Re: Effects of raising minimum wages in USA


"Nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2403692.CWTIUGqmnZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Michal Gancarski wrote:

There is no such thing as lack of consumer demand unless some
organisation
steps in and uses violence to mess with prices.

Did you ever heard about money ? Did you ever noticed that some people
are not going to give you something you need unless you have to give them
that thingy called money ?

Did you ever heard[sic] about paying bills? Did you ever notice that when
you have bills to pay, and not enough money to pay them because one of
them was unexpectedly raised (the payroll bill). Did you ever heard[sic]
that "money doesn't grow on trees". Something's got to give. I've got bills
to pay. I'm cutting expenses, and that will lead to cutting payroll, and
terminating
some folks. Did you ever heard[sic] that if I cut too many people, I won't
have
enough to satisfy my orders. That customer service levels will drop. That,
eventually,
I'll go out of business and none of y'all will have jobs? Did ya ever
heard[sic] that?

Didn't think so.

If consumers does not have enough money, they can not afford to buy what
they need.

FACT: There are enough consumers, with enough money, right now that
they can afford what I need. I'm in business. I'm profitable. Q.E.D.

You go strong-arming me via Uncle Sam, and I'm out of business and
my employees have lost their jobs. That's NotAGoodThing(tm) for anyone
involved. Sure -- you might say that my bankruptcy has opened up an
opportunity for another business to step in and take my customers -- but
guess what? They can't afford to hire either because you've increased
the payroll costs.

You don't need any organization to step in with violence. You
only need the economic power to be concentrated into a few hands and
without democratic oversight. I gave you the link with nurses. You didn't
understand a damn thing or you refused to understand a damn thing.
I gave it to you again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/us/21nurses.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I've never understood this argument. How is it AOK for unions to gang
up on employers with respect to wages? How is it AOK for the government
to strong-arm employers with respect to wages? And, yet, it's not AOK
for the employers to get together and fight back? Yeah. That's fair.

There was NO organization to came in with violence to force nurses to get
lower pay. It was the stupid "libertarian free market" (aka no oversight)
at work. The owners of economical power talked with each other and formed
an local oligopoly in order to cheat nurses.

And it's AOK for unions form and cheat employers, and government employees
to get together and pass legislation to cheat employees?

This is why the "libertarian free market" it is doomed to be a failure.

This is why you're a no-good-double-standard-as-long-as-I-get-it-my-way
moron. I call "shenanigans". What's good for the goose is good for the
gander.
If you can "negotiate" wages via unions or force them via laws, why can't I
force
them via an oligopoly?

You remove democratic oversight from the economic power, then the owners
of
economic power will hijack it and set up oligopolies. Simple as that.
The whole concept of "libertarian free market" it is stupid, it is a
farce.

The concept of getting something for nothing is even more stupid, more
farcical. If you want an increase in wages, then you need to demonstrate
to me an increase in output, an increase in production, an increase in
value,
hell -- an increase in *anything* would justify it. The passing of a bill
into
law in D.C. does not justify it.

But of course, ideology have to prevail so you say lies like:
"""
There is no such thing as lack of consumer demand unless some organisation
steps in and uses violence to mess with prices.
"""

Despite the fact that for any 3 year old this is pure nonsense.
If consumers are not payed enough they just don't have money to buy things
which in economic is translated a lack of demand.

My business, and the economy itself, seems to be humming along just
fine on its own. Doesn't seem to be a lack of demand anywhere I look.
Sure, lotsa financial problems, but lack of demand does not stick out as
the primary cause. Demand seems to be just fine as evidenced by the
number of companies out there that are both satisfying that demand and,
more importantly, doing it profitably. Demand seems to be doing just
fine thank you very much.



This is what happen right now by paying dividends to shareholders.
They are not productive at all,

Of course they are, they made economic decisions so productive that now
they have a constant inflow of money from dividends.

Nope. They set up the rules of the games so that productive economically
coerced to work for them.

I can't parse that statement. (but I'll guess at it).

