increases their own compensation- and it's gotten so bad that companies are even taking on debt in order to purchase more stock and reward their major shareholders.

[Gestopft]

Lol, if you actually read and watch for Sowell and Friedman you would have known that free market isn't just "capitalism". "Capitalism" is always there, free market is free and fair competition protected from corruption, crime, blackmailing and biased regulations.

Thing is that regulations are required in order to maintain fair markets; something which 'free market' advocates consistently ignore.

[Gestopft]

Well airways, airlines and airports are heavily regulated. They're not a good example of free market. Big firms actually favor regulations because they can afford it but start ups or potential competitors can't.

And what about cable companies? And the other industries where competition isn't "fixing" it? Also, airlines are less regulated than they used to be. And yes, regulatory capture is a thing: I see this as another argument for stronger anti-trust (and getting rid of money in politics), because one of the problems with 'free' markets is that market actors don't like competition and will do whatever they can to quash it, whether they flex their muscles in the market or use the government to achieve their ends. That's why competition has to be enforced. Competition is not a given, because firms don't like it.

Their idea is that unfair practices or scams should be settled in courts not in regulations. The issue is that we have a very horrible court system, it's expensive to sue, takes years to do so and often judges are not informed enough to make the right call. Ultimately, the failure of having a completely free market is not because free market is bad; it is because we're failing to implement it. I'm not against having some regulations but in the free market spirit we should keep them to a minimum and we should do a better job when it comes to our court.

Yes we should do a better job with courts; specifically throwing Bork's "consumer welfare standard" out the damn window- but courts can only enforce what is already the law. Firms in a market will do whatever they can within the law (and sometimes outside of it) to prevent competition and protect their profits- laws, not just courts, to protect competition and improve out comes for working people are severely needed. Courts won't fix the other ways in which market concentration has led to stagnant wages in the middle, wages one can't live off of at the low end, increasing inequality, etc. etc. etc. You don't address the fundamental fact that workers require bargaining power through the courts.

A thing to note, Sowell is not that hard on completely free market as Friedman was. Practicality must be considered, even Friedman admitted it. You can't let people pay exactly how much they pollute for instance. You can't really charge people for every minute they use a public road. The system needs to be practical and functional not just philosophically perfect.

I consistently see the 'free market' advocates pushing the philosophical despite the practical (*cough @Machismo *cough*)- largely since every major developed economy is significantly regulated, and for good reason. Regulations aren't done for shits and giggles. The minimum wage was enacted to solve a particular problem inherent in the market. The labor movement happened to address particular problems in the market. Regulations on market actors are done for practical reasons. In my experience paeans to the 'free market' are FAR more based in the philosophical than in the practical.

[Endus]

Lol, if you actually read and watch for Sowell and Friedman you would have known that free market isn't just "capitalism". "Capitalism" is always there, free market is free and fair competition protected from corruption, crime, blackmailing and biased regulations.

It's always interesting when a free-market anarcho-capitalist argues for a self-regulating free market, but then freely and directly admits that said market cannot self-regulate and needs government-run controls to function at a basic level.

Well thanks for the definition. It's not properly named though, capitalism will always exist.

The idea that capitalism is some natural baseline of economics is just . . . wildly and almost hilariously incorrect. Where the hell do you pull this stuff? While there's some evidence of principles that could be described as proto-capitalist dating a few centuries back before Adam Smith, in the Western world, most of human history has existed without any trace of such principles in the extant economic systems that prevailed. Capitalism is a relatively modern concept. Proto-socialist theories have a lot more presence in ancient societies, even dating back to primitive communist tribal societies.

[melodramocracy]

Friedman

Shareholder theory is one of the biggest flaws in our economy at this point.

[Endus]

All societies are capitalists.

Complete horse shit. Where the hell did you get this particular nugget from? It's completely ridiculous.

Most human societies in history were not in any respect capitalist.

Perhaps you mean free market. Free market means fair market, uninfluenced by corruption, political ties, crime and authoritative regulation.

No, I don't. Capitalism doesn't even require a free market, and free markets can exist in non-capitalist systems.

I'm not sure you even understand the terms we're talking about, at this point.

"Capitalism" is an economy based on the private ownership of the means of production. In feudal medieval society, those means of production were almost exclusively owned by the agents of the State; the aristocracy. Just as a single for-instance. There were still markets and trade in those societies, but they weren't capitalist.

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make when you talk about "socialism" existing in ancient societies.

That capitalism is a comparatively new invention, in terms of economics theory. The basics of the concept only started forming in the post-medieval era in Europe, perhaps as far back as the 16th Century, though most economic historians put it in the 17th.

You wanna argue about something, pull off some statistics about some socialist laws and their impact. That would make a much better point you know.

You're moving goalposts, for some reason. Try making an effort to back up your first claim rather than just bouncing off to some new bit of nonsense the moment you get challenged.

Or at least have the decency to admit you were wrong.

[Cruor]

I'm talking about the actual definition of socialist theory, which dates back a couple hundred years. De Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Ricardo, Hodgskin, Mill, all kinds of socialist thinking existed prior to Marx and has little to do with where Marx took it, let alone the further deviations that Lenin and then Stalin took Marxist thinking from its baseline.

