I am fucking sick of Trump

[Gulo Blue]

That's probably true, but it will be slower and there will be less incentive for employers to cut costs if they're getting the value they're getting is commensurate with the price they're paying. Automation doesn't come cheap either, and there's got to be a break even point where they're indifferent and above it, they seek alternatives and below it, they buy more until the price reaches the equilibrium point.

But even if you're right, the answer is not "well, the jobs could be gone soon anyway so let's drive up prices, force the most vulnerable out of the workforce and kill these jobs as fast as we can." I'd much rather have market forces determine the level of automation than have the government jack everything up by creating inefficiencies in resource allocation. The only thing that comes out of these ideas of sbee's is unemployment of unskilled workers and higher prices for consumers.

I'm not as concerned about minimum wage issues as I am with the use of subsidies programs to sweep issues under the rug and keep the government's fingers in everything. If you ask me, a flat basic income to everyone is less government control/more free market, than a thousand targeted subsidies for this, that, and the other type of hardship. We can't afford the basic income yet (and won't any time soon), but the masking of subsidy (like the spike in disability enrollment that can't be real) hurts progress. We need to call a spade a spade.

We're going down this path and refusing to see it for what it is. What's the difference to the individual between an economy with a basic income, where people only do menial jobs to supplement that income and the masses of WalMart level jobs with people getting government assistance? To the individual involved, it's effectively the same thing, we're just rolling it out to the least wealthy first.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think these definitions need to be tweeked a bit to ensure we're all talking about the same thing. Free market capitalism is all well and good, but all too often nefarious, anti-competitive practices get lumped in with that definition. it takes government intervention in the markets to prevent those; and government intervention can also become used as an anti-competitive tool (eg lobbying to be excluded from regulations, protected from lawsuits, lobby for subsidies/corp welfare).

this idea that McDonald's (as an example) is operating in competitive markets when it lobbies to oppose wage and hour laws, engages in anti-unionization efforts, or fights tooth and nail to keep up the legal fiction that its franchisees are responsible for its corporate policies, not the corporate HQ... this idea is not true. and only a fool would apply simplistic Econ 101 rationale like "McDonald's employees are paid a fair market wage for their services, and if not, they can negotiate a better one, or quit and go work for someone else."

I understand and agree. 'Free market capitalism' requires a surprising amount of regulation to achieve once companies get wealthy enough. I think of it as an ideal condition that requires the right balance of power between big business and big government to maintain. It falls apart when big business and big government are on the same team.

 

[Gulo Blue]

This 'OMG the economy is changing' shtick I get on...I think, if we were really getting to the point where there just wasn't enough work to go around, it would be reflected in the labor participation rate. And I don't think it is yet. There's not much change here, and the bump we see is probably just the baby boom. I think we're on the verge of it on a decades-to-decade timescale, but I can't point to clear data yet. I think we might be able to see that it's starting if we hadn't doubled our safety net program spending over the last couple decades.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

 

[Sbee]

Oh my goodness - you are the one pushing policies that create the externalities. And you don't believe in capitalism because you don't know what capitalism is when you speak of paternalism and government intervention. That's what has screwed everything up in the first place.

Gulo and Champ beat me to it again, you don't really have a free market when corporations can buy legislation to enhance their bottom line. Mcdonalds does this with corn subsidies for the feeding of livestock, passing off the environmental cost of methane and other damages caused by meat production to other entities, etc. I don't know if government legislation like antitrust laws or OSHA screwed everything up in the first place.

 

[Sbee]

It's ok that Blockbuster went out of business because of innovation - that makes people's lives better on the whole. Economies evolve, there's nothing you can do about that - but innovation also creates jobs in other areas. There is a transition and adjustment - and that's what social services should be about - TEMPORARY assistance, retraining workers for new skills, etc. Not guaranteeing every job in America affords a certain minimum lifestyle. That's a recipe for complete and total failure.

I think over enough time, technology has the ability to eliminate jobs at a much faster rate than it creates them. I know you have this glorious dream of manufacturing coming back to America, some has and we can hire americans to sweep the floors while the robots do the work.

I think a recipe for failure is people working 40 hour workweeks and not being able to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care without significant government assistance. These people aren't guaranteed a two week vacation or a car, it's not a luxurious lifestyle for the working poor. Now here's the part where you blame liberals for everything when the caring, empathetic spartanmack cares about the working poor so much that he wants to drive wages down by eliminating the minimum wage and continuing an economic death spiral.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Here's what I think will happen, long term.

I think we will see continued gradual expansion of various government plans as we are now, to cover up the lack of jobs. The go to example is disability coverage. The linked article talks about how the number of people on disability is skyrocketing in places where the job market has been gutted...

