Twinkee: Can Survive Nuclear Holocaust, but not Union

[Michael]

Your question is entirely political and ignores history.

Neither side is blameless when it comes to actual sabotage intent. It's the BALANCE of efficiency and humanity in the face of both kinds of crooks/saboteurs like occurred in the past all too often because of class wars and ideology etc.

there is a long history of skilled labor( which is what all most all unions for the most part protect) of being screwed over simply because they skilled and worth more. and effeciency is more than just numbers. workers are more productive when they feel safe secure and valued most companies make sure they feel no of these things

You know, I see a lot of phases like "The modern world" or "National Interests" or even "ignores history" and etc.... these are not "arguments". Either something is economical or it isn't economical. It's a question of economics.


So, let's use this example: We all have used and seen the new self-scan machines in the grocery markets. These were brought in because of the minimum wage. They're specifically designed to eradicate checkout clerks. I learned how to use one in about 15 seconds if you count the time I reached into my pocket grabbed my wallet and fumbled around looking for my bank card and put in the pin.

My question is: Is this 'Fcuking over the employees'? I mean, presumably cashiers will either be made redundant and fired or at the very least, no longer hired in the first place. What do you think about a store Unionizing and preventing these machines from being installed, you know, to 'protect the employee from the "Greedy" grocery store owner'? How about the Federal Government passes a law making it illegal not to hire one employee per machine in use, you know, because we're a little to stupid to use them and might hurt ourselves - oh, and the employee will need a State stamped qualification (think that's ridiculous, look at your State's AMA stamped restrictions on fMRI operation and use).

 

[RealityCheck]

You know, I see a lot of phases like "The modern world" or "National Interests" or even "ignores history" and etc.... these are not "arguments". Either something is economical or it isn't economical. It's a question of economics.


So, let's use this example: We all have used and seen the new self-scan machines in the grocery markets. These were brought in because of the minimum wage. They're specifically designed to eradicate checkout clerks. I learned how to use one in about 15 seconds if you count the time I reached into my pocket grabbed my wallet and fumbled around looking for my bank card and put in the pin.

My question is: Is this 'Fcuking over the employees'? I mean, presumably cashiers will either be made redundant and fired or at the very least, no longer hired in the first place. What do you think about a store Unionizing and preventing these machines from being installed, you know, to 'protect the employee from the "Greedy" grocery store owner'? How about the Federal Government passes a law making it illegal not to hire one employee per machine in use, you know, because we're a little to stupid to use them and might hurt ourselves - oh, and the employee will need a State stamped qualification (think that's ridiculous, look at your State's AMA stamped restrictions on fMRI operation and use).

Economic as non-profit or economic as profit-making venture/activity? Economic as a private enterprise or economic as a public enterprise?

If a profit-making venture is private, then exploitation of workers and socializing costs while retaining the additional profits thereby is NOT economic by any standard except unconscionable ones.

A govt carries out un-economic activity for the longer/wider picture benefit to all, not just the private sector or the worker.

Any activity, private OR public, which does not have a societal BENEFIT as part of the cost-benefit analysis is NOT economic when the whole direct costs (and opportunity costs) born by that society as a whole are taken into accounty.

Infrastructure may not be economic on the face of it. Police and justice system may not be economic on the face of it. etc etc. But it IS economic when the stability and justice and common good of the nation is taken into consideration.


So, just because an enterprise may make a profit/loss based on narrow criteria, it may not be OR it may be, economic when all the 'hidden costs/benefits' are accounted.

Again, screwing those who make/sell your 'product' and 'socializing' some of their wage costs to enhance YOUR profit is NOT economic, because it is destructive exploitative anti-social and anti-human profit at the expense of the society and people who have provided you with the opportunity and underpinnings which you now want to exploit UNeconomically for the nation/workers but 'economically' for YOURSELF.

So don't bandy around words like 'economic' unless you are prepared to include all the criteria and all the costs which you wish to 'socialize' while pretending to be the exemplar of 'economy'.

Balance and social benefit interests must ALWAYS supersede/underpin economic activity in both private and govt sector and whether for-profit or not-for-profit. All these hypocritical and temporary/skewed ways of trying to screw the workers and society and calling it 'capitalism' is a fraud. It is outright theft and scamming and exploitation at the expense of everyone else. And it is NOT 'economic' to do such things, by any stretch of the hypocritical imagination.

Consider all the angles, and not just those which the exploitative greedy conmen want you to see while they have a hand in your pocket BOTH ways, as thieves stealing from their workers and as hypocrites 'socializing' their costs wherever they can while pocketing the difference...all the while calling it capitalism and economic with a straight face! It's outright miscreance and no denying it.