If you're thinking a socialist society has to be authoritarian, you don't know what "socialist" means.
If you're thinking a socialist society has to be classless, you don't know what "socialist" means.
If you think "socialist" is interchangeable with "communist", you don't know what "socialist" means.

We may be using different definitions, but if yours is pushing the above, it is wrong, and is produced by propaganda, not political theory.



Ahh, so you're just pro-human-suffering as a political viewpoint, then.

If I could snap my fingers and make an Eden for everyone I would, but I can't. As it stands welfare takes money out of my pocket and thus I am against it. I hate to work... and yet I do to support myself. If I can do it everone else can.

- - - Updated - - -

The US is not highly taxed in comparison with comparable nations: a fact from @Endus

Taxes are too high in lots of places: an opinion from you

Yes and the fact Trump hurts your feelings is also a you issue, whats your point? Shocker: Someone who works does like money being taken from him for people who don't, or do but don't earn enough.

[Endus]

If I could snap my fingers and make an Eden for everyone I would, but I can't. As it stands welfare takes money out of my pocket and thus I am against it. I hate to work... and yet I do to support myself.

This isn't an argument. This is just you confessing to a misanthropic level of selfishness that causes you to disregard basic human compassion and empathy.

If I can do it everone else can.

A premise that is simply false on its face. Say I won the lottery and never have to work again; "If I can do it, everyone else can". Does that claim still work? Is it feasible to suggest everyone just win the lottery jackpot and become rich, or is that literally not possible, in strictly practical terms?

Yeah, that practical impossibility applies to your claim as well. It not just won't happen, it literally cannot happen, for the simple fact that available job openings significantly lag behind the number of people in the U3 category of unemployment, which is the standard measure. That's before we consider people who want to work but have been discouraged because of a lack of jobs, and before we consider the underemployed. That's before we consider the difficulty in connecting workers with the best jobs, particularly with geographic variances between those two figures. And before, of course, we consider all those not in the workforce for some reason or another.

It's just obviously impossible, to the point that I'm finding it hard to believe you actually think it's plausible.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

[Zan15]

If I could snap my fingers and make an Eden for everyone I would, but I can't. As it stands welfare takes money out of my pocket and thus I am against it. I hate to work... and yet I do to support myself. If I can do it everone else can.


Yes and the fact Trump hurts your feelings is also a you issue, whats your point? Shocker: Someone who works does like money being taken from him for people who don't, or do but don't earn enough.

Welfare is shitty till the day you need it.
So many people i know in both 2008-2009 and 2020 who used to rail against every program, now are unemployed and quiet on the subject.


There are a lot of things that come out of your pocket and much of what comes out of your pocket funds things other than welfare. You might even support a lot of those programs but other people do not.

The big one, people whom have to pay taxes to support other people's kids going to school or pay the same for 1 kid that someone is paying for 4.

in the end I realize that some of my money goes to programs I don't support, but most to those I do.
In a perfect world i could choose where my tax dollars go but in reality that won't happen, so compromise it is.

So in the end i support almost all the programs, but i still fight against waste and fight for a transfer of spending from one program to another.

Once you realize that welfare benefits the economy and lowers crime, you might get out of your funk on hating it so much

- - - Updated - - -

No it isn't. That's like saying if you got a leg blown off, your wounds are minor because some guys had both legs and an arm blown off. Taxes are too high in a lot of places, there os way too much welfare going on.

btw what do you consider "welfare" in our budget?

- - - Updated - - -

People are already being taxed hard. My dad kept like 45 cents on the dollar under Obama. He makes like 1 million a year but NYC costs a shitload. Federal, state, and city tax. That's without UBI. Now if he had to pay more taxes I'm sure he would move or just stop working as he's at the age where he can. Why do you want to punish people who do well? Paying people to sit home is just crazy.

Oh just an edit for the usual suspects, he started out lower middle class and worked for his money, took till late 30s to be doing well, and 50s to be doing great.

LOL "under Obama", for taxes that were created decades ago....and were not touched by Obama at all.

So obama created income tax? Employment Taxes? NYC income tax? Etc etc?

i am so sorry your dad had to live on 550,000 a year, my condolences.
He really needs a better accountant and/or financial consultant.

[kail]

If I can do it everone else can.

Objectively false hence the thesis of this thread. There are people having to pull over 40 hour weeks to barely support themselves in areas where CoL exceeded far beyond what minimum wage offers.

[Captain N]

Objectively false hence the thesis of this thread. There are people having to pull over 40 hour weeks to barely support themselves in areas where CoL exceeded far beyond what minimum wage offers.

All you're going to do with the person you're quoting is have him shift to calling 40 hours a week a part-time job. Folks like him believe that Americans should work 60+ hours a week.

[kamuimac]

All you're going to do with the person you're quoting is have him shift to calling 40 hours a week a part-time job. Folks like him believe that Americans should work 60+ hours a week.

and why not ? what is wrong about 60 hours work week ? especially if overhours pay 150-200% ? with my side business i work around 50-60 hours a week and i have no problem to find enough free time to chill out.

only lazy people have problem with that

and guess what - its usually lazy people who demand to raise minimum wage.