At some point in the very distant future, I can see completely unproductive people being able to live entirely on government credits. From a material needs standpoint, they will be ok, but I don't think people will ever be happy with this type of life. Many will stay stoned or drunk as much as possible in an effort to tolerate it, but most people will still try to do whatever they can to earn real money that can be spent in the luxury economy...

But tons and tons of people won't have much to bring to the table in this economy, and even with handouts, I don't know how society will evolve with such a large, unfulfilled population with free time on their hands. Lots of internet trolling, I guess.

i'll be eligible for good old-fashioned Medicare in nine years and Social Security in 11 years.

If those programs go away because they're bankrupt yet automation is going to create a whole new series of handouts for do-nothing deadbeats, I'm going to be pissed off.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and assuming there will still be Social Security and Medicare when I retire, I'm definitely planning to spend a good amount of my retirement stoned and drunk, right there along with the new class of automation displaced deadbeats.

 

[tomdalton22]

I think over enough time, technology has the ability to eliminate jobs at a much faster rate than it creates them. I know you have this glorious dream of manufacturing coming back to America, some has and we can hire americans to sweep the floors while the robots do the work.

I think a recipe for failure is people working 40 hour workweeks and not being able to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care without significant government assistance. These people aren't guaranteed a two week vacation or a car, it's not a luxurious lifestyle for the working poor. Now here's the part where you blame liberals for everything when the caring, empathetic spartanmack cares about the working poor so much that he wants to drive wages down by eliminating the minimum wage and continuing an economic death spiral.

So your answer is raising minimum wage to $15 per hour so Wal Mart greeters and teenagers working at a fast food restaurant can support a family?

 

[Spartanmack]

Gulo and Champ beat me to it again, you don't really have a free market when corporations can buy legislation to enhance their bottom line. Mcdonalds does this with corn subsidies for the feeding of livestock, passing off the environmental cost of methane and other damages caused by meat production to other entities, etc. I don't know if government legislation like antitrust laws or OSHA screwed everything up in the first place.

No shit sherlock but if you think companies buying governmental influence is a problem of capitalism and NOT a problem of an overreaching government, you are out of your mind - legitimately delusional. besides, the minimum wage isn't nearly as a big of a problem as our corporate tax issue. The entrenched establishment on both sides of the aisle and the resultant crony corporatism are the next biggest issue. I've said a million times that we need these reforms AND term limits. Take power away from government, not give them more.

Capitalism doesn't need a surprising amount of regulation - about all it needs is anti-trust regs and rules against thing like price fixing and other forms of collusion - particularly collusion with government officials. Bad regulation has, ill-conceived tax plans and corruption are what got us in the mess we're in, not capitalism. And if people like turd think capitalism is too easily corruptible, take a look at the record of any other economic structure, particularly those managed by government central planners.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think over enough time, technology has the ability to eliminate jobs at a much faster rate than it creates them. I know you have this glorious dream of manufacturing coming back to America, some has and we can hire americans to sweep the floors while the robots do the work.

I think a recipe for failure is people working 40 hour workweeks and not being able to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, and medical care without significant government assistance. These people aren't guaranteed a two week vacation or a car, it's not a luxurious lifestyle for the working poor. Now here's the part where you blame liberals for everything when the caring, empathetic spartanmack cares about the working poor so much that he wants to drive wages down by eliminating the minimum wage and continuing an economic death spiral.

And what's your glorious dream? Why should anyone be guaranteed anything, particularly a car? Are you kidding me?

And no dumbass, I don't want to eliminate the minimum wage to drive wages down. I want to get rid of it so low skilled workers aren't priced out of the workforce by "caring and compassionate" people like you who want to accelerate the pace at which they're being replaced by robots accelerating the economic death spiral.

Mine is a economic reality, not a glorious dream - your glorious dream of ever increasing welfare rolls (now at 50% of American households) is also a reality and that reality is one of complete and total failure, yet your answer is more of it because you think that using the power of government guns to confiscate and redistribute wealth makes you a good person.

 

[Sbee]

And what's your glorious dream? Why should anyone be guaranteed anything, particularly a car? Are you kidding me?

And no dumbass, I don't want to eliminate the minimum wage to drive wages down. I want to get rid of it so low skilled workers aren't priced out of the workforce by "caring and compassionate" people like you who want to accelerate the pace at which they're being replaced by robots accelerating the economic death spiral.

Mine is a economic reality, not a glorious dream - your glorious dream of ever increasing welfare rolls (now at 50% of American households) is also a reality and that reality is one of complete and total failure, yet your answer is more of it because you think that using the power of government guns to confiscate and redistribute wealth makes you a good person.