Good luck with your 'big picture' learning!

 

[rpenner]

Hostess was unable to resuscitate itself during this bankruptcy, its second in less than a decade. When it filed for bankruptcy last January, it had nearly $1 billion in debt as well as labor costs and work rules that it insisted were unsustainable. ... The company entered its first bankruptcy in 2004 with $450 million in debt, and exited five years later with even more debt — $670 million.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/judge-approves-hostess-brands-plan-to-close-down/

 

[iceaura]

There is no question that the Union was the proximate cause of the company going out of business

It's not only questionable, it's flatly deniable - as noted, the payroll is almost always the thing the failed business can't meet at the pinch. Blaming the payroll for getting them into the pinch is common among failed businessmen, but we don't take that kind of whining seriously - do we?

As to the ultimate cause, the union certainly bears much of the blame:

Looks like the kind of mess decades of bad management will get you into, and we have plenty of other evidence of that as the major factor (product development, marketing, etc). Why are you blaming the various unions, and all of them under one term - "the union"?

Can't put cake and bread on the same truck? Drivers can't load their vehicles? The same worker can't load cake and bread onto the truck? What kind of idiocy is that?

The kind you find in incompetently managed corporations.

We may end up with something like that in one of the places I work now, as management has piled insupportable demands on delivery drivers by way of various products added to their loads, and the nominally unionized drivers search for means of self defense - the fact that customer service is trashed either way is what may bring the matter to a pinch of business failure, but the initial decisions were top down impositions from executive central.

And competently managed ones, btw: UPS drivers can't load their own trucks in my town.

 

[billvon]

You know, I see a lot of phases like "The modern world" or "National Interests" or even "ignores history" and etc.... these are not "arguments". Either something is economical or it isn't economical. It's a question of economics.

Slavery was quite economical. But in "national interests" we got rid of it.

So, let's use this example: We all have used and seen the new self-scan machines in the grocery markets. These were brought in because of the minimum wage. They're specifically designed to eradicate checkout clerks. I learned how to use one in about 15 seconds if you count the time I reached into my pocket grabbed my wallet and fumbled around looking for my bank card and put in the pin.

So your premise would be that in countries that do not have a minimum wage, stores would use clerks instead of scanners.

Do some research on that and let us know what you find out.

 

[Michael]

Slavery was quite economical. But in "national interests" we got rid of it.

Slavery was not 'economical' - it required the resources of the State, through the police and military, to maintain it. This was made evident in Brazil where a war over Slavery wasn't fought, but instead the returning of Slaves who left was no longer enforced. Overnight, Slavery ended as slaves en masse walked away from their bonded labor. Slavery wasn't ended for 'national interests'. It was ended because there was a change in consciousness around what it means to be human and to use force.

In a sense, a few people were able to see past their biblical and social indoctrination to recognize the inherent evil in using force against innocent people who through no fault of their own had the misfortune of being born a slave or sold into slavery. The rest of society just mooed in tune with the band leaders and their way of thinking was changed for them - mostly unwittingly through generational normalization.

Slavery is a lot less economical relative to industry through mechanization. In an anarchic society the chances of anyone WANTING a slave are next to nil. Who'd want to take responsibility for human ownership when said slave can just sit on his or her arse and the owner would be on the hook for maintaining their slaves livelihoods - much like caring for children. Without access to the initiation of force, being a 'Master' really loses it's luster.

So, no State, no Slaves.

Notice now you, by law, will pay a portion of your labor under threat of force for 'national interests'. You'd see this as the sick perversion it is if taking your kidney was for 'national interests' but money is so abstract a concept your kidney is taken without your ever being aware.

So your premise would be that in countries that do not have a minimum wage, stores would use clerks instead of scanners.

Do some research on that and let us know what you find out.

Scanners are in place to save money on labor - that's a simple fact, but, this economy is only realized in societies where stealing is relatively low and people value the money saved by the self scanner over the service provided by a human scanner. Similar to a vacuum cleaner, you could pay for a maid to come in and clean your floors, or with the easy of a machine called a vacuum - do it yourself. Of course, if you decide to vacuum your own floors, you're inadvertently putting a maid out of work, but the money you 'save' is put to better use somewhere else and the maid's labor is freed to be of better use to society. Maybe the maids should form a Public Service Union, lobby CONgress and force you to pay for their service. I mean *gasp* don't you care about the children!?! YOU use the roads!

I've seen (and used) self scanners in the USA, AU, CA and JP.