I've set up *nothing*. I've lobbied no one. I've made no contributions.
I've made no bribes, called in no favors in Washington. I've not invited
a single government employee to dinner, nor attended any fundraisers
in support of a government employee. I've given no gifts. I've signed no
petitions. I've never voted on the passage of a law, I haven't voted
for a candidate for any office since 1992. Hell, I don't even know who
my senator is. Nor do I care. They're all morons.

There are millions more business owners just like me.

Tell me again, how we've "set up the rules of the games?" for coercion?


Of course they do. They provide the society with integral part of
financial markets - the most amazing tool man created for assessing and
optimizing investment decisions in a world of uncertainty.

I.E lies cheating for a proffit. When a small guy do that he lands in
jail,
when a rich guy do that he is considered a successfull businessman.

What specific lies have I told, "cheating for a profit".



A government bureaucrat actually do a useful job for the money.

He does not. Otherwise no one would have to be robbed to pay him his
wage.

He do something people need, as opposed to a shareholders who just demand
money for not doing anything usefull.

If you don't consider ... you know ... funding the company so it
can exist ... you know ... useful or anything.

[snip]

Why ? Because the ideology you were mislead to
believe in is based on hate of anyone making a living by not looting
from
others.

Universal phrases are simple to use but, apparently, useless. What is
more, this particular one should be said by me, not you. It is you who
advocate taking someone's property using violence,

No. I just advocate less looting.
Libertarians advocate a society where looting is unstopable, it is called
"unregulated free market" = oligopoly breeding ground.

See above. If you can get together with your fellow employees and
demand terms, then I should rightfully be able to get together with my
fellow employers and demand terms. Fair is fair.

it is you who says that
when two adults want to make a deal there should be someone else who
should prevent it by force.

No. I say that a deal must be fair.

And it must be more than fair. It must also be voluntary and *agreed*
upon by all parties in the deal. You are extorting your end of the bargain
by governmental force. By law. By threat of stiff fines and imprisonment.

Yeah. Fair.

I say that a worker with 3$ in pocket and his rent or mortgage overdue can
not negotiate fairly with a multibillion dollar corporation.

And just because you say it doesn't make it so. Multibillion dollar corp
or not -- if my rent/mortgage is overdue and I have 3 bucks to my name,
I expect one and only one outcome: TO GET THROWN OUT ON MY
ASS TO THE STREETS.

See -- that's the difference. I *know* I'm responsible for my actions,
accountable for my obligations, and make decisions with the idea that
the results of my decisions are entirely mine, and mine alone.

You expect that money grows on trees and everybody owes you
something. First, it's the evil employer that *owes* you a higher
paying job. Then, it's the evil multibillion dollar corporation that
*owes* you a roof over your head.

Listen up and listen good: Your problems are yours, and yours
alone. They are not the problem of the employers. They are not
the problem of the government, nor are they the problem of the
multibillion dollar corporations. They are yours.

When you can accept that, young grasshopper, it will be time
to leave the temple.

A union
having as members all workers that can work for that company will be the
only organization able to fairly negotiate with it. But since in US we do
not have a strong union able to stand against all the employers, we need
gov. to oversight.

So, you (finally) admit it (I knew you would <grin>) -- It's AOK for you
and your union to do this but not for me and the rest of the employers to
do it. Niec.



up life, ok? Not able to get rich? Good, someone else is and will.

Yes. because he looted from others. And libertarian ideology encourage
looting as something good.

Who's looting whom? Point to a specific instance where I'm looting. I
can point to your specific instance. You're attempting to use the unions,
the government and the law to interfere with a voluntary, informed
agreement.
My employees work here well informed of what the benefits and pay scales
are, and they work here voluntarily -- I have no threat of harm, of
violence,
of intimidation over them. They work here of their own free will and by
their
own choice. More importantly they, and I, have already agreed upon a price
for this work. Now you're coming in with a law, supported by the threat of
fines and or jail time -- to force me into paying more than the agreed upon
price? That's not "looting"? KMA


.

Loading