I never said they should be guaranteed a vacation or car, my point was that covering basic needs for survival doesn't include those luxuries.

What I'm for is charging the real cost for goods and services, a McDonalds burger is subsidized by so many things that allow it to be under $1. What I want is smaller welfare roles, people able to earn enough money to where they don't need government assistance when they are working full time or close to it. It would adjust prices quite a bit, that burger may cost double but they're not passing a percentage of the cost onto the American taxpayer.

The funny thing about this is that I feel that I'm taking the conservative viewpoint, smaller government, fewer handouts, but it does involve people being paid enough to live off of (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) without help from uncle sam.

 

[Sbee]

So your answer is raising minimum wage to $15 per hour so Wal Mart greeters and teenagers working at a fast food restaurant can support a family?

You do realize that the average age of a fast food worker is 29. You can look it up, but I have to warn you, it doesn't match the stereotypes that you hold.

In Denmark, fast food workers earn $20 an hour, of course they have national healthcare and unions that work cooperatively with employers. They have health care and paid leave, so they don't have to go to work while they're sick and spread their sickness because they can't afford to lose out on a days pay. It's possible to pay lower skill workers a living wage and still be profitable, but it's not quite as profitable and people do pay more for the food in order to support better working conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/b...ed-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html?_r=0

 

[tomdalton22]

You do realize that the average age of a fast food worker is 29. You can look it up, but I have to warn you, it doesn't match the stereotypes that you hold.

In Denmark, fast food workers earn $20 an hour, of course they have national healthcare and unions that work cooperatively with employers. They have health care and paid leave, so they don't have to go to work while they're sick and spread their sickness because they can't afford to lose out on a days pay. It's possible to pay lower skill workers a living wage and still be profitable, but it's not quite as profitable and people do pay more for the food in order to support better working conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/b...ed-in-denmark-fast-food-restaurants.html?_r=0

so you are saying that there are no teenagers working at McDonald's?

The average age is 29 which includes management and the old people that are supplementing their retirement or choosing to work there a few hours a week just to stay busy. Just like Wal Mart greeters. I know when I go to the McDonald's close to my house there are always a few old ladies working the counter.

Working at a fast food restaurant isn't supposed to be a job that supports a family.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so you are saying that there are no teenagers working at McDonald's?

The average age is 29 which includes management and the old people that are supplementing their retirement or choosing to work there a few hours a week just to stay busy. Just like Wal Mart greeters. I know when I go to the McDonald's close to my house there are always a few old ladies working the counter.

Working at a fast food restaurant isn't supposed to be a job that supports a family.

I wish there were readily available statistics on the employment rates for jobs that are and aren't enough to support a family.

 

[Spartanmack]

I never said they should be guaranteed a vacation or car, my point was that covering basic needs for survival doesn't include those luxuries.

What I'm for is charging the real cost for goods and services, a McDonalds burger is subsidized by so many things that allow it to be under $1. What I want is smaller welfare roles, people able to earn enough money to where they don't need government assistance when they are working full time or close to it. It would adjust prices quite a bit, that burger may cost double but they're not passing a percentage of the cost onto the American taxpayer.

Then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans who support these policies. And stop eating at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart. If prices reflect the true value of goods, it doesn't matter that they go up nearly as much as when they go up because of government intervention.

The funny thing about this is that I feel that I'm taking the conservative viewpoint, smaller government, fewer handouts, but it does involve people being paid enough to live off of (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) without help from uncle sam.

If you want people to get paid more, then let the market determine where wages should fall because having central planners artificially set prices for anything including labor, will simply lead to people being priced out of the labor market and higher prices across the board. What difference does it make if your wages go up when the cost of everything else goes up by the same % or more? And by the way, you're not arguing for smaller government. You just got done talking about how great things are in Denmark with their massive social safety net and now you're pretending to prefer small government. This is the first time you've said anything about reducing welfare roles. You've been arguing for the opposite - a broader and stronger social safety net all along.

My position has been consistent - establish term limits and get rid of ridiculous pensions for government employees. Make them subject to all the laws and regulations they implement. Give as much power back to state and local governments as possible (the primary focus of the federal government should be establishing property rights and protecting liberty). Reform the tax code to the US a competitive place for investment - eliminate the corporate tax, institute a low, flat income tax and migrate to a consumption based tax system to support infrastructure. Reform welfare and other assistance programs so that they're a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle. Of course, idiots like you and turd don't like this, preferring big government running everything and picking and choosing which industries, companies and institutions to favor and rather than argue the case based on merit, you label the opposition racist. That's just lazy and dumb and anyone who isn't an idiot sees right through it.