Let's take the case of Japan, an extremely 'service' orientated society. You'll generally find these (or I have anyway) in the mass market grocery store. Small stores don't use them (ex: 7-11). I haven't seen them in Japanese version of box tops either unlike in the other countries. Upmarket Japanese grocery stores don't use them and the people who patronage upmarket grocery stores don't really care that much about small differences in price relative to the people who shop at mass market grocery stores. Which is why upmarket stores generally sell a lot of boutique and organic foods. For the consumer at the low end of the market, every dollar counts, and if they save that extra $10-20 a week by using the self-scanner, they're then able to at the end of the month afford internet and an iPhone. With which they can teach their children about the world, if they so chose. For the worker at the store, instead of scanning groceries, they're now free to develop a website that offers English to Japanese business lessons. In this way society as a whole prospers - even though it may appear a check out clerk was put out of work.

The way society doesn't prosper is the store's Union balks at 'replacing workers' with 'evil devil scanners' .... *gasp* don't you care about the children! oh, and we'll need a raise with that seeing as in without all these self-scanners we're working more hours... oh, and we may as well increase the union dues since we're doing such a great job protecting the children... err, the worker.....

 

[billvon]

Slavery was not 'economical' - it required the resources of the State, through the police and military, to maintain it.

?? Most slave catchers were private, hired by plantation owners. It was a lucrative job; if they found the slave they were looking for they got the bounty. If they found another one, and could not determine their owner, they got to sell them at auction.

Indeed, the government was so far out of it that the slaveowning states were furious. Northern police/military steadfastly refused to do anything. So they managed to pass the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which attempted to force the Northern police forces to return slaves. This worked to an extent . . . at least until the civil war started ten years later. Which means that for over 250 years slavery did quite well without government support.

Face it. Slaveowners owned slaves because it was profitable to do so. What ended slavery was not any kind of "social awakening" - it was the advent of the cotton gin, which made slavery less economical in comparison to a machine.

Slavery is a lot less economical relative to industry through mechanization. In an anarchic society the chances of anyone WANTING a slave are next to nil. Who'd want to take responsibility for human ownership when said slave can just sit on his or her arse and the owner would be on the hook for maintaining their slaves livelihoods - much like caring for children. Without access to the initiation of force, being a 'Master' really loses it's luster.

Correct. So they would use force. And in an anarchic society no one would stop them. Well, the slaves might try - but the owner could easily prevent that with enough force.

So, no State, no Slaves.

I swear, it's like you've never opened a history book in your life.

For tonight's exercise, learn about the history of slavery in the US. Determine when the first slaves came over. Then determine when the "state" in the US began - either organized colonial government by England or by the establishment of the USA.

I've seen (and used) self scanners in the USA, AU, CA and JP.

And in pretty much all modern countries that don't have a minimum wage. Thus in countries that do not have a minimum wage, stores use scanners instead of clerks.

Of course, if you decide to vacuum your own floors, you're inadvertently putting a maid out of work, but the money you 'save' is put to better use somewhere else and the maid's labor is freed to be of better use to society.

Exactly. And that checkout person's menial labor can be "freed to be of better use to society" by the scanner.

 

[iceaura]

Face it. Slaveowners owned slaves because it was profitable to do so. What ended slavery was not any kind of "social awakening" - it was the advent of the cotton gin, which made slavery less economical in comparison to a machine.

What ended slavery in the US was the application of government force to slaveowners and their armies, divesting them of their chattel and means of production at gunpoint. That government was democratically elected, and its opposition to slavery is fairly described as a consequence of a social awakening - although the awakening itself did little, until the power of the government swung in behind it.

Slaves are perfectly capable of running machines, operating industrial equipment of all kinds, doing skilled work. The only job they cannot safely and productively be coerced into performing is soldier - staffing the army with slaves is one of those mistakes that gets made every so often by an aristocracy that has lost touch with the basics.

The cotton gin, patented in the late 1700s and easily copied by the millions in a couple of decades, was largely responsible for the expansion of plantation slavery in the US - it made large scale cotton farming very profitable.

 

[billvon]

What ended slavery in the US was the application of government force to slaveowners and their armies, divesting them of their chattel and means of production at gunpoint.

Quite literally yes. What made it possible to end slavery and still run cotton plantations without free labor was the cotton gin.

That government was democratically elected, and its opposition to slavery is fairly described as a consequence of a social awakening - although the awakening itself did little, until the power of the government swung in behind it.

And until it became economically possible to do so. Slavery is so fantastically profitable that you needed both factors - a feeling of social responsibility _and_ the economic means to end slavery. Keep in mind that even when the Declaration of Independence was written, a big part of the country was already dead set against slavery; one of Thomas Jefferson's early versions of the Declaration of Independence contained a diatribe against the slave trade and its evils. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton both led anti-slavery organizations. By the time the Constitution was written most northern states either had laws against slavery or laws freeing most slaves.

The southern states did not hang on to slavery because they were all evil people; they held onto it because there was simply no other way to make large plantations work. (In the North, the advent of industry reduced the need for labor, and thus they could afford to curtail slavery there.)

Slaves are perfectly capable of running machines, operating industrial equipment of all kinds, doing skilled work.

They definitely can. But when you decrease the demand for labor through machinery, the remaining labor demand can be easily met by salaried employees.

The cotton gin, patented in the late 1700s and easily copied by the millions in a couple of decades, was largely responsible for the expansion of plantation slavery in the US - it made large scale cotton farming very profitable.

Yes. Ironically the cotton gin initially _increased_ the number of slaves in the US, since plantations could grow rapidly with the help of the gin. It's largely been called one of the primary factors in the civil war. It also allowed the eventual end of slavery by removing a very manual step from the process of making cotton.

 

[Michael]

?? Most slave catchers were private, hired by plantation owners. It was a lucrative job; if they found the slave they were looking for they got the bounty. If they found another one, and could not determine their owner, they got to sell them at auction.

It's the government (a democratically elected republic one mind you) that passed the Fugitive slave Act. The whole point was to send federal marshals into the north to extract run away slaves. Bounty hunters were often the Police and worked for the State.

(1) Slavery would be very rare, if ever exist, in an Anarchic Society due to the non-initiation of violence required to BE an anarchic society. No one would have the incentive to buy a Slave. The liability would be to high and the economics too low.
(2) The funny thing about Slavery, is most slaves themselves stayed on the plantation and didn't want to leave. I find modern day tax-cattle similarly disposed. Don't you?



Nevertheless, this is all one red herring. As for minimum wage versus market wage, paying workers market rate wages is NOT akin to Slavery. No one is forced to work. You only make a trade if the trade is to your benefit. Even if what you're trading is your labor. To the workers - a lower then 'official' minimum wage is acceptably once they volunteer to accept the wage. It must be. No one is forced to work for any less then they are willing to do the work for.

Minimum wage laws have acted to HARM the economy not help it. Sure, when there are hoards of laborers wanting work, then the business owner is going to be able to drive down the price. The supply of labor is too high. What then will happen is some of the more ambitious laborers will in turn create copycat businesses or altogether new businesses to take advantage of the over supply of cheap labor. Slowly the labor pool shrinks and competition for labor rises - this then allows for competition in wage and the wage goes up for the best laborers and now only the best businesses that offer the best price and working conditions per product will remain in the market.

As soon as you have a minimum wage this entire economy is skewed. The result in the USA was the development of black ghettos. It took a long time to get there - but get there we got. As a matter of fact, the whole point IN the minimum wage was to undercut black workers. To cap them off at the knees. To price them out of the market and thus shift the work to poor whites who complained about blacks working for 'Slave' labor. Which was not true. blacks were working and saving capital and investing in their communities. They had a LOWER unemployment rate and a LOWER divorce rate. Even Institutionalized Slavery hadn't destroyed the family values of black American that was a part of their culture. Along came the wedge - minimum wage. The result was blacks were priced out of the market - and they no longer learned the skills of their labor, trade and business. They lost business contracts. Minimum wage made blacks poorer. White made a bit more - but at the expense of blacks being priced out of the market. What was the government's fix? NOT to eliminate minimum wage - nope, it was to instead give welfare. The government addressed one problem it had created by creating another much worse problem. Sadly, black Americans were just finally getting accepted into the work force when welfare hit them in the face. Welfare did in a generation what Slavery wasn't able to do in 200. So, what was the next 'fix' the government had up it's sleeve? The War on Drugs. See, the government LOVES WAR (you can thank the Keynesian for that one too). You know what the final solution is? Prison expansion. 1 in 4 black men will live some of their life in prison.

THAT is the inevitable outcome of choosing immorality over morality. Choosing the quick option of initiation of violence instead of letting free market volunteerism and time provide a prosperous economy.


And you know what the worse thing is? The ridiculous arguments you hear. One's like: You don't care about the Children! (yup, heard that exact phrase just last week regarding daycare workers wanting a hike in minimum wage). Or: You use the roads! And people are so short sighted, have such a limited understanding of what the economy IS, what money is, and what are the lessons of history, hell, even how the hell the government functions - they just believe what ever bullshit is told to them.