 

[Sbee]

Then stop voting for Democrats and Republicans who support these policies. And stop eating at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart. If prices reflect the true value of goods, it doesn't matter that they go up nearly as much as when they go up because of government intervention.



If you want people to get paid more, then let the market determine where wages should fall because having central planners artificially set prices for anything including labor, will simply lead to people being priced out of the labor market and higher prices across the board. What difference does it make if your wages go up when the cost of everything else goes up by the same % or more? And by the way, you're not arguing for smaller government. You just got done talking about how great things are in Denmark with their massive social safety net and now you're pretending to prefer small government. This is the first time you've said anything about reducing welfare roles. You've been arguing for the opposite - a broader and stronger social safety net all along.

My position has been consistent - establish term limits and get rid of ridiculous pensions for government employees. Make them subject to all the laws and regulations they implement. Give as much power back to state and local governments as possible (the primary focus of the federal government should be establishing property rights and protecting liberty). Reform the tax code to the US a competitive place for investment - eliminate the corporate tax, institute a low, flat income tax and migrate to a consumption based tax system to support infrastructure. Reform welfare and other assistance programs so that they're a temporary helping hand, not a lifestyle. Of course, idiots like you and turd don't like this, preferring big government running everything and picking and choosing which industries, companies and institutions to favor and rather than argue the case based on merit, you label the opposition racist. That's just lazy and dumb and anyone who isn't an idiot sees right through it.

I've never shopped at Wal Mart and eat fast food maybe once a year. I disagree on how to provide a living wage for full time employees, I think the market with no minimum would accelerate the race to the bottom. If someone is working for $9, maybe someone else will do that job for $8, $7, etc. and further down the line.

 

[Spartanmack]

I've never shopped at Wal Mart and eat fast food maybe once a year. I disagree on how to provide a living wage for full time employees, I think the market with no minimum would accelerate the race to the bottom. If someone is working for $9, maybe someone else will do that job for $8, $7, etc. and further down the line.

who are you to say that job shouldn't pay $8 or $7 particularly if someone sees value in the experience - like getting that first job? That's not a race to the bottom - the race to the bottom comes from adding more and more people to the dole who in turn don't contribute to the growth of an economy. This is the result of policies that price people out of the labor market, then subsidizing their lifestyles. Some people become satisfied with jobs that pay more than their effort/skills are worth, particularly if they're also receiving public assistance - those people don't aspire to advance to the next job that requires more effort but is basically break even because they lose their gov't check. It just perpetuates the cycle and is a drag on the economy.

 

[tomdalton22]

Some people become satisfied with jobs that pay more than their effort/skills are worth, particularly if they're also receiving public assistance - those people don't aspire to advance to the next job that requires more effort but is basically break even because they lose their gov't check. It just perpetuates the cycle and is a drag on the economy.

Some people just don't get it.

 

[Michchamp]

funny how companies that refuse to negotiate wages with their workers, engage in anti-competitive initiatives to keep competitors out of their markets, lobby for government subsidies and loopholes, and getting laws in place to protect or excuse their wrongdoing, defunding regulators and regulations, engage in anti-unionization efforts through often illegal means, and intentionally underpay workers by abusing the exempt/non-exempt distinction (among lots of other ways they underpay them)... those companies are letting "the market" decide they can pay their workers shit wages that leave them living from hand to mouth, on public assistance for health care costs, food stamps, etc. The market decides!

 

[Gulo Blue]

funny how companies that refuse to negotiate wages with their workers, engage in anti-competitive initiatives to keep competitors out of their markets, lobby for government subsidies and loopholes, and getting laws in place to protect or excuse their wrongdoing, defunding regulators and regulations, engage in anti-unionization efforts through often illegal means, and intentionally underpay workers by abusing the exempt/non-exempt distinction (among lots of other ways they underpay them)... those companies are letting "the market" decide they can pay their workers shit wages that leave them living from hand to mouth, on public assistance for health care costs, food stamps, etc. The market decides!

What would it take to get you to reword what you're saying here so you can push for all these elements you want because they would help move towards freer markets?

It absolutely gets into what you said earlier about definitions, but your sarcasm here just highlights how partisanship has twisted the meaning 180?.

 

[Michchamp]

What would it take to get you to reword what you're saying here so you can push for all these elements you want because they would help move towards freer markets?

It absolutely gets into what you said earlier about definitions, but your sarcasm here just highlights how partisanship has twisted the meaning 180?.

I am sarcastically referring to these anti-competitive practices as "the market."

I am confused, Gulo. should I not use sarcasm? Does the sarcasm make the meaning of my post that difficult to understand?