Think about the phase from the childcare worker. The Daycare Union rep had a couple demands (1) that only 'Qualified' daycare 'professionals' can even do the work and (2) given they're a "Profession" they demand a higher then minimum wage by Law. (Maybe they took this play book from the MDs?). This, like minimum wage, will cut everyone off at the knee caps that don't have a State certification (which will probably become a University Psychology degree). Also, the raise in the minimum wage for "Day Care Professionals" means the mother, who should be at home with her children - has to work even LONGER hours to pay the higher wage being forced through the Union for Daycare 'Professionals'. It's like we live in La-La land where up is down and down is up. A colleague of mine said (and I quote): It's best to get children into professional daycare before the age of two. Why? I asked. Because you don't want them 'bonding with their mother' because then it's really hard to get them into 'Professional Daycare'.



Society is sick.

Minimum wage seems like a good idea, because you don't see the ghettos that result a generation later. And, by a generation people are institutionalized to think minimum wage is 'normal'. Thus, they don't even question it as the basis for why there are all these ghettos. Which is why you'll hear them say "Tax the Rich" and not "End Minimum Wage". I mean, could you imagine? No way would a politician get elected on "End all minimum wages!". And thus, we'll watch as our society goes into the toilet just as all once great societies do.

 

[spidergoat]

To no one in particular,

If it wasn't worth catching runaway slaves, no one would do it. When slavery was ended, the economy in the South collapsed. It takes 2 seconds to explain that.

The reason for minimum wages is there is a minimum cost to living a decent life. Wages could go far lower, but then the entire society would have to work at a poorer scale, like in Somalia, your anarchist paradise. As long as there are vast fortunes to be made in the USA, we can support minimum wages. This is the most prosperous society in the history of the Earth, just past it's peak maybe, but still tremendously wealthy, beyond the dreams of most humans who ever lived. To even consider lower standards of living for unskilled workers is unfair, and if this view gains political traction, there will be blood. Is that what you want? Instigating a class war is now some kind of virtue? There were ghettos because of racism. Banks wouldn't lend to blacks or allow them to buy some kinds of property. For sure whites wouldn't shop at black stores. You could be sent to prison in the South (until about 1933) just because the jail owners wanted more prison labor (under conditions that would most likely lead to your death). Black families were decimated. It wasn't minimum wages that caused it you fucking dick. Then came crack. Fucking grow the fuck up and read a book or something not by Ayn Rand. This is the world they want for everyone, a prison planet.

 

[Michael]

To no one in particular,

If it wasn't worth catching runaway slaves, no one would do it. When slavery was ended, the economy in the South collapsed. It takes 2 seconds to explain that.

I'm not disagreeing that Slavery, once institutionalized under law, isn't profitable to a degree. Imagine if Income Tax were ended today. Think about the $100s of billions that are spent on millitary project. Such a major transition would appear from anyone looking at the US economy as if it were in the process of a 'collapse'. Certainly from the POV of someone inside the US. But from a longer view, what you'd actually be seeing is the realigning of the economy to deal with life without threat of force and without perpetual wars.

In the long run, by not wasting money on War, we'd be a much more prosperous society. Likewise, in the long run, by the South NOT wasting money on maintaining Slavery - they'd more prosperous. However, in the short run, it looked like their economy 'collapsed'. The South had major structural reforms to their economy due to the State backed institution of legalized use of force against one group of humans. If today, the government stopped spending the $1000s of billions of dollars it collects through income tax - all on wasteful Military Industry, the US economy would appear to collapse.

But, in the long run - the economy would be much better and life would be much better for Americans as those resources were directly into meaningful projects like healthcare, education, etc...

The reason for minimum wages is there is a minimum cost to living a decent life.

If your logic is true, then why not raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour? Life is NOT decent on minimum wage in the USA. It is not a "livable" standard of living. Subsistence living maybe - if you want to call that 'livable' then I suppose that's up to you.

Wages could go far lower, but then the entire society would have to work at a poorer scale, like in Somalia, your anarchist paradise.

Wages can not go lower than the market will allow. It should be noted that 'wages' only exist in our minds - money itself is a mental construct. I understand the reasons why workers want a 'minimum wage'. But the truth is it harms other workers in the economy. Take that $50 an hour wage as a minimum. If you're worth $45, then great for you - you get $5 more an hour (which trickles into the economy and causes inflation anyway so after a year you get nothing anyway). But if you're only worth $35 an hour - you get capped at the knees. No job for you. Oh, but you still get the inflation of the items you need. Lucky you, no job and everything costs more.

The fact is life in the parts of Somalia where it's closest to 'anarchic' (which it obviously is far from an anarchy) is much better than life under a State (in this case a Warlord). You see, when you're 'free' you get to trade ONLY for your profit. When you're not free - you get to pay the local Warlord. Our system is a little more complex, but don't think you're not paying your local Warlord because you are. You're not free. Don't take my word for it - just sit back and watch as our standard of living continues to decrease.

So, I understand your argument and your anger - but IMO you're really directing that in the wrong direction. Don't blame 'Anarchy' for the poor standard of living in the USA. Don't blame 'Libertarians' (Minarchy). Neither of these systems caused the standard of living in the USA to precipitously drop over the last 30 years.

As long as there are vast fortunes to be made in the USA, we can support minimum wages.

I once read that of the 35 richest Americans that have ever lived (relatively); 33 of them lived before Civil War.

This is the most prosperous society in the history of the Earth, just past it's peak maybe, but still tremendously wealthy, beyond the dreams of most humans who ever lived.

It would be a lot more equitable and prosperous if we had a free-market Capitalistic society like we used to have.

To even consider lower standards of living for unskilled workers is unfair, and if this view gains political traction, there will be blood. Is that what you want? Instigating a class war is now some kind of virtue?

If a lower wage is paid, the price of items reduces and life is easier for those on less. That's how it works. If a higher minimum wage is paid, then those not able to make the leap into a minimum wage job are left with inflation but no job - their life actually gets worse. Not to mention all the businesses which are not opened, or manufacturing that isn't done, or services that are not provided because the wages are artificially inflated higher than the market (that's us) are willing to support.

Think of it like this: WE are the "Free-Market". Money only exists in our minds and only acts to facilitate trade and exchange. If the wages are too low, then this means there is something wrong with the market... or another way to put it is, there is something wrong with the society. Something is wrong with the way we've come to trade.

There were ghettos because of racism. Banks wouldn't lend to blacks or allow them to buy some kinds of property.

The fact is, life for blacks was getting better from the 2040s onward. You could think of blacks as the Chinese of laborers. Living quite poorly but willing to work for much much less. And guess what, just like the Chinese, blacks were slowly gaining ground, they were saving capital, and becoming more prosperous. As they say, money talks, bullshit walks. Blacks would have, just like the Chinese, lived a prosperous life. And they were getting there.

Also, think about this. As racist as white Americans were, at the end of the day they're willing to overlook race to get a good deal on labor. Slowly the interaction between blacks and white would have become more equitable purely organically. I see this happen in Japan. I had an Iranian who would work a little less than Japanese and so he often got jobs. But, his boss did worry about racism among the people he'd get contracts with. Yet, at the end of the day, everyone looked the other way and sucked up their racist attitude because they wanted to economy.

Do you think black Americans are living the dream? They were starting to 40 years ago. Not now. Why do you think that is? Why is it their standard of living is going in reverse?

For sure whites wouldn't shop at black stores. You could be sent to prison in the South (until about 1933) just because the jail owners wanted more prison labor (under conditions that would most likely lead to your death). Black families were decimated. It wasn't minimum wages that caused it you fucking dick. Then came crack. Fucking grow the fuck up and read a book or something not by Ayn Rand. This is the world they want for everyone, a prison planet.

Ayn Rand would actually sit closer to you than me. She was anything but anarchic. She believed in the State, she used medicare, supported our central bank - hell, she'd be your typical Democrat or Republican.




It should be pointed out, in terms of economy, something like 'race' or 'slavery' will make it all but impossible for most people 'think' rational due to the inherent emotional response. This has been shown many times in numerous studies on use of logic and changing sentences so they are structured the same but contain emotional content. Sometimes that's fine, but, I would bare in mind it's probably not possible to think rationally about the mathematics of economics while at the same time discussing slavery or blood in the streets. Which, again, is fine unless one wanted to understand the argument about economics of minimum wage.

 

[joepistole]

If slavery is uneconomical as you have claimed Michael, why is it then that since the dawn of recorded history slavery has been an important aspect of every economy around the world? It has only been the last 150 years or so that slavery has been largely eschewed by civilization.

 

[Michael]

If slavery is uneconomical as you have claimed Michael, why is it then that since the dawn of recorded history slavery has been an important aspect of every economy around the world? It has only been the last 150 years or so that slavery has been largely eschewed by civilization.

What is this thread about Slavery now?

Everything has some level of economics. Communism was 'economical'. It just wasn't as good as free-market capitalism. Slavery in, say Rome, was a LOT different compared with Slavery in Greece. Most Roman Citizens were at one point slaves. Slavery for Rome was more akin to an apprenticeship. Not so in Greece. As a matter of fact, they derided the Romans for 'freeing' their Slaves. Well, we know who ruled whom. Not that Greece didn't do OK, they just didn't do no where near as good as Rome. Look at Japan, they had Slavery, and then they got ride of it. Why if it was so great? What about England? Why peasants and not Slaves if slavery is so 'economical'.

Slavery is 'economical' for the Slave owner when everyone else's labor in society has to pay for it.
Just something to think about.

The USD is 'economical' for the Banker, when everyone else's labor in society has to pay for it.



It's possible to have Slavery in a Republic. It's not possible to have Slavery in Anarchy. Something else to think about


Lastly, modern day bonds and income tax, are pretty much serving the purpose of Slavery. You're now a Tax Slave. But, you get to pick your employment. If you're lucky, you may get to leave your farm (if you can get a passport). But, make no mistake - your labor will be taken from you one way or another. If you did manage to save something for retirement, inflation will soon take that away from you. If you put your 'money' into gold, those ETF can be seized by law and you'll be given brand new 'USD'. The US government pretty much did exactly this less than two generations ago.

 

[iceaura]

They definitely can. But when you decrease the demand for labor through machinery, the remaining labor demand can be easily met by salaried employees.

So? The remaining labor demand can also be met by fewer slaves, which are expensive. Win win.

Yes. Ironically the cotton gin initially _increased_ the number of slaves in the US, since plantations could grow rapidly with the help of the gin. It's largely been called one of the primary factors in the civil war. It also allowed the eventual end of slavery by removing a very manual step from the process of making cotton.

It had nothing to do with the end of slavery in the US - slavery was expanding right up until the Civil War, and continued in modified form in mines and steel mills and the like (fed by Jim Crow legal systems) until WWII.

(1) Slavery would be very rare, if ever exist, in an Anarchic Society due to the non-initiation of violence required to BE an anarchic society.

Hence the non-existence of agricultural or industrial anarchic societies - the first slaver, the first pirate, the first military commander, that comes around has easy pickings, with no government to curb their application of force.

Minimum wage seems like a good idea, because you don't see the ghettos that result a generation later

Ghettos predate minimum wages by hundreds of years. The ghettos come first, the minimum wages later, always and everywhere. See South America, Africa, and Asia, for continents full of examples.

No one is forced to work. You only make a trade if the trade is to your benefit.

People are forced to work all the time - those who control the resources and physical circumstances of a society are quite capable setting the terms of the "trade" in Godfather terms: and offer you can't refuse.

After dozens of such examples, have you noticed how completely your worldview depends on basic factual error, getting events and timelines and cause/effect sequences hopelessly bollixed?

 

[Michael]

Hence the non-existence of agricultural or industrial anarchic societies - the first slaver, the first pirate, the first military commander, that comes around has easy pickings, with no government to curb their application of force.

Actually, I think you'll find Governments doing the Slaving. How's this for a 'timeline' the USA circa 1800.

Ghettos predate minimum wages by hundreds of years. The ghettos come first, the minimum wages later, always and everywhere. See South America, Africa, and Asia, for continents full of examples.

You left our the USA, Australia, France and England. The West is littered in "Ghettos". Some of the cities in the US are liteally no-man lands where babies are left on mounts of trash INSIDE the dilapidated houses that pose as 'civilization'.

People are forced to work all the time - those who control the resources and physical circumstances of a society are quite capable setting the terms of the "trade" in Godfather terms: and offer you can't refuse.

You're using the word "force" incorrectly. No one controls all of "the resources and physical circumstances of a society". I will agree the terms of wage can be in favor of the business owner - but this isn't always the case.

And the fact IS when you introduce minimum wage you knock the knees out from under the poorest. What are missing here? There's no argument from any of the economic schools. They all agree - minimum wages harms the economy and in particular the poorest in the economy. Hense the ghettos in American, French, English and starting to develop in even 'commodity boom' Australian cities. AND worse of all the inflation that minimum wages causes in real goods is passed onto the poorest who couldn't get over the minimum wage hurdle too get a job. Oh, but they get to pay more for their food. Lucky them.


As I stated, why not raise the minimum wage to $50 a hour? Or how about $500 a hour? Then everyone will be 'rich'.




One of us here is hopelessly bollixed....

 

[iceaura]

Hence the non-existence of agricultural or industrial anarchic societies - the first slaver, the first pirate, the first military commander, that comes around has easy pickings, with no government to curb their application of force.

Actually, I think you'll find Governments doing the Slaving.

I find industrial concerns, pirates, large landowners, and the like, turning to slavery whenever profitable and not prevented by governmental force. That was quite obvious in the Americas from 1500 until the mid 1800s, for example, with the colony and plantation setups.

You left our the USA, Australia, France and England.

You're welcome to include them - it's a bit more work, because these countries did establish minimum wage laws of various kinds at some point in their industrialization, so you have to look that time up and compare it with the existence of ghettos, but the pattern of course remains: ghettos first, minimum wages afterwards - long afterwards, in most cases.

I chose examples that were particularly obvious because they were long famous for their slums and ghettos, but very late or absent in establishing minimum wages at all, showing that your assertion was a bit ridiculous on top of being of course flatly wrong.

You're using the word "force" incorrectly. No one controls all of "the resources and physical circumstances of a society"

I am using the word "force" with absolute, technical, hard core dictionary backed accuracy.

And usually some comparatively small group of people do control enough of the resources and physical circumstances of a region to deny the basics of life to large fractions of the population if they so desire. That is the situation in every town I've ever lived, for starters. Outside of Samoa, do you have even a few counterexamples?

What are missing here? There's no argument from any of the economic schools. They all agree - minimum wages harms the economy and in particular the poorest in the economy.

As always, when you lower yourself to attempted factual assertion you reveal the fantastic unreality behind your view of this stuff.

There is no such agreement among the economic schools. There is not even agreement on what constitutes "harm", in situations like this.

 

[Michael]

There is no such agreement among the economic schools. There is not even agreement on what constitutes "harm", in situations like this.

In terms of overall consensus at best minimum wage does nothing overall, at worse it prevents the owner from expanding her business and reduces employment opportunity. At the same time the inflation caused erodes any artificial gains putting pressure on the unemployed who find life even more difficult to make ends meet.

When wages are increased, where does that money come from? Most business owners pump almost ALL of their profits back into their business to grow it. So? Where is the money coming from? Unless you're the government and can send some blue clothed thugs over to take your money, it can only come from raising the price of the products sold. In the end, even the customer doesn't want to pay for these items which is why we all watched as our TV, cars, and electronics shifted production to Asia where the labor is cheaper. It's no coincidence that the average Chinese are getting richer.

Do you agree a business owner will not hire a laborer unless the laborer can generate a profit for the owner? What do you think about that? Does that seem "right" by you?

As an aside, why is it, do you think, Communism utterly and horribly failed starving hundreds of millions of humans, many to the point of death? Why is that do you think?

 

[iceaura]

In terms of overall consensus at best minimum wage does nothing overall, - -

You make the silliest statements with such confidence, one almost regrets what you will learn from the third chapter of some Econ 101 text some day.

Minimum wages, like child labor laws and day-length regulations and so forth, prevent competitive pressure from driving markets - or even whole economies - into suboptimal equilibria - a form or application of the Tragedy of the Commons, which is a basic pattern one should always keep in mind when heaping abuse on governments and worshipping at the feet of "free trade", blaming the consequences of decades of bad management and the depredations of vulture capitalism on whatever some union wanted at the very end, etc.

 

[Michael]

Minimum wages, like child labor laws and day-length regulations and so forth, prevent competitive pressure from driving markets - or even whole economies - into suboptimal equilibria - a form or application of the Tragedy of the Commons, which is a basic pattern one should always keep in mind when heaping abuse on governments and worshipping at the feet of "free trade", blaming the consequences of decades of bad management and the depredations of vulture capitalism on whatever some union wanted at the very end, etc.

Do you think children should be allowed to work at all? I worked a paper route when I was in grade 5. About 4 hours a day I home delivered papers. Should that be illegal? How about a lemon aid stand? How about when I'm in China Town and I see a child at home from school standing behind the counter with her mother? Maybe I should call the goons from the State. What about children in Asia working in rice fields? How about that's made illegal, you know, so they can starve to death for lack of food. How about raking leaves in yards at 12? How about chores at 12? Shouldn't it ALL be illegal - or are some forms of "Child Labor" OK with you?

You know, most children working in factories (mainly textiles) do so because the alternative is or was worse. In our past it meant living and working on a farm. People choose to instead to work in the city where pay (and life) was better. If pay and life were better on the farm, well then, you'd have seen children moving with their families to work on the farms.



Well, don't worry, we're living in your Social Paradise world. Where the Government keeps us safe from the greedy businessman. The Robber Barrons. So, if you don't like the way things are, don't blame the Free Market - blame yourself.



It must seem so confusing why Communism failed. Why do you suppose that was/is